The Ref Stop

Dead ball deception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 3014
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 3014

Guest
Quick question where do you stand on the scenario, where you give a free kick or corner the player taking it touches it then walks off, another player then trots over and proceeds to run with the ball.

I’ve seen it a couple of times Scunthorpe v Rotherham today, it made me look twice at first, I’m a little uncomfortable with it tbh, reason being if it all went wrong for the team taking it they could just turn round and say we haven’t taken it ref also how can the defending team make a fair attempt to make a tackle or go for the ball if they don’t know when it’s been played.

Anyone got an insight?
 
The Ref Stop
Hard to say and it’s purpose is to deceive in the first place, you woudnt be close enough or even looking to see if it moved, your not really concentrating on it until the next man comes over and starts to run with ball.
 
If it's hard to say then for me it's not in play by the first player. The second player puts it in play and then touches it again so IFK to the opponents.

The word 'clearly' was added two years ago to stop this sort of deceptive play, particularly in corner kicks.

"The ball is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves"
 
one said:
If it's hard to say then for me it's not in play by the first player. The second player puts it in play and then touches it again so IFK to the opponents.

The word 'clearly' was added two years ago to stop this sort of deceptive play, particularly in corner kicks.
Click to expand...
My understanding was that the word "clearly" was put in at the same time as the requirement for the ball to move it's full circumference was removed - so if anything (given the ball's circumference should be ~70cm) the requirement for clear movement was reduced at that point, rather than increased.

It feels a little harsh to me to deny a clever play by the attacking team just because you weren't paying attention. Once you realise this is the trick play they're employing, I think you need to be fairly confident that they've messed up their first touch before calling it back.
 
GraemeS said:
My understanding was that the word "clearly" was put in at the same time as the requirement for the ball to move it's full circumference was removed - so if anything (given the ball's circumference should be ~70cm) the requirement for clear movement was reduced at that point, rather than increased.

It feels a little harsh to me to deny a clever play by the attacking team just because you weren't paying attention. Once you realise this is the trick play they're employing, I think you need to be fairly confident that they've messed up their first touch before calling it back.
Click to expand...
This is from the changes explanations of the 16/17 LOTG. It considered such deception unsporting.
1526132931592.png
 
It is an interesting one & has the potential to cause chaos on the pitch.
 
I had it in a Southern League game a few years ago. The home team told me they were going to do it, I told them I wouldn't allow it, so as soon as they tried it I gave an IDFK.
 
RustyRef said:
I had it in a Southern League game a few years ago. The home team told me they were going to do it, I told them I wouldn't allow it, so as soon as they tried it I gave an IDFK.
Click to expand...
While I appreciate that is a smart approach in terms of match control, I don't know how you can justify it in terms of going by the book. As far as I can tell, the most you can do is clarify the law and inform them that they need to make it clear that the ball has moved. If they do so and you then disallow it, you're making up laws to justify what you consider to be "fair"?
 
one said:
If it's hard to say then for me it's not in play by the first player. The second player puts it in play and then touches it again so IFK to the opponents.

The word 'clearly' was added two years ago to stop this sort of deceptive play, particularly in corner kicks.

"The ball is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves"
Click to expand...
I still don't know what 'clearly' was supposed to achieve.
Either you can see it's moved, or you can't.
Anyway, if you can't see it move, then the 2nd person is actually the first person, and if they run with it then it's an IFK for double touch.
If you can, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with this. Most players will have at least heard of this 'trick' by now.
It's when they verbalise deception 'John, you take the kick!' that it crosses the line into unsporting behaviour. Caution and retake.
 
GraemeS said:
My understanding was that the word "clearly" was put in at the same time as the requirement for the ball to move it's full circumference was removed - so if anything (given the ball's circumference should be ~70cm) the requirement for clear movement was reduced at that point, rather than increased.
Click to expand...
Not quite - there's almost twenty years between these two changes. The requirement for the ball to travel the distance of its circumference was removed in 1997. As @one pointed out, the word 'clearly' was only added in 2016.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
I still don't know what 'clearly' was supposed to achieve.
Either you can see it's moved, or you can't.
Anyway, if you can't see it move, then the 2nd person is actually the first person, and if they run with it then it's an IFK for double touch.
If you can, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with this. Most players will have at least heard of this 'trick' by now.
It's when they verbalise deception 'John, you take the kick!' that it crosses the line into unsporting behaviour. Caution and retake.
Click to expand...
I am sure it was to stop deciving apponent as in the OP or the conrner kick example I qouted in the law. The highlighted phrase explains it.
The word 'clearly' is not just for the referee but for everyone including opponents. If the opponents 'fall for it' or if it's hard to say it has clearly moved then in all likelyhood it has not clearly moved.

Spot on with the reasoning for IFK.

For me, if the intent is there with or without verbalising, it's USB. Verbalising it just makes the intent more obbjous
 
I was told about this by a team who were going to use it. I made sure I could see the ball had moved each time there was a corner. It did. no FK.
 
The law was introduced to stop this type of deception occurring so i think we should take it that as referee we should be preventing it, where neccessary.
One way in which we can do this is once it is kicked and clearly moved is to tell everyone the ball is in play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
JamesL said:
The law was introduced to stop this type of deception occurring so i think we should take it that as referee we should be preventing it, where neccessary.
One way in which we can do this is once it is kicked and clearly moved is to tell everyone the ball is in play.
Click to expand...

This of course is if you’ve been notified pre match by a team that they intend to use this tactic.

If you haven’t then it’s gonna get messy for all involved, it’s hard enough watching a box full of players from a corner or getting into position for a free kick / reacting to a quick free kick without a team playing silly beggars.
 
Men in Black said:
This of course is if you’ve been notified pre match by a team that they intend to use this tactic.

If you haven’t then it’s gonna get messy for all involved, it’s hard enough watching a box full of players from a corner or getting into position for a free kick / reacting to a quick free kick without a team playing silly beggars.
Click to expand...

You have to have seen it to allow it....Just to see a player running in from a corner should set alarm bells ringing. Should you know whats going to happen and have seen it take place then it has to be play on! Its not up to them or you to allow for another teams incompetence in law!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top