KingMessi
SiempreBlaugrana
I ain't your buddy, pal.
I ain't your buddy, pal.
Total-Football
Senior Member
you are not lying , it's like discussing some biblical shit .. it's open to interpretation , i think you misinterpreted the word " advantage there " and some other things
F
Flavia
Guest
And if that doesn't materialize as an actual advantage, the ref can go back and call the foul. It's written exactly like that in the Fifa rule. I posted the link, and you still think your interpretation is right. There's nothing saying what is or isn't an advantage. That's the only thing left out for the ref to judge. The ability to go back and call the foul is written.
In this specific case, the ref made a mistake. He didn't wait. Not the first time either, many times refs do that and end up doing the opposite of what the advantage rule says, and the team that made the foul ends up being benefitted.
Total-Football
Senior Member
what they mean by that is ; the ref gives the advantage but the ball doesnt even reach the next player (after the foul ) or the next player barely reached (touched the ball with difficulty and ending up loosing it ) or the next player receives the ball just to find himself surrounded closely by opponents . that's a lost advantage so the ref goes back to the foul .. that's why i meant by interpretation .
in the iniesta case he fully benefited from the advantage and it was materialized ( he took a shot without disturbance ) .. believe it or not , that's the interpretation of the text above.
Total-Football
Senior Member
the materialization of the advantage = being comfortable with doing whatever you want with the ball ( shooting - passing etc ) .. without being closed down immediately by opponents.. the success of your choice that you made is irrelevant as long as it was done with comfort
F
Flavia
Guest
Except the ref didn't allow it, and who benefitted from that was the team that committed the foul. Meaning the ref made a mistake. That happens often. If Iniesta had his shot blocked, or couldn't take the shot for any reason, the ref could then call the foul. I've seen both examples happen.
F
Flavia
Guest
That's your interpretation of what advantage is. This is not specific in the rule, so each ref can have their own.
Total-Football
Senior Member
If the ref gave the advantage ( i think he shouldn't i said why ) .. and iniesta couldn't take a shot because opposition was too close to him than Yes .. we agree , we go back .. If iniesta stops and said " fuck it " i dont wanna play .. here also yes , we go back .. if Iniesta took a shot while an opposition was too close to him and his shot was blocked .. here also yes we go back .. none of those was the case , Iniesta played on , no opponent was near enough to disturb him and to block his shot .. he took his chance fully .. here there is absolutely no cause to go back to the freekick ( i know you believe we should ) but i have already explaied that materializd advantage here is the ability to take the shot without disturbance , which was the case ..materialized advantage doesn't mean a goal necessarily
Total-Football
Senior Member
and where do you think i have taken this interpretation .. i saw multiple cases like this .. been watching this shit since 94 lol .. and all refs interpret it like that ..
F
Flavia
Guest
When you first quoted me, it was to say the ref shouldn't had allowed Iniesta goal to stand, as I said it should. The ref wouldn't need to go back, as it was a goal. Free kicks are not preferable, and the ref should had waited. If anything stopped Iniesta, the ref could go back and call the foul. So now I don't understand why you think the goal should had not stood. It should. That's the point of that rule.
Total-Football
Senior Member
the only tangible proof would be a video ... it's difficult to find but if i came across cases like this i will bring it to you .. same for you too.
F
Flavia
Guest
They don't. I've seen it happen many times as well.
Total-Football
Senior Member
we disagreed because the ref doesn't forsee the future .. if iniesta made a hurroundous shot the barca players would surround the ref blaming him for actually giving the advantage.. but here you're saying that he can actually goes back to the freekick , i say no. that was our starting point .. since the ref can't give the freekick after the shot is made (iniesta again was Under no pressure to make the shot ) and since the freekick was in a dangerous position .. he opted for the freekick for its perfect place . that's it .. right decision.. HE DO NOT FORSEE THE FUTURE + HE HAS TO CHOOSE ONE , FK or ADV , but i know your POV by now
Total-Football
Senior Member
for a 1vs1 with the net or at least with the keeper then yes .. but a very close FK is above a ball outside the box while the defenders are actually there
nothing stopped iniesta .. he was alone in that perimeter and made a comfortable shot
F
Flavia
Guest
That's because you're insisting on this "foresee the future" on the rule. And the rule itself has a failsafe for that, the ref can go back if he thinks the advantage wasn't fulfilled. Up to the ref's way of seeing things too. That's pretty clear, and you keep denying it. I've seen refs give fks after a shot that went wide, were blocked or skied. Especially because those tend to happen pretty fast.
Home of Barca Fans
