Is my memory playing tricks or has the advantage rule changed. I’ve just watched the Everton Forest game on MOTD and Forest conceded a foul near the 18yarder. The ref played advantage but Everton didn’t score. He then brought the game back to the foul and gave the free kick. I always thought the choice for the ref was one or the other. If advantage is played and no advantage is gained, tough, you had your chance. This ref(Marriner) effectively gave both decisions. The commentator said Marriner was showing his experience, I thought he was wrong. Does anybody know what the correct decision is?
I’m not sure but to my mind the rule should be that you get two bites at the cherry. Ref plays on and if you don’t score from the resulting passage of play, you should be allowed to have the free kick. There would be an advantage then…
They've always brought play back if no advantage was gained. If you are fouled but the referee THINKS you have gained an advantage he allows play to continue, if after a few seconds or so he realises that no advantage is gained then he pulls it back. However if he plays advantage and you hit a wayward pass and lose the ball then he doesn't pull play back because it's your fault. That's the theory anyway. In reality they do what they want.
