AR advantage?

[AlaRef]

Since the CR is out of position and the AR has seen the foul then the AR should signal the foul. The AR doesn't have the ability to call play on. It doesn't matter if the Attacker regains advantage. The attacker is outside of the box and isn't in position to score. The foul should be called and given the correct restart.

[ref47]

alaref, pls see the guide on fouls not seen by the cr.

lead ar: Determines that the infringement was
not or could not be seen by the referee
and that, per the pregame conference,
the referee would likely have stopped
play for the infringement if it had
been seen

[AlaRef]

Originally Posted by ref47

alaref, pls see the guide on fouls not seen by the cr.

lead ar: Determines that the infringement was
not or could not be seen by the referee
and that, per the pregame conference,
the referee would likely have stopped
play for the infringement if it had
been seen

Can y ou please show me where that Guide is. I don't remember seeing it in the laws of the game.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by AlaRef

Can you please show me where that Guide is. I don't remember seeing it in the laws of the game.

Sure, here is where you will find that Guide:

http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents...ToProc0607.pdf

What ref47 posted is a direct quote from page 30 of the USSF Guide to Procedures. If you have never read it, you need to do so. His point is that the AR needs to heed the words, "the referee would likely have stopped play for." If the belief is that the referee would have allowed advantage instead of stopping play, then the AR should keep the flag down. (See the awkwardly worded passage on page 36.)



Part of the foreword to this document is:
"Alternate signals, procedures, and methods of communication within the officiating team are not authorized for games under the jurisdiction of the United States Soccer Federation using the diagonal system of control. Other signals or methods of communication intended to supplement those described here are permitted only if they do not conflict with established procedures and only if they do not intrude on the game, are not distracting, are limited in number and purpose and are carefully discussed within the officiating team prior to the commencement of the match."


The additional signal that ref2coach and I have been discussing would have to pass those requirements. I believe that an AR silently extending an open hand towards the goalline would qualify, but in my opinion having an AR call out "play on, advantage" would not, as it is both distracting and an intrusion upon the game, plus conflicts with the already established procedures. Of course, even what I have advocated borders on breaking what it says on page 36 -- "keeps flag down and does not use the verbal/hand signal for advantage." So the hand signal must be subtle.

[ref2coach]

Nevada Ref. Based on our discussions it appears that "now" there is more leeway than what either of us have believed in the past. Below is copied from the current front page of Jim Allen's USSF "Ask a referee".

"NEGATIVE" SIGNALS
Your question:
I have begun working games for another soccer association and the A/R uses a hand signal which I find unusual. On a close offside call the A/R will run down the touch with the flag in his outside hand and the other hand will be extended away from the body similar to a one armed advantage call. I assume they are doing this to inform me that the play was onside. Doesn't the mere fact that they are following the ball down the touchline tell me that the play was onside. This is a new one and me and I would like your thoughts.

USSF answer (May 2, 2007):
The extended hand is actually an old signal, one that was discouraged for a long time, calling it a "negative signal," but which has come up again. There is nothing really wrong with it, but your reasoning is clearly absolutely correct. The matter has not come up since the answer below was published August 27, 2004:
QUOTE
There was a time (longer ago than 3-4 years, however) when negative signals or, more generally, any signals not specifically approved by FIFA or USSF and not described in the Guide to Procedures were discouraged. With the publication of the 1998 Guide to Procedures, that emphasis began to change. The 1998 Guide stated:

Other signals or methods of communication intended to supplement those described here are permitted only if they do not conflict with established procedures and only if they do not intrude on the game, are not distracting, are limited in number and purpose, and are carefully described by the referee prior to the commencement of a match.

This included so-called "negative signals" (for example, the assistant referee indicating "no offside"). If the officiating team discussed such a signal ahead of time and it met the criteria, using it is okay so long as it is kept within reasonable limits. Remember, the purpose of any signal is to communicate so it must do that much at least.

USSF's approach continues to follow this guideline. Even the occasional use of some gesture by the referee to indicate a handling offense or tripping is acceptable if, in the opinion of the referee, it is NEEDED FOR THIS PARTICULAR GAME to communicate essential information in a critical situation. "Negative" or non-standard signals should not become standard practice for every game.
END OF QUOTE

[Nevadaref]

Yeah, I saw Jim's post over the weekend and was surprised by it. It is not the same instruction as I am getting from my friends who were at National Camp or the Instructors at Regionals.

But hey,... what do I know?