The Ref Stop

Dead ball deception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 3014
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sheffields Finest said:
Clutching at straws one. He positioned it in the right area and then played it..... play on! :p
Click to expand...
Six one way, half dozen the other. However given that the law clearly 'explained' (in 2016 explanations) that this is unsporting, we have to be looking for ways to disallow it, not looking for ways to allow it.
 
The Ref Stop
Sheffields Finest said:
Why is it unsportsmanlike to deliberately touch a ball into play?
Click to expand...
Well the LOTG does state, as quoted earlier, that it's trying to eliminate these plays.

Given the ball only wobbled slightly after the 1st player removed their foot, I'd question whether you can see it's touched and moves.

Of course if the LOTG wanted those types of restarts gone it would be easy to write it into the laws. But let's not expect common sense to apply to how the LOTG are written.

I still think 'clearly' is pointless. Either you see it's moved or you don't. If you're not sure then it didn't. That's how it's always been, I don't see what's actually changed. Actually the only thing I can think of is that if the ref can't tell if it's moved but the AR can than it doesn't matter....
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Well the LOTG does state, as quoted earlier, that it's trying to eliminate these plays.

Given the ball only wobbled slightly after the 1st player removed their foot, I'd question whether you can see it's touched and moves.

Of course if the LOTG wanted those types of restarts gone it would be easy to write it into the laws. But let's not expect common sense to apply to how the LOTG are written.

I still think 'clearly' is pointless. Either you see it's moved or you don't. If you're not sure then it didn't. That's how it's always been, I don't see what's actually changed. Actually the only thing I can think of is that if the ref can't tell if it's moved but the AR can than it doesn't matter....
Click to expand...
I agree that its easy to eliminate this play but they clearly didn't. Therefore, I assume they clearly don't see it as unsportsmanlike and deem it to be a legal play..
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Why is it unsportsmanlike to deliberately touch a ball into play?
Click to expand...
You can ask the same question about what is unsporting about pretending to kick the ball in a penalty to send the keeper one way, retract your foot and then once the keeper has dived, tap it in? Its can be thought of a clever way of taking a pen.

I guess the answer is expectations of footballing community of what is fair and what is not. Deceiving the opponents as in OP (or a corner kick) is just as unfair as deceiving the keeper in a pen by fainting to kick in you last step in a pen.
 
one said:
You can ask the same question about what is unsporting about pretending to kick the ball in a penalty to send the keeper one way, retract your foot and then once the keeper has dived, tap it in? Its can be thought of a clever way of taking a pen.

I guess the answer is expectations of footballing community of what is fair and what is not. Deceiving the opponents as in OP (or a corner kick) is just as unfair as deceiving the keeper in a pen by fainting to kick in you last step in a pen.
Click to expand...
A bit different, there is a specific offence at a penalty that earns a yellow card. Its specific to that part of play only!
 
Sheffields Finest said:
A bit different, there is a specific offence at a penalty that earns a yellow card. Its specific to that part of play only!
Click to expand...
Well you asked why is it unsporting (not why is it an offence)? I was referring to the concept of fairness, regardless of the law.

Even if you want to refer to the law only, The 2016 lotg specifically said it is unsporting. They didn't go as far as putting it as part of the main 17 laws. So one can be justified if a yellow card is given for such plays.
 
Sheffields Finest said:
I saw that and like the Law states, 'It clearly moves', thats clearly different to it doesn't move! It did, now lets play on chaps!! :rolleyes: It's legal and allowed!!
Click to expand...
Sometimes to apply the law correctly, you should understand why the law was put there in the first place. We all know the way many laws are written are not the best. Why was 'clearly' added to "clearly moves"?
 
Last edited:
Sheffields Finest said:
I saw that and like the Law states, 'It clearly moves', thats clearly different to it doesn't move! It did, now lets play on chaps!! :rolleyes: It's legal and allowed!!
Click to expand...
The law also states what the intention of the law change is. You're ignoring that part.

I'd also question whether a 'wobble' meets the definition of 'clearly moves'....
 
one said:
Your second example, if you want to call that clearly moved then first player played it twice (put in play and then took a second touch) so IFK from the corner area. You can't have you cake and eat it too :)
Click to expand...

I agree, if you are saying a touch is enough for it to be in play then the player who placed the ball clearly touched it twice.
 
GraemeS said:
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"?
Click to expand...

Because he just put his foot on it and barely moved it. If I can't tell that the ball is in play nor can the defending team and it would be mayhem if something came from it.
 
RustyRef said:
I agree, if you are saying a touch is enough for it to be in play then the player who placed the ball clearly touched it twice.
Click to expand...
Good shout but I’m saying he ensured that it was stationary and in the arc. That allowed! Even encouraged!
 
OK i will approach this from a different angle.

Allowing this sort of play will only create an issue in the bigger scheme of thing.

You can't tell players you will allow it only if they tell you before they do it. There is no requirement for player to tell you what they plan to do. You either allow it or you don't. If you do allow it then you are going to have to start guessing (and so do the defenders) when they mean to put in play and when they are just placing the ball using their feet. When it becomes commonly used then every attacking team "will have their cake and eat it too". That is use the trick but claim they didn't mean it when it doesn't work.
One player places the ball with feet (ball clearly moves) and walks off and another player runs it in. You allow this. Same game, the same player who places the ball with feet, takes a couple of steps back (supposedly to take the free kick) a defender runs in and kicks the ball. Would you disallow this? There are many other scenarios that could be 50/50s and you have to guess if the ball is in play or not. I suspect this is what the law makers are trying to stop.

It should be clear to all when the ball is in play.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top