RefSix

Dead ball deception

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

Mintyref

RefChat Addict
I'd like the law changed/clarified so the ball has to leave the arc. That way, if the defenders aren't watching and the ball has left the arc, it's fair game to say "you weren't watching, the ball left the arc". I'm fair game for most things but it's quite dodgy if the ball can remain in the arc and be in play as per the second video.
But if positioned on the edgebofbthe arc you have the same problem
 
But if positioned on the edgebofbthe arc you have the same problem
Why? If the ball is positioned on the line or the arc, the new law or guideline I'm saying I'd implement would probably include the whole ball has to leave the whole arc including the line so no part of the part should be touching the line at all if it's in play.
 
Last edited:
The law has clearly said the 'deception' is unsporting.
Not the way I understand it, it doesn't. My reading of the explanation is that it says the old practice of touching the ball so that it did not clearly move and then pretending that it had not been taken, was unsporting - and so that now the ball must 'clearly move' in order to be in play. If it clearly moves then (at least in the IFAB's eyes as I understand it) it is not unsporting any more because everyone is supposed to know that it has moved and is in play.

The current law says, "The ball is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves; it does not need to leave the corner area." If a corner kick is taken that falls within those parameters I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed. As I mentioned, I think there's a difference between what the IFAB says used to happen and was unsporting and the new wording which if fully complied with, is surely legal.

Now, I think it's still an unsatisfactory form of wording leading to conflicting interpretations (as the length of this current discussion amply demonstrates) and an easy way round it is to say the ball must leave corner area to be in play. I would estimate that over 99% of corner kicks leave the corner area anyway (based on the frequency with which this 'trick play corner' occurs in most major leagues) and so making that the official position would simply confirm what happens in the overwhelming majority of cases anyway. It would inconvenience almost nobody (hardly anyone uses this trick play) and would eliminate the whole debate and confusion that we're having right now.

I don't understand the argument that it wouldn't change anything. Once the ball has clearly moved and is fully outside the corner area, it's obvious - no matter where it starts from. Whereas now, the ball can clearly move but if it remains inside the corner area, people are still unsure as to the exact situation.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Not the way I understand it, it doesn't. My reading of the explanation is that it says the old practice of touching the ball so that it did not clearly move and then pretending that it had not been taken, was unsporting - and so that now the ball must 'clearly move' in order to be in play. If it clearly moves then (at least in the IFAB's eyes as I understand it) it is not unsporting any more because everyone is supposed to know that it has moved and is in play.

The current law says, "The ball is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves; it does not need to leave the corner area." If a corner kick is taken that falls within those parameters I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed. As I mentioned, I think there's a difference between what the IFAB says used to happen and was unsporting and the new wording which if fully complied with, is surely legal.

Now, I think it's still an unsatisfactory form of wording leading to conflicting interpretations (as the length of this current discussion amply demonstrates) and an easy way round it is to say the ball must leave corner area to be in play. I would estimate that over 99% of corner kicks leave the corner area anyway (based on the frequency with which this 'trick play corner' occurs in most major leagues) and so making that the official position would simply confirm what happens in the overwhelming majority of cases anyway. It would inconvenience almost nobody (hardly anyone uses this trick play) and would eliminate the whole debate and confusion that we're having right now.

I don't understand the argument that it wouldn't change anything. Once the ball has clearly moved and is fully outside the corner area, it's obvious - no matter where it starts from. Whereas now, the ball can clearly move but if it remains inside the corner area, people are still unsure as to the exact situation.
In one of my earlier post I asked the question but it went unnoticed. IFAB saw the deception as a problem (unsporting) and so did many others. I don't understand why we (including IFAB) are dancing around the problem to find a solution. "Clearly moves", "leave the corner area", "moves its circumference" etc are trying to solve it indirectly. If its unsporting, then just say so and problem solved.
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".
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
If I was observing and this happened I might suggest to the referee that he needs to think about his game management. That is unless it happens and turns an otherwise uneventful game into an absolute car crash, in which case I'd be pointing at it as the reason he lost his match control.

The same applies if he allows a quick free kick in a situation where everyone is expecting it to be on the whistle. I haven't seen the corner kick trick cause a problem when observing, but I've seen quick free kicks cause the referee's game to collapse twice, and on both occasions I've pinpointed that as the reason for their control disappearing.
 

Sheffields Finest

Maybe I'm foolish, maybe I'm blind!
Typical refereeing no-win situation, you ref to the letter of the law and it can go south, you can't blooming win! You correctly allow a quick free kick and they score and the defending team are in your neck, same with the corner routine, perfectly legal but we are allowing for the uninitiated idiots!! Should we really have to?
 
If I was observing and this happened I might suggest to the referee that he needs to think about his game management. That is unless it happens and turns an otherwise uneventful game into an absolute car crash, in which case I'd be pointing at it as the reason he lost his match control.

The same applies if he allows a quick free kick in a situation where everyone is expecting it to be on the whistle. I haven't seen the corner kick trick cause a problem when observing, but I've seen quick free kicks cause the referee's game to collapse twice, and on both occasions I've pinpointed that as the reason for their control disappearing.
Out of interest, if for example you observe a referee and he allows a quick free kick from just outside the penalty area and which causes match control issues would they get marked down, even if they did not need to caution the offender, the kick was taken from the correct place, and the ball was stationary, basically, could they get mark d down, even if there is nothing in the laws to compel them to make it on the whistle, or to have the kick retaken?
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
Out of interest, if for example you observe a referee and he allows a quick free kick from just outside the penalty area and which causes match control issues would they get marked down, even if they did not need to caution the offender, the kick was taken from the correct place, and the ball was stationary, basically, could they get mark d down, even if there is nothing in the laws to compel them to make it on the whistle, or to have the kick retaken?
Depends on the scenario. How quickly did they take it, where was the referee, had players started to form a wall, had the referee said anything, and so on.

If a referee loses control of a game then as observers we are required to give them advice as to why that might have happened. Sometimes there isn't a specific incident, where there is it is going to get mentioned.

A phrase gets used at senior refereeing a lot these days - "give what the game expects". If you are being watched by one of the more modern observers they are likely to be looking for how you manage the game.
 

Goldfish

Well-Known Member
Hi
There is a world of difference between a ball kicked into play at a restart quickly or a corner kick taken as a feint and unsporting behaviour at a restart.
My experience as I said is that the corner kick ruse is generally accompanied with unsporting verbals as in both video. It rarely happens as a kick that is just left. The few times I have had this I just stopped *play*and said we will have it again. I easily found reasons for that. Did not see the restart, pushing / pulling in the penalty area, distraction etc.
 

Mintyref

RefChat Addict
Why? If the ball is positioned on the line or the arc, the new law or guideline I'm saying I'd implement would probably include the whole ball has to leave the whole arc including the line so no part of the part should be touching the line at all if it's in play.
Exactly, so the ball may only need to move a few millimetres to be completely out of the arc......
 
Sorry to add to this after so long but what would you say about the following scenario.
John goes to take a corner, shouts to Paul, “hey Paul, you take this corner”, touches it with his foot and the ball clearly moves, Paul runs over and dribbles the ball out....

Does the verbal distraction/deception make a difference at all?
 

Goldfish

Well-Known Member
Hi
For me there are two elements in these. If the ball is clearly kicked with the referee seeing it then it is play on. That is rare.
More likely are the verbals you mentioned which verbally deceives an opponent at a restart. It is unsporting to suggest the ball is not in play when what is done is to put the ball in play. Would a referee have any problem with a caution and an IDFK for a player shouting leave it at an opponent to prevent him playing or challenging for the ball? IMO it amounts to the same.
For that matter has the referee seen the ball been clearly put into play?
Looking at a recent Championship game I sensed the possibility that this ruse play was about to unfold with one player placing the ball and a team mate coming across. The ball was not played or at least it was not shown. The referee promptly went on the whistle to deal with "shenanigans" in the penalty area. AR stepped in front of the ball to prevent "play". Problem solved. Just went with the normal kick. Referees can manages these ruses easily if they are switched on.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top