RefSix

Dead ball deception

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

one

RefChat Addict
#61
Lets forget about 'clearly moves' and when ball is play for a moment. The law has clearly said a player pretending a corner has not been taken (after presumably putting it in play) is unsporting, all be it in the explanation part.There should be no argument there. If a player does that then you must book the player (even if you don't agree with the law) for unsporting behaviour.

You can decide what to do about the restart depending on what you think about if the ball was in play or not.
 

Mintyref

RefChat Addict
#62
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.
I've had this, it only ever happens once per match because it's accompanied by me bellowing, "the ball's in play gents"........
 
#64
I could be wrong but my distinct impression (and for me this is backed up by the explanations given by the IFAB) was that it was the old situation where the ball could be touched and not be seen to clearly move, that was unsporting and had to be prevented.

For instance, in the FAQ to Law 8 there is the following:
Q2: What does clearly moves mean?
There is a growing ‘fair play’ problem where, especially at a corner kick, a player just touches the ball and then unfairly pretends/acts as if the ball is not in play so that a team-mate can then go and dribble the ball towards the penalty area.

The Law now states that if the ball does not CLEARLY move it is not in play; if it does CLEARLY move then it is in play and the opponents may move within 9.15m and play or challenge for the ball.
As I read it, the new wording is simply saying that the ball must clearly move, and that if it does (which for me, means that everyone including the referee and both teams can clearly see that it has moved) then that is legal and play should continue.

I do however, also kind of like the suggestion by a couple of people of announcing to everyone that the ball is in play.
 
#65
Thinking about this a little more, the whole situation is still rather messy and I think it might be better if the law was framed in such a way as to avoid the whole controversy in the first place. If, for instance, the law said the ball has to leave the corner area to be in play (in the same way that as it has to leave the penalty area to be in play at a goal kick) the 'trick play' and all its attendant problems could be avoided.

As far as I'm aware, it would also be more in line with what "football expects." Although the law actually says the opposite, I think most people (at least non-referees) expect that when a corner kick is taken, the ball should leave the corner area.
 

cwyeary

RefChat Addict
#66
If, for instance, the law said the ball has to leave the corner area to be in play (in the same way that as it has to leave the penalty area to be in play at a goal kick) the 'trick play' and all its attendant problems could be avoided.
Except the later is the ball clearly moving at least 12 yards. Nothing changes if the player sets the ball just barely hanging over the edge of the corner arc and then just slightly moves it outside of the penalty arc before "leaving" it for a teammate.
 
#67
Except the later is the ball clearly moving at least 12 yards. Nothing changes if the player sets the ball just barely hanging over the edge of the corner arc and then just slightly moves it outside of the penalty arc before "leaving" it for a teammate.
I would say something definitely changes. No matter where the ball starts if, after being kicked and clearly moving the ball is now completely outside the corner area, there would be little doubt in anyone's mind that the ball is now in play. On the other hand when the ball is kicked and remains inside the corner area there's always a certain amount of doubt over whether it's in play or not. In fact the common assumption is that the ball is not in play - that assumption being the only reason why the 'trick play' ever has a chance of succeeding. Once the ball is completely outside the area having been kicked there by a member of the team taking the corner, the situation is pretty much obvious.

Also, it has nothing to do with how far the ball moves, only where it moves from and to. If the ball starts inside the corner area (including overhanging the line) and finishes completely outside the corner area, it would be clear that it is in play. To take a slightly different analogy, instead of a goal kick you could have a defensive free kick taken from only just inside the penalty area (say, six inches inside). If the ball is kicked and travels completely outside the area it would be in play and everyone would know it is. If, for some reason a defender kicked it sideways and it remained inside the area, it would not be in play and everyone would know that also (apart from those who are ignorant of that particular part of the law, of course).
 

one

RefChat Addict
#68
The law is full of ambiguities and some can be fixed without too much trouble. A good example was the definition 'directly' for dropped ball being directly kicked into goal. It was easily fixed.

Law changes are given explanations. I often find the explanations, while a little more wordy, are much more simple and precise than the words actually used in the law. So in this case, to fix it, an addition to the list of "Cautions for unsporting behaviour" in law 12 will not only fix corner kick issues but also any other restarts: "attempts to to deceive an opponent by taking a restart but pretending not to have taken it". This was mainly why the word 'clearly' was added according to its explanation.

Just as a side note, in cricket, the definition of when a ball is dead involves players believing the ball is dead as well.
 
Last edited:
#69
The law is full of ambiguities and some can be fixed without too much trouble. A good example was the definition 'directly' for dropped ball being directly kicked into goal. It was easily fixed.

Law changes are given explanations. I often find the explanations, while a little more wordy, are much more simple and precise than the words actually used in the law. So in this case, to fix it, an addition to the list of "Cautions for unsporting behaviour" in law 12 will not only fix corner kick issues but also any other restarts: "attempts to to deceive an opponent by taking a restart but pretending not to have taken it". This was mainly why the word 'clearly' was added according to its explanation.

Just as a side note, in cricket, the definition of when a ball is dead involves players believing the ball is dead as well.
Nice idea but pretending to free kicks (dummying) is allowed, unless you want to outlaw that?
 

Sheffields Finest

Maybe I'm foolish, maybe I'm blind!
#72
So we agree, if it clearly moves, its not a trick, he's complied with the requirement to complete his movement and player 2 is at liberty to run towards goal with the ball!!! Next.....Play on....!!!! :angel:
 

one

RefChat Addict
#73
So we agree, if it clearly moves, its not a trick
I have absolutely no idea how you have come up with that logic. If it looks like a duck and sounds like duck then it probably is a duck... i mean a trick.

The whole reason we are having this debate is that we don't agree on that point. IFAB wants it to work that way but it doesn't.
 

Sheffields Finest

Maybe I'm foolish, maybe I'm blind!
#74
I have absolutely no idea how you have come up with that logic. If it looks like a duck and sounds like duck then it probably is a duck... i mean a trick.

The whole reason we are having this debate is that we don't agree on that point. IFAB wants it to work that way but it doesn't.
So you disagree with the LOTG? :confused: Thats fine, i'll do my best to follow them to the letter!!! ;)
 

zarathustra

RefChat Addict
#76
It’s an interesting question, and it’s certainly not a scenario I’ve ever come across in one of my games.

But if the ball is kicked/touched and “clearly” moves then surely it’s all good and within the laws of the game.

Of course what we class as the ball “clearly” moving is entirely subjective, but as the referee, if I see it move while I’m busy keeping an eye on everything else that’s going on then I would class that as “clearly” moving.

As for a player repositioning the ball with their feet several times before walking off and another player coming over and running with the ball then I’d call that and give and award the IDFK.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#77
I'm just not keen on allowing anything of this nature. The Laws/Rules of any game should prevent a side benefiting from any form of deception which does not correlate with ability. In golf, one would rule under 'equity', meaning fairness. In football, the 'spirit of the game' ethos gives the referee some recourse for not allowing this. Combined with the 'get out' of 'I didn't see it clearly move', gives us the reasonable grounds to avoid a mass confrontation
 

one

RefChat Addict
#78
The law has clearly said the 'deception' is unsporting. I have no problem with seeing the ball clearly move and say according to the law its in play. But you also have to see the deception and caution according to the law. Ball in play and deceiving opponents are separate matters so deal with them separately. But if you want to say you didn't see it clearly move to get out of a caution, i'm fine with that too.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#79
The law has clearly said the 'deception' is unsporting. I have no problem with seeing the ball clearly move and say according to the law its in play. But you also have to see the deception and caution according to the law. Ball in play and deceiving opponents are separate matters so deal with them separately. But if you want to say you didn't see it clearly move to get out of a caution, i'm fine with that too.
I'm just saying that i'm not having any of that funny business regardless of ball moved/deception or whatever. My attitude is that I'll never see the ball clearly move, nor will i see deception. All I'll see is a re-take, thereby not seeing the brawl in the aftermath :flip:
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#80
I'm just saying that i'm not having any of that funny business regardless of ball moved/deception or whatever. My attitude is that I'll never see the ball clearly move, nor will i see deception. All I'll see is a re-take, thereby not seeing the brawl in the aftermath :flip:
Retake is the one thing it can't be, that isn't supported in law at all. It is either allowed and you play on or an IDFK for playing the ball twice.

As I said earlier, if you see it happen and don't want a riot on your hands just should very loudly "ball in play". We tell players not to foul each other, so no season we can't tell them that a corner has been taken … :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top