Myself and @bummer were debating on another thread the advantage rule. My tuppence worth was that in the case of an advantage being awarded against an infraction (not an offense :grinning:), then any subsequent infraction within the advantage period (by either side) brings the play back to the original free. Bummer is of the opinion that if the player who was fouled initially, commits an infraction within the advantage period he is penalized and a free given against him.

In defense of my argument, I would make two points, 1. It sounds illogical, It’s not much of an advantage if it can be taken away again. A guy can put the ball out wide and it gets bought back for the free, but he couldn’t (for example), over carry and 2. I have definitely seen inter county refs apply it like I have put it. But being not logical doesn’t mean it isn’t correct and likewise refs applying it wrongly, wouldn’t be unheard of either.

But I have been wrong before on rules when I was 100% sure I was correct. So if anyone has any links or the like that would prove the case one way or the other, it would be great.

Bummer is right. Bummer is always right.

1 Like

@bummer is indeed correct. Apologies

Foul Subsequent to Advantage Award

If, during the advantage period, a foul is committed by a player of the team which was originally fouled then the advantage is cancelled and a free kick/puck awarded for the “second” foul.

1 Like

All in here. Download official guide part 2.


I know a lot of people who beg to differ!!!

The Official Guide Part 2 or rule book is vague with many of its rules. This is one example where it appears it is left open to interpretation. However, the vagueness just means that normal rules applies during the advantage and if there is any breach of the rules this new breach is penalised. Many refs allow advantages when there is none and then incorrectly permit the player in possession liberty to breach steps / bounces etc. or bring the ball back for the original free.

Another example of the vagueness of rules is the lift that Kerry were going to use for Rocks free in the drawn game.

1 Like

Just note that this is just the interpretation of the rule.

In fairness it would be very strange if the rule book took something like that into account, I mean you can’t legislate for everything.

Well aware of that and have said same on another thread. There is still a need to review the rule book asap.

Rule book and associated process should be completely reviewed. Everything from the pick up to hawkeye.

Theres rules in the book that simply do not need to be there and a couple that if they actually happened in a big game would cos anarchy.

This issue is even more interesting then I first thought as it goes to the deep illogicality inherent in the rules.

In the instance of Murchan’s goal, it transpires that even though Murchan was beating down on goal and was fouled first, the correct ref response was either an instant free in or he tried to give an advantage and then the correct response is a free out. Either way, there is no way a goal is scored and Moran, who would have stopped the goal, is hardly even liable for a booking / tick as it wasn’t obvious it was a personal foul.

If Murchan tries to play by the rules of the game, and goes to solo the ball, he would have lost it under those circumstances. He doesn’t know if he is on an advantage or not, and he also doesn’t know how fast the ref can count to 5. So in a ‘natural justice’ type of way the ref got it right, but you can’t have a game that runs on each refs interpretation of natural justice and you can’t have a game with such flawed logic.

People say too the black card worked in this instance, and it sort of did. But the reality probably is that Moran should have taken the black card. He could also easily have avoided it by just fouling him without taking him down (in the case of Moran on Murchan, he could just have picked him up!).

Seem to remember us having an advantage in the first half, losing the ball no more than 2 seconds later and the ref waving play on :roll_eyes::roll_eyes:

1 Like

UP TO 5 seconds though…

This is one rule where refs specifically have to use their common sense.

If, anytime within the 5 seconds after the foul is committed, the ref deems no advantage to arise, then he brings it back for a free.

So if a ref sees that, within the 5 seconds, the fouled player has overcarried, then the common sense result is that after 4 and a half steps (with the benefit of hindsight), no advantage has accrued and the ref gives the free for the original foul.

Another thing refs sometimes get wrong, is that where the player is fouled again, they bring the free back to where the first foul occurred.

The rule needs to be reviewed and changed. If you’re under advatage you shouldn’t be doubly penalised for a technical foul committed (eg: overcarrying) but by the same means you shouldn’t be able to benefit from technical fouls either. Rugby do this well, Blue team have possession green team are offside advantage played, blue team knock on so go back for the original offside infringement (although sometimes the advantage can go on too long at least we have a defined up to max 5 secs). In GAA if blue team are fouled against and advantage played then blue player fouls such as over carried or 2 bounces or similar and the advantage gets cancelled and free against, Secondly blue team player fouled on 20m line and then is fouled again on 13m is meant be awarded the more advantageous free on the 13m.

But the refs handbook link referenced by Bummer advises the exact opposite course of action.

I think it shouldn’t be a question of common sense, it should be a rule, if a foul is committed by the attacking team within the advantage it goes back to the original foul. That seems the most obvious and fair way of doing it.

I’d imagine the rule is for a situation like, Murchan realising the ref has his hand up for a free, turns around and decks Moran, knowing that the ref has to go back to the original free!

Still think my way is the right way. If he overcarries, then clearly the moment before he overcarries is the moment there’s no advantage, and thus we go back to the original free.

But how do you know the moment before he over carries, he could be just about to solo at anytime. Maybe it is the over carrying rule that needs to be looked, I would be in favour of the steps count beginning again if there is any infraction committed against the player in possession. As has been said it is hard to solo or hop the ball if you are being fouled and that should be(and in fairness in most cases it is) taken into account.

You know when he overcarried that the moment before he overcarried was when the advantage ended. Common sense.

That’s a novel and interesting idea.

Easy enough to have that in the rule book… advantage only comes back after the player gives up a technical foul, not an aggressive one. That would be that issue sorted.