The Ref Stop

Bet you won't see this on your game!

The Ref Stop
Extra ball has interfered with play - drop ball (ideally before the blue player did what he did!)
 
Alex71 said:
... Fair point @CapnBloodbeard - I'd be happy with a caution for unsporting behaviour - regardless of what the re-start is (which I'd still like to see as a drop ball)
Click to expand...
Why would you like to see a dropped ball for this? As Alex R-F has stated, this is a handling offence in the penalty area. Even if there were a question of the player committing some other kind of offence (e.g. USB) you should punish the deliberate handling as being the more serious offence.
 
p121 of the LOTG - throwing an object at the ball is a handling offence. The fact that this 'object' is another ball isn't important. Inside the PA, thus a PK. The nature of the offence definitely warrants a card for USB - but as the player is definitely heading away from goal at the time, no DOGSO.

This isn't 'outside interference' from the ball. The player took control of the ball thus is responsible for it, unlike the ball just drifting into play. The fact that he chose to hold the ball doesn't make it outside interference either - it would be no different, really, to him holding a water bottle on the field then striking the ball with it.
This incident was posted on the refsworld Australian page, quite a few referees thought it would be an IFK. I posted it on a fans page, and most people there thought a red card, but didn't specify the restart. I find that sort of thing interesting.
 
Peter Grove said:
Why would you like to see a dropped ball for this? As Alex R-F has stated, this is a handling offence in the penalty area. Even if there were a question of the player committing some other kind of offence (e.g. USB) you should punish the deliberate handling as being the more serious offence.
Click to expand...

I get the handling offence - same as throwing your boot or shin pad at the ball - never seen it but know about it (would love to actually see it though!)

I'm thinking BEFORE the blue player does what he does ...
  • is there an outside influence ... yes - the 2nd ball is on the pitch
  • is the influence affecting the game ... yes ... the ball is at the feet of the blue player before the match ball is played up from the half way line - the 2nd ball affects the game when the match ball is played to the vicinity of the blue player
Ideally - if spotted, recognised and communicated (e.g. AR to Ref) - stop the game there and then ... even after the blue player does what he does - I think there is still an opportunity for the referee to recognise what has happened and go back for the outside interference incident ... drop ball

I'm still happy with the unsporting behaviour caution - but I'm also thinking of the recent Mark Noble send off at Anfield ... referee blew play dead (original free kick for West Ham) and then Noble committed the foul ... Noble is sent off but the re-start is as per the first incident)
 
Your first point is incorrect. A ball on the pitch is not automatically outside interference. It's interference if it gets in the way. Given that it was in the area well before the ball came into the zone and the player was holding it for that time, it's safe to say that the ball never got in the way. The fact that the player picked up the ball well before and chose not to let go of it doesn't mean he was interfered with - you're attempting to remove the player's actions from the equation, but we're well and truly into the territory where the player is responsible for his decision in what he did with the ball. The ball being on the pitch, in itself, in no way affected play. Had it been left there, then yes, it would have. But it wasn't.

If it wasn't a ball bit a water bottle, or a stick, would you be saying the same thing?

Stopping the game 'there and then' would be incorrect - you must not stop the game unless the ball interferes with play. The player choosing to pick the ball up and hold it does not mean that's happened - furthermore, why would you reward his actions by stopping the opposing team's attack? That's what a DB comes down to.

There's no 'first incident' to go back to - there was never outside interference. Simply an outside object on the field that one smart aleck figured he'd hold on to until he could cheat with it.

The LOTG are quite clear on p121, and nowhere does it exclude foreign objects from that clause.
 
[My first bullet is incorrect - agreed - should say object]

I'm on page 25 and 72

Page 25:
Stops, suspends or abandons the match because of outside interference of any kind

Page 72:
If an extra ball, other object or animal enters the field of play during the match, the referee must stop the match only if it interferes with play

... so I think it comes down to opinion and debate - which is fun ... interpretation of 'interference' ...
  • My point is that the player has been distracted by the 2nd ball at his feet and ergo (I love that word!) - interfered with the game ...
  • @CapnBloodbeard makes a good point that the player could (SHOULD) have ignored / got rid of the ball straight away (and then has 'cheated')
For me, the initial distraction + coupled with the match ball subsequently in vicinity = enough for the referee to stop / suspend the game - irrelevant of what happens after this (wrt the re-start) - as per Law 5

... sometimes stuff happens in a game that can have a massive negative impact for Team A that isn't necessarily the fault of Team B
 
Well done referee!

Blue 6 had more than enough time to kick the additional ball away without it being deemed a distraction. The player has allowed himself to become distracted by picking the extra ball up then half heartedly follows the play with the ball in his hand before his petulant act of unsportsmanship in deliberately throwing the spare ball at the in play match ball. The additional ball didn't appear to have an impact on any other player until the point no6 threw it to interfere with the game, therefore for me, handball is the correct decision.

I find it interesting and surprising that we have 3 level 5's, who have all given different decisions based on what they have seen in the video. The joys of the laws of the game and the various interpretations of them that everyone has. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes
Fascinating stuff. :)
Personally, I'd have gone with the caution to blue defender and an IFK against him from where it took place.
I'd never have connected the throwing of the ball with being a handball offence, which it clearly is. Well done Alex R-F. :)
 
The quotes above seem to indicate I was wrong. I always thought the item had to still be in the offenders hand for it to be a handling offence.
Still learning as I approach my 10th season
I'm changing my answer to penalty and no card.
 
deusex said:
The quotes above seem to indicate I was wrong. I always thought the item had to still be in the offenders hand for it to be a handling offence.
Still learning as I approach my 10th season
I'm changing my answer to penalty and no card.
Click to expand...
That's the great thing about this site .. opportunity for all of us to continue learning and rethink our past opinions. For me though, if we're giving it as handball (which I think we should) then it HAS to be a yellow card as well as it clearly falls into the limited type of deliberate handballs specified in the LOTG as needing a mandatory caution.
 
For me, unless it's a failed attempt to DOGSO-H, I struggle to justify a cauiton under law.
Who would "deliberately handles the ball to prevent an opponent gaining possession" in this situation?
Most handballs in the boxes are brain farts.
A caution certainly wouldn't be incorrect though and I dare say would be expected by most players for this.
 
deusex said:
For me, unless it's a failed attempt to DOGSO-H, I struggle to justify a cauiton under law.
Who would "deliberately handles the ball to prevent an opponent gaining possession" in this situation?
Most handballs in the boxes are brain farts.
A caution certainly wouldn't be incorrect though and I dare say would be expected by most players for this.
Click to expand...

The defender appears to deliberately bring attacking play to a halt by throwing a foreign object into the path of the ball. Surely that has to be a caution under any circumstances, if not for unsporting behaviour then for showing lack of respect for the game? :)
 
Anywhere outside the area I will caution as it's unfairly broken up an attack.
Inside the area (assuming it's not DOGSO) he has literally GIFTED the side a penalty. What is unsporting about giving your opposition a better chance to score (ie a penalty) than they originally had.
His own team mates and fans will punish him enough.
As I say this is just my view on it. I think both a card and no card are easily justifiable in law
 
deusex said:
For me, unless it's a failed attempt to DOGSO-H, I struggle to justify a cauiton under law.
Who would "deliberately handles the ball to prevent an opponent gaining possession" in this situation?
Most handballs in the boxes are brain farts.
A caution certainly wouldn't be incorrect though and I dare say would be expected by most players for this.
Click to expand...

I find that to be very weird logic. He committed a foul to deny possession to an opponent. The fact that the opponent has a restart which is a reasonably decent chance at goal does not mitigate the severity of the foul whatsoever - and LOTG require this sort of DHB to be a caution.
The extremely blatant nature of the offence increases the severity of it (though alone isn't enough to justify a caution). Given that he's maliciously used an external object, I'd argue that you don't even have to refer to the DHB reasoning for issuing a caution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top