A&H

Wolves v Liverpool

M

Mr Dean

RefChat Addict
Small noteworthy incident in this game regarding the drop ball law. The ball is played by a Wolves player, strikes referee Michael Oliver and ends up at the feet of a Liverpool player. The ball would have ended up with the Liverpool player anyway without the touch of Oliver but play is stopped and restarted with a drop ball to Wolves only for them to play it back to Liverpool (seemingly, under instruction from Oliver). I'm not sure whether the lawmakers intended for play to be stopped in this case. Certainly, the words "the team in possession of the ball changes" are open to interpretation here (were Wolves in possession of the ball if they had no actual control of its direction?)
 
The Referee Store
A couple of things. First, the R has no authority (and never had any authority) to direct a team to play the ball to the other team on a DB or otherwise. Second, I think IFAB intended this to be simple. If team A kicks the ball, it goes off the ref to team B, then team A gets the ball back on a DB. We aren’t asked to use a crystal ball as ton what would have happened If the ball didn’t hit us. So I think, as described, the DB was correct, and if the Wolves choose to play it back that should be entirely up to them.
 
The dropped ball law was changed to remove manufactured dropped ball for fairness. The dropped ball in 74min in OP was manufactured for fairness.

Only one conclusion for me. The change in dropped ball law is inadequate.

Similar incident happen (west ham v City I think) where the ball was unfairly dropped to City keeper but it was correct in law.
 
Mr Dean said:
Small noteworthy incident in this game regarding the drop ball law. The ball is played by a Wolves player, strikes referee Michael Oliver and ends up at the feet of a Liverpool player. The ball would have ended up with the Liverpool player anyway without the touch of Oliver but play is stopped and restarted with a drop ball to Wolves only for them to play it back to Liverpool (seemingly, under instruction from Oliver). I'm not sure whether the lawmakers intended for play to be stopped in this case. Certainly, the words "the team in possession of the ball changes" are open to interpretation here (were Wolves in possession of the ball if they had no actual control of its direction?)
Click to expand...
As I read Law 9, the DB is given to the team that last touched the ball. Not the team in "possession".
 
Kes said:
As I read Law 9, the DB is given to the team that last touched the ball. Not the team in "possession".
Click to expand...
OP is not talking about who the restart is given too but whether a restart should be required at all... as the requirement to get to a dropped ball in the first place is touches the referee and possession changes.
 
JamesL said:
OP is not talking about who the restart is given too but whether a restart should be required at all... as the requirement to get to a dropped ball in the first place is touches the referee and possession changes.
Click to expand...
Yep. Seen. Neck wound in... 😉😄
 
Another point on the OP, but not to dismiss its point. It says Wolves 'played' the ball. They really didn't. Not deliberately anyway. Liverpool took a shot on goal, it rebounded off a wolves player into the direction of another Liverpool player. It took a slight deflection of the referee before reaching the second Liverpool player. So technically wolves where never in possession of the ball or deliberately played it.

But even if wolves were in possession prior to ball touching the referee, it wasn't the referee deflection that changed possession, it was his decision afterwards. This was never the intent of the law and hence my comment about it's inadequacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top