A&H

Community Shield

P

PinnerPaul

RefChat Addict
Anyone else see this?

Ball played forward by Liverpool player, hits Martin Atkinson, tten literally brushes shin of Man City player before continuing to another Liverpool player on the edge of penalty area.

Mr A awards drop ball 'to Liverpool' much to their dismay?

Now technically I realise that the ball has changed possession, but literally for a nano second, before continuing with Liverpool. Surely he should have let play continue there?

Thoughts?
 
The Referee Store
PinnerPaul said:
Anyone else see this?

Ball played forward by Liverpool player, hits Martin Atkinson, tten literally brushes shin of Man City player before continuing to another Liverpool player on the edge of penalty area.

Mr A awards drop ball 'to Liverpool' much to their dismay?

Now technically I realise that the ball has changed possession, but literally for a nano second, before continuing with Liverpool. Surely he should have let play continue there?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I'd be inclined to agree with you.

But although I've not seen the incident, it actually sounds that the ball didn't literally change "possession" and so I'd have just let play carry on.

You can bet that the Liverpool players would have moaned at Atkinson if he'd allowed that and they'd immediately lost possession though ... ;) :rolleyes:
 
There was no change of possession but the touch made the attack more promising.

Haven’t seen any teams use these as a de facto set piece yet, just seem to pass into sideways. If they’d had a free kick from that position they’d have loaded the box.
 
PinnerPaul said:
Anyone else see this?

Ball played forward by Liverpool player, hits Martin Atkinson, tten literally brushes shin of Man City player before continuing to another Liverpool player on the edge of penalty area.

Mr A awards drop ball 'to Liverpool' much to their dismay?

Now technically I realise that the ball has changed possession, but literally for a nano second, before continuing with Liverpool. Surely he should have let play continue there?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...


I would say that based on the comments above, the drop ball was given because it started a promising attack rather than the possession change which by the new laws, is correct. However (without seeing it), I guess the referee would have to decide whether it STARTED a promising attack rather than made it better
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Silly rule to change, always added to the fun back in my day, if it hit you, tough! Play on....
Click to expand...
I don’t see how it’s a silly rule change. The referee isn’t a player, In the spirit of the game it seems only fair that the team in possession don’t lose the ball as a consequence of the referee being in the way and the opposition score.
 
I think the reality is that Rs are going to err on the side of giving DBs on these such that with time it will be a DB unless it is obvious it had no impact.
 
QuaverRef said:
I don’t see how it’s a silly rule change. The referee isn’t a player, In the spirit of the game it seems only fair that the team in possession don’t lose the ball as a consequence of the referee being in the way and the opposition score.
Click to expand...
I thought you’d perk up, that rule has worked pretty well for 160 years, did it really need changing, really? What next goalposts?
 
I wasn't surprised with the decision as I'd say it led to a promising attack.

I think this law change is probably a reasonable one - I've seen various goals scored after the ball hitting the referee and it always feel an injustice for the conceding team and an unwanted assist for the referee. And I've seen plenty of cases where the ball hits the refereed starts a promising attack and a rather generous free-kick is given to the defending team.
 
Sounds like this probably fell into the "promising attack" clause and not the change of possession.
 
Sheffields Finest said:
I thought you’d perk up, that rule has worked pretty well for 160 years, did it really need changing, really? What next goalposts?
Click to expand...
Good point. Losing the ball and conceding when the ref has failed to get out of the way of a pass seems perfectly fair. On we go then
 
QuaverRef said:
Good point. Losing the ball and conceding when the ref has failed to get out of the way of a pass seems perfectly fair. On we go then
Click to expand...
It used to be an endearing aspect of sport, termed 'rub of the green'
This particular rule change wouldn't be necessary if we didn't have experienced referees scoring from 6 yards out. Usually when the ball hits the ref, it's about the centre circle and unlikely to be of any consequence. Therefore, the change will usually cause an unnecessary stoppage
 
Big Cat said:
It used to be an endearing aspect of sport, termed 'rub of the green'
This particular rule change wouldn't be necessary if we didn't have experienced referees scoring from 6 yards out. Usually when the ball hits the ref, it's about the centre circle and unlikely to be of any consequence. Therefore, the change will usually cause an unnecessary stoppage
Click to expand...
Usually, but not always. There are times where it will change possession 30 yards out and less. Majority of the time it’ll be the referee unable to get out of the way rather than bad positioning but it still only seems right to give the ball back to the team who lost possession. Spirit of the game and all that.

The other positive from this rule is at the top levels, it’s one less thing for managers to blame the referee for when ranting on MOTD etc. Imagine if a team concede after the ball comes off Moss and their opposition score. The managers and pundits would be all over that. It doesn’t just benefit the players, it protects the referees as well
 
QuaverRef said:
Usually, but not always. There are times where it will change possession 30 yards out and less. Majority of the time it’ll be the referee unable to get out of the way rather than bad positioning but it still only seems right to give the ball back to the team who lost possession. Spirit of the game and all that.

The other positive from this rule is at the top levels, it’s one less thing for managers to blame the referee for when ranting on MOTD etc. Imagine if a team concede after the ball comes off Moss and their opposition score. The managers and pundits would be all over that. It doesn’t just benefit the players, it protects the referees as well
Click to expand...
On tother side of the coin, I can see potential for controversy with respect to which occasions warrant a DB and which team get the decision. The change is consistent with the direction in which they're trying to steer the game, one in which 'chance' is unwanted and unsuccessfully removed
 
socal lurker said:
I think the reality is that Rs are going to err on the side of giving DBs on these such that with time it will be a DB unless it is obvious it had no impact.
Click to expand...

For me this was a prime example of no impact. Ball was on its way the Liverpool player hit ref, then shin of Man City player before ending up where (it looked like) it was intended. I suppose MA's reasoning was that the touch off him 'put off' the Man City player. Not for me in this case but can see the logic behind that line of thought.
 
How are we to apply 'touches a match official'? If it brushes my arm and a team starts a promising attack do I need to blow play dead even though there has been no effect other than an audible snicking sound on the way past me? Imagine the arguments this is going to cause.
 
Redster said:
How are we to apply 'touches a match official'? If it brushes my arm and a team starts a promising attack do I need to blow play dead even though there has been no effect other than an audible snicking sound on the way past me? Imagine the arguments this is going to cause.
Click to expand...
If it brushes you, did the impact start the promising attack? Or was it happening anyway? That’s the conclusion you’d have to draw. Instinct would say it was happening anyway and you’d play on
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top