The rule would have to be renamed “Minor disadvantage rule”. Why? An “advantage” would be given if the situation resulting from the advantage were superior to the situation which would have arisen without an offense. This is best explained using the example: a counterattack is in progress. Very well, let’s see. Fast switching. The opponent recognizes the danger and fouls the player driving the ball forward. A small handicap doesn’t stop him, he tears himself loose, keeps walking, with the ball on his foot. Now the referee shows an “advantage”, absolutely according to the rules. The game continues, the situation is favorable, the attacking team is grateful. It’s called an “advantage”. But is it actually one?
Here’s the solution: the alternative of giving a free kick would actually be a disadvantage. Because: DESPITE the foul game, the situation is more favorable than what you would have received from a free kick. In this respect, the term “advantage” has become established. In truth, however, it is only the decision for the SMALLER DISADVANTAGE. Because: WITHOUT the foul game – which was obviously recognized – the situation would have been clearly more favorable. It is often only one step, one meter, that the attacker loses as a result of the hindrance. But it’s just a disadvantage. It would have been better not to have been fouled and would have had a meter or a tenth of a second more on the way to a possible goal.
In this respect, each of the game situations designed as an advantage is actually only the decision towards the smaller disadvantage. The name is wrongly chosen. However, if you were to pronounce the correct name, it would become obvious. General thinking is directed against the gates.
The question would be, why should the attacking party not only come to terms with increasingly small disadvantages at this point? Why don’t you rethink and think in favor of the attacker, in favor of scoring, in favor of the spectacle, in favor of football, in favor of the spectators?
Of course there is an answer to everything, including why the (wrong) thinking crept in so much. Also when asked what the alternative would be. However, this is quite simple: as soon as the referee shows an advantage, it should be one. So he realizes that it would be a disadvantage if he interrupted now, so he lets the game go. That’s right. However, if the attack does not result in a goal, the attacking team receives the ball again, even if only at the point of the offense. It is enough: you would have the attack situation without interruption, if it does not yield anything you can try again. In ice hockey there is the rule, completely conclusive and in use for many decades. Why shouldn’t that be possible in football? In contrast to many others, the implementation would be very simple. And: it would favor everything that the fan enjoys. Above all, justice, but of course also the goal spectacle.