The Ref Stop

Besiktas vs Bayern

The Ref Stop
This is similar to that goal against Celtic a couple of months ago. Personally I don't think running towards the player with the ball is enough to qualify as "challenging for the ball" - he would have to be much closer and making an attempt to win the ball, which he does not. The Bayern player has plenty of time to control the ball and act differently, but instead chooses to play it out. Goal stands for me.
 
I liken this to a play in a QPR game a couple of years ago (when they were still at the top level). In that case, a player was in offside position, and the opponent got the ball. But because of the player in offside position's movement, it limited the options of the player with the ball, and was deemed to be an offence.

In this case, the white player cutting through the penalty area before the ball is in play severely limits the options of the red player, and by the time the red player receives the ball, the white player is (maybe) 5m away and closing quickly. The red player is forced to play a quick (and poor) ball up the line as opposed to taking control of it.

This should have been whistled at that point in time.
 
@AlexF Have to disagree there. A player at the top of the top who can either go forward or back to his keeper, and a player 10/15 yards away is affecting him? No chance for me
 
alexgr said:
This is similar to that goal against Celtic a couple of months ago. Personally I don't think running towards the player with the ball is enough to qualify as "challenging for the ball" - he would have to be much closer and making an attempt to win the ball, which he does not. The Bayern player has plenty of time to control the ball and act differently, but instead chooses to play it out. Goal stands for me.
Click to expand...
Where is there a difference in law in 'Challenging for the ball' and 'attempt to win the ball'?... Which page is that on??? :confused:
 
I was frustrated by this subject last time and i think @Ciley Myrus was passionate against me. I think this is a restart - same as the Celtic one. But I was in the minority that time and probably will again this time. For me the player clearly gains an advantage by cutting across the box before the ball is in play. OK the player with the ball does have time not to give it away but if that “offending” player didn’t cut across the box it would take him longer to get there.
 
The laws says the opponent "touches or challenges". The attacker doesn't touch the ball but he clearly moves towards it. The question for me is what constitutes a challenge? Or put it differently, if he is moving towards the ball, how far does he have to be from the ball for his action not to be considered a challenge. Or does distance matter at all? Would you use 'impact' as offside does? While in the case of Celtic it was fairly obvious, in this case not so much so.

Celtic
1521126276561.png

Bayern
1521126611371.png
 
I'm a bit torn on this one. The Besiktas player illegally ran through the penalty area and appears that he forced the Bayern player to make a pass that he probably wouldn't have made otherwise. However, this doesn't meet the arbitrary definition of "challenges an opponent" and it certainly doesn't meet the Law 11 definition of challenges an opponent.

It's similar to the Leicester/Liverpool goal a few years ago where there seemed to be mixed messages from up above.
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Where is there a difference in law in 'Challenging for the ball' and 'attempt to win the ball'?... Which page is that on??? :confused:
Click to expand...

Alex's whole point is that there must be an attempt to win the ball in order for it to be considered 'challenging for the ball'.
 
alexgr said:
@AlexF Have to disagree there. A player at the top of the top who can either go forward or back to his keeper, and a player 10/15 yards away is affecting him? No chance for me
Click to expand...
10/15yards? Again, look at the image as to more or less when the ball leaves the penalty area (and thus, is in play)... the opponent is about 5m away (so, 5-6 yards).

At that distance, you're limiting playing options, so that's been considered "challenging for the ball" in offside circumstances, so logically should be here too.
 
AlexF said:
At that distance, you're limiting playing options, so that's been considered "challenging for the ball" in offside circumstances
Click to expand...

1. Common sense: limiting playing options is not the same as challenging for the ball.

2. The laws: law 11 lists 'challenging for the ball' as a criterion for being involved in active play separately and distinctly from 'an action which impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball'.
 
I'm sorry but I think people are concentrating on the wrong aspect of the law here. For me, the primary question is not whether the player challenged for the ball and/or what exactly 'challenging for the ball' means.

As far as I'm aware, the additional, recently-added wording was merely a clarification to, and was even supposed to be a strengthening of, the existing prohibition on an opponent even being in the penalty area in the first place when the free kick is taken. That is still the primary consideration - it's still in the law, it comes first in the law and is still fully applicable.

Even within the section of the law quoted above, the 'allowability' of a player being in the area and then challenging for the ball is predicated on the opponent not having enough time to leave the area before the kick is taken. Looking at the full incident, starting from when the IFK was given, I would say the Beşiktaş player had easily enough time to leave the area but chose not to.

Although not saying so explicitly, it almost seems as if some are looking at this as if the law now means it's OK for the opponent to be in the penalty area when the kick is taken, just so long as he doesn't go on to challenge an opponent (or touch the ball) - it isn't.

The opponent is still not allowed to be in the penalty area before the ball is in play and the additional wording, which was brought in (as far as I can tell) mainly to clarify the scenario where a player cuts across the edge of the penalty area to close down an opponent, does not alter that.

So for me, this should have been a retake, not because the player challenged an opponent but because he was in the penalty area, had enough time to leave and did not do so. While being in the penalty area is often overlooked because it doesn't have any effect on play, it is still against the letter of the law and especially when it then contributes to a situation which benefits the team of the player having breached the law, I think there's a good argument that it's against the spirit of the law as well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top