A&H

Dead ball deception

  • Thread starter Deleted member 3014
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CapnBloodbeard said:
So you're happy with ignoring the intent of the law then?
Click to expand...
The way I read the law change is that they are attempting to avoid those past situations where the ball did indeed move but only in a way that was noticeable to those very close to the corner. Adding 'clearly' now means that the movement of the ball needs to be visible to those further away (most importantly the referee). Thus, this type of 'feinting' is not banned per se just made far less easy to pull off and far more straightforward for a referee to enforce .....

@Sheffields Finest , I explained it for you ;)
 
The Referee Store
I take your point....but before 'clearly' was put into play if you, the referee, can't see that it's moved then you have to presume it hasn't. So what changes here?
Perhaps as you say it means the ones where the referee has seen it move, but barely perceptibly, can be considered not moving.

What's interesting is in this video, the ball only wobbled on the spot after the touch. I think the referee thought it moved more than it did :)
The laws, unfortunately, have given us a suggestion that they don't want these corners to occur but haven't given clear guidance. Not surprising because incredibly poor writing is just par for the course. What they've stated is completely vague.
In fact, the wording 'unsportingly pretending' suggests that it's a cautionable offence. IMO the law can now be read a number of different ways when it was much simpler before.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
what changes here?
Click to expand...
What changes is that previously, the players could legitimately argue that the ball had moved and was in play when such movement was impossible for the referee to see. Leading to very difficult situations for match control, especially if the AR could see it but the Ref couldn't

Now the players can't do this because the referee can simply say that the movement wasn't clear to him / her :)
 
@Sheffields Finest , in an IFK the ball is kicked by a long shot over the keeper into goal. You disallow the goal but they claim the ball was kicked (in a similar way to the corner videos) before the long shot. And thinking of it you realise they did. Will you change your decision to a goal?
 
Russell Jones said:
What changes is that previously, the players could legitimately argue that the ball had moved and was in play when such movement was impossible for the referee to see. Leading to very difficult situations for match control, especially if the AR could see it but the Ref couldn't

Now the players can't do this because the referee can simply say that the movement wasn't clear to him / her :)
Click to expand...
If the referee didn't see it, it didn't happen. So the players couldn't argue that, no more than the attackers could argue that the ball crossed the line when a defender clears it out of the goal.

I would, however, agree that the change becomes relevant if the AR can see it but the ref can't.

Sheffields Finest said:
I did, It moved, so he has complied with the requirement, whats he got to do, a fan dance too!! :angel:
Click to expand...
Get your eyesight checked. That's not what I quoted. Try again..
 
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.
Click to expand...

This is the issue I have with the LOTG as they stand - they might have the intention of preventing this sort of deception, but it's not what they say. LOTG are a legal shambles and really need tightening up in a number of areas, or just indicating clear guidance as to what is and isn't allowed.

Baffles me why they don't say something along the lines of the ball is in play once it leaves the corner act with one kick, which would stop any of this nonsense.
 
I am uncomfortable with the idea of talking to one team about a particular law and not the other.

If I get asked about something (including the legality of a corner routine) I will make sure both coaches/captains get the same answer/clarification - even if that team did not ask the question;)
 
santa sangria said:
I am uncomfortable with the idea of talking to one team about a particular law and not the other.

If I get asked about something (including the legality of a corner routine) I will make sure both coaches/captains get the same answer/clarification - even if that team did not ask the question;)
Click to expand...

Indeed, on one the occasion I have allowed this as the ball clearly moved, it didn't go down well when I loudly shouted "ball in play" … :)
 
RustyRef said:
Indeed, on one the occasion I have allowed this as the ball clearly moved, it didn't go down well when I loudly shouted "ball in play" … :)
Click to expand...

Fair call that one. Might spoil the trick but a good way to avoid getting both barrels
 
This is a stupid situation because the attacking team can decide what constitutes ball in play. If the corner taker goes over and moves the ball about the arc with his feet, you aren't going to punish them because they touched the ball again after 'taking' the corner, you just assume they are preparing to take it, but whenever they want to play this trick, they can just decide "this is the touch that has put it in play", even if they have just taken 4 touches that all technically put it in play...
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Its a legal play, why do you have to pre-warn anyone?? :ninja:

So would you tell the other team that you were allowing a quick free kick??? :pirate:
Click to expand...
Because a quick free kick is specifically allowed in law.
And the other has specifically had a law change designed to outlaw it.
 
JH said:
This is a stupid situation because the attacking team can decide what constitutes ball in play. If the corner taker goes over and moves the ball about the arc with his feet, you aren't going to punish them because they touched the ball again after 'taking' the corner, you just assume they are preparing to take it, but whenever they want to play this trick, they can just decide "this is the touch that has put it in play", even if they have just taken 4 touches that all technically put it in play...
Click to expand...

Which is where i was coming from in the first place, they can twist the law as & when they please hence the deception / unsporting behaviour vibe I was getting from it.

Real grey area for me, I don’t like it.
 
JH said:
This is a stupid situation because the attacking team can decide what constitutes ball in play. If the corner taker goes over and moves the ball about the arc with his feet, you aren't going to punish them because they touched the ball again after 'taking' the corner, you just assume they are preparing to take it, but whenever they want to play this trick, they can just decide "this is the touch that has put it in play", even if they have just taken 4 touches that all technically put it in play...
Click to expand...
No, the referee decides when or when it isn't in play according to the laws of the game.
 
one said:
This is from the changes explanations of the 16/17 LOTG. It considered such deception unsporting.
View attachment 1949
Click to expand...


Grammar police, does that even make sense? Should it not read "has been taken"?
Sheffields Finest said:
Clutching at straws one. He positioned it in the right area and then played it twice.... IFK!"
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you.

The referee is actually signalling that they're timewasting.

The lawmakers have set up a situation where deception is allowed and then have tried to prevent deception, but have instead sown confusion, rather than revert to the original wording.

Was it really 20 years ago that the law changed? One of the factors in this was the FK where the taker lifted it vertically with his heels for his teammate to volley a goal.
 
Last edited:
JamesL said:
No, the referee decides when or when it isn't in play according to the laws of the game.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood, the referee is the only one that decides but what I am saying is the attacking team can essentially force you to decide it's in play when it suits them. You aren't going to give an indirect free kick if a corner taker adjusts the ball with his feet (clearly moving the ball) then takes the corner normally, even though if they just walked away and another player started dribbling with it, it would technically be legal. Messy description but I hope you understand the distinction I'm making.
 
JH said:
You misunderstood, the referee is the only one that decides but what I am saying is the attacking team can essentially force you to decide it's in play when it suits them. You aren't going to give an indirect free kick if a corner taker adjusts the ball with his feet (clearly moving the ball) then takes the corner normally, even though if they just walked away and another player started dribbling with it, it would technically be legal. Messy description but I hope you understand the distinction I'm making.
Click to expand...
Great shout JH :cool:
 
'Law 0.5'
Spirit of the Game. If you can play without mandatory corner flags, you can also rule against piddling about in the shadows of the missing corner flags
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top