Ball hit body - play advantage?

Discussion in 'Umpiring Corner' started by Wiggles369, May 19, 2017.

  1. Wiggles369

    Wiggles369 FHF Newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2013
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    1 v 1, attacker has possession in the D going towards goal. Defender tackles but lifts ball into attackers knee. Advantage played and attacker goes onto score. Is it right to play advantage even though the ball has hit the knee? Or is it unfair to allow the attacker to gain an advantage with ball hitting her body ? I.e. should the foul have been blown immediately resulting in short corner? If so, how is it an unfair advantage to gain from defenders mistake?
     
  2. sanabas

    sanabas FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,523
    Likes Received:
    914
    PC.

    The defender has fouled. You have 2 options.

    1. Penalise the foul, give the PC.

    2. Advantage, i.e. Play on as though the foul didn't happen.

    If you pick option 2, then the attacker has had the ball come off their knee, helped them get control and go score a goal. That's also a foul, and means FHD. So option 2 isn't very good for the attack, which means you go with option 1.

    Playing advantage doesn't mean you simply ignore everything that just happened. It means you play on as though that specific foul didn't happen. If 2 fouls happen in a row, one from each team, you should be penalising the first one.
     
  3. Wiggles369

    Wiggles369 FHF Newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2013
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perfect, thank you so much :)
     
  4. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    717
    if the attacker's knee making contact with the ball gives them an advantage, playing on is not appropriate. A foul should be awarded for the dangerous play of lifting the ball into the attacker.
    However if the attacker scores despite the ball hitting their knee, (i.e. it causes them a problem but they manage to recover and play on despite that inconvenience, then play on is appropriate.)

    Possible scenarios where the attacker could be deemed to gain an advantage:
    • Their knee knocks the ball beyond a defender into space giving the forward a clearer shot than they would otherwise have had.
    • The ball is played by the knee onto the attacker's stick allowing them to get a shot away sooner than otherwise they would have had.
    • The ball is kneeed by the attacker onto a defender's foot
    ...i am sure the list could go on.
     
  5. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF Super Star

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,430
    Likes Received:
    408
    Generally speaking the argument is that if you gain an advantage from a foul, you should have be blown against.

    As the attacker offended only because of the defender's actions it is unfair to penalise them but they cannot gain an advantage from that foul so you have to blow against the defence and explain to the attacker they gained too much advantage
     
  6. SPetitt

    SPetitt FHF Super Star

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Messages:
    1,358
    Likes Received:
    332
    I disagree with the term "too much advantage", but agree that players should not be allowed to play on after they have benefited from a foul by themselves, or their team.
    Either the opposition is DISadvantaged(so FH), or they are not (Play On) :)
    'Semantics' you might say, but there is a perfectly good and accurate alternative to saying "Too much advantage", which I contend is not supported by the rules in any way.
     
    #6 SPetitt, May 21, 2017 at 12:04 AM
    Last edited: May 21, 2017 at 12:10 AM
    Krebsy likes this.
  7. redumpire

    redumpire FHF Staff
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,325
    Likes Received:
    2,510
    Unusually, I totally agree with Sal. ;)

    There is no such thing as "too much advantage". If you were to use that phrase while umpiring, the players wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about. In the scenario described there have been two offences - both of them accidental - so the first of these is penalised.
     
    Paul Watts and SPetitt like this.
  8. SPetitt

    SPetitt FHF Super Star

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Messages:
    1,358
    Likes Received:
    332
  9. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    717
    The only bit I wish to take issue with is the assertion that when you use the rules accurately, players know what you are talking about.
     
    redumpire likes this.
  10. SPetitt

    SPetitt FHF Super Star

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Messages:
    1,358
    Likes Received:
    332
    Did I 'assert' that? I don't think so ... it certainly was not my intention! Nor, I think, did @redumpire.
    But I believe... generally, from many years training experience ... that if you answer a question accurately there is less chance of subsequent misunderstanding, even if you do have to clarify further.
    (The old saying "BS Baffles Brains" only applies if the 'brains' are not as sharp as many I have encountered :) )
     
  11. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    717
    I think you may have failed to spot that my post was not serious.
     
    redumpire likes this.
  12. sanabas

    sanabas FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,523
    Likes Received:
    914
    We're not mindreaders, we can't know for sure that your post is a joke, it would be wrong of us to assume your intentions.
     
    Ravennghorde and redumpire like this.
  13. redumpire

    redumpire FHF Staff
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,325
    Likes Received:
    2,510
    Touché!
     
    Ravennghorde likes this.
  14. SPetitt

    SPetitt FHF Super Star

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Messages:
    1,358
    Likes Received:
    332
    On the pitch we sometimes have to do it, but we have a few more clues :)
     
  15. Nij

    Nij FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,554
    Likes Received:
    513
    I think it is clearer to say, offences by both teams, so only the first is penalised.

    There is the obvious situation where two offences occur and both are penalised: the first with advantage and the second with a PC or PS. Like two foot offences, one on each side of the circle line.
     
  16. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    717
    Doesn't seem to stop you ;)
    If you can do it one way you can do it the other.
     
  17. Mac

    Mac FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    531
    Likes Received:
    244
    I thought (I don't have a Rules capable browser atm) that no advantage could/should be played off the body, period.
     
  18. redumpire

    redumpire FHF Staff
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,325
    Likes Received:
    2,510
    There's definitely no such prohibition in the rules...
     
    Mac and Krebsy like this.
  19. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    717
    You could indirectly glean however that playing the ball with your body, irrespective of how the ball got there is a foul (unless you are a GK or pseudoGK) and thus if you gain an advantage you are gaining an advantage from foul play and as such you should be prevented from doing so.
    I agree that there isn't a sentence which deals with this specific happenstance, but I don't think it's too big a leap to say that the rules do specifically prevent you from gaining an advantage.
    They don't say that it is always a foul if it hits your body, but if you gain an advantage from so-doing then I think the rules are quite clear?
     
    redumpire and Mac like this.
  20. Bondy

    Bondy FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    208
    It's just very difficult to imagine a situation in which: the defender is close enough and the ball is travelling fast enough that a raised ball is considered dangerous - yet the contact with the attacker's body is incidental enough that it doesn't help the attacker to control the ball (even just leaving the ball uncontrolled on the ground somewhere close to the attacker is advantageous compared to the ball continuing on its previous path in mid-air past the attacker).

    So, correct, there's no prohibition in the rules - it's just extremely unlikely that a situation would occur in which it would be correct to play advantage off the body.
     
    redumpire, AJF and Mac like this.

Share This Page