The Ref Stop

Drop ball. How are your leagues handling it?

Kes said:
I happen to think that the new drop-ball law is one of the few simpler and more sensible amendments to the LOTG we've had to take on this season. :)
Click to expand...

I've said it in another thread that I haven't had any problems whatsoever. A quick shout to people within earshot that it's uncontested to blue, in play when it touches the ground, players 4 feet away, everyone has been happy when I've done that. What they do with it after that is up to them.
 
The Ref Stop
wazztie16 said:
I've said it in another thread that I haven't had any problems whatsoever. A quick shout to people within earshot that it's uncontested to blue, in play when it touches the ground, players 4 feet away, everyone has been happy when I've done that. What they do with it after that is up to them.
Click to expand...

Agree, it is a very simple law change and I haven't seen anything like the confusion and objections that others seem to have.
 
wazztie16 said:
I've said it in another thread that I haven't had any problems whatsoever. A quick shout to people within earshot that it's uncontested to blue, in play when it touches the ground, players 4 feet away, everyone has been happy when I've done that. What they do with it after that is up to them.
Click to expand...

Best tell em its 4 metres next time mate. ..;) :p
 
socal lurker said:
Every time refs want to make up their own rules, they cite 6 seconds. the overwhelming view in soccer is that the violations are trifling. That's not close to the same thing as deliberately conducting an improper restart. The fact that you wouldn't do it when being assessed means you know it is the wrong thing to do. IFAB, for better or worse (I think worse, but they didn't ask me), make a deliberate change to how DBs are supposed to be done. And we should follow that, not take the easy way out. I don't like the new DB rule, but every time a ref (and especially good ones) deliberately does an improper restart, it makes it harder for the game to adjust, as the ref doing it right gets grief. I'd urge you to reconsider ignoring the new Law.

As I've stated oreviously


And you have no authority to bring it back, which is one of the reasons IFAB made the change. By ignoring the Law, you set yourself up to ignore it again.
Click to expand...
socal lurker said:
Every time refs want to make up their own rules, they cite 6 seconds. the overwhelming view in soccer is that the violations are trifling. That's not close to the same thing as deliberately conducting an improper restart. The fact that you wouldn't do it when being assessed means you know it is the wrong thing to do. IFAB, for better or worse (I think worse, but they didn't ask me), make a deliberate change to how DBs are supposed to be done. And we should follow that, not take the easy way out. I don't like the new DB rule, but every time a ref (and especially good ones) deliberately does an improper restart, it makes it harder for the game to adjust, as the ref doing it right gets grief. I'd urge you to reconsider ignoring the new Law.



And you have no authority to bring it back, which is one of the reasons IFAB made the change. By ignoring the Law, you set yourself up to ignore it again.
Click to expand...

Well as I stated previously, I always attempt to do the drop ball as intended in the new law. But more often than not one of the teams is offering to kick it back because that's what they expect to do at park level and always have done. No effect on match control or the game itself so I'm happy in the spirit of the game for it to happen at their request. It's not a big issue at dog and duck, there's far more pressing concerns when I'm there on my own.

As for using the 6 second law, that's a perfectly reasonable comparison and it's also not the only example I used, you just chose the easy one. The law clearly states that some part of the keeper must be in contact with the goaline when the ball is struck from a penalty. Are you following that law to the letter? That's a KMI, unlike a drop ball. At dog and duck I'm worried about getting the big things right. If someone wants to kick the ball to the keeper at a drop ball then go ahead, it's a sporting gesture that will aid match control. It's a trifling matter....
 
Ben448844 said:
If someone wants to kick the ball to the keeper at a drop ball then go ahead, it's a sporting gesture that will aid match control. It's a trifling matter....
Click to expand...

We're going to agree to disagree. Trifling applies to infractions, not to giving restarts to the wrong team. I understand your position, I just think it is fundamentally flawed and makes it harder for the next ref. Similar to the refs out there who still refuse to wait for actual involvement on OS, because they think it is better the old way. And I think you actually know that, or you'd have the confidence in your position to do it while being assessed.
 
socal lurker said:
We're going to agree to disagree. Trifling applies to infractions, not to giving restarts to the wrong team. I understand your position, I just think it is fundamentally flawed and makes it harder for the next ref. Similar to the refs out there who still refuse to wait for actual involvement on OS, because they think it is better the old way. And I think you actually know that, or you'd have the confidence in your position to do it while being assessed.
Click to expand...

You just used a simile to enhance your own point but ignored the one I used to make mine 're the penalty.

We will agree to disagree and that's fine. I always explain the drop ball procedure (as even in December, most teams at my level havent been told about the new law), but when someone just offers to kick it back whilst I'm doing it we just get on with it. It's of no consequence. And at dog and duck, there's far more not doing it than doing it (unless you're on a promotion scheme, you're probably not aware of the new law). I think it's about being smart at that level,in the same way we're smart on 6 seconds, encroachment, keeper coming off the line etc. If it's been a bitty game or temperatures are up, its a great way of calming people down if they see the other team kick the ball back to them. So if they offer then I'll use that. Perhaps I should start jumping in the way of the ball when it's a heated game to slow it down and bring in somesportsmanship for game management ;)
 
The one thing I don't like (and hopefully a rare chance) is that if the ball hits the ref then goes out of play it's a restart as if it never touched him/her. I've seen a ref get caught out of position, player shot the ball (potentially on target) and it hit him then went wide. Makes it difficult to tell the striker that is has to be a GK
 
There are a lot of things around the new drop ball law that you can consider trifling. Where exactly was the ball when play was stopped? Was everyone really 4m away or were some closer to 3.5m? How aware of the new law is every player involved?

But who actually gets the ball? I don't see any way that can be considered trifling.
 
I find if you take the time to communicate to players, they will appreciate and understand.

Whilst it is undoubtedly the players responsibility to know the laws of the game, if you are calm and explain in a passive matter what the new process is, players will accept it.

If one team wants to kick it back either, I'm not going to stop them. As long as you do the process correctly, what they do with the ball is their business.
 
GraemeS said:
There are a lot of things around the new drop ball law that you can consider trifling. Where exactly was the ball when play was stopped? Was everyone really 4m away or were some closer to 3.5m? How aware of the new law is every player involved?

But who actually gets the ball? I don't see any way that can be considered trifling.
Click to expand...

The problem is that some people care more about doing what they think is right, rather than doing what the team's pay them to do i.e. correctly and fairly apply the laws of the game.

But, they know they are wrong to do so, and so they try and justify it. Oh it's on Sunday League, so we won't bother with that, or referees ignore the 6 seconds law so I will get the restart absolutely 100% wrong.

And this would have been wrong last season when IFAB specifically stipulated that referees can't manufacture the restart.
 
Let's imagine a player is in the box and for some bizarre reason his arms are in the air. He handles it, unintentionally. The laws are clear - HB/PK. But you have sympathy because it wasn't deliberate so you know, spirit of the game and all. Stupid.
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
My point (though I accept it wasn’t clear) is you can’t just invent new laws because the spirit of the game etc.
Click to expand...
Agree totally.

My understanding of "spirit of the game" was that it was intended to allow the referee some leeway at grassroots to allow games to go ahead, when they otherwise wouldn't.

The example given in the laws is a club not having corners flags, the referee could use spirit of the game to allow the game to go ahead and then report the club afterwards.

However, what we have now is referees taking this and trying to use it as an excuse to simply ignore the laws they don't like, or avoiding having to make difficult decisions.

Not carrying the simple dropped ball procedure correctly because you can't be bothered to tell players what is happening is a prime example of this.
 
zarathustra said:
Agree totally.

My understanding of "spirit of the game" was that it was intended to allow the referee some leeway at grassroots to allow games to go ahead, when they otherwise wouldn't.

The example given in the laws is a club not having corners flags, the referee could use spirit of the game to allow the game to go ahead and then report the club afterwards.

However, what we have now is referees taking this and trying to use it as an excuse to simply ignore the laws they don't like, or avoiding having to make difficult decisions.

Not carrying the simple dropped ball procedure correctly because you can't be bothered to tell players what is happening is a prime example of this.
Click to expand...
It is also there to cover scenarios that are not covered in law where the referee should do what the game expects.
 
JamesL said:
It is also there to cover scenarios that are not covered in law where the referee should do what the game expects.
Click to expand...
Agreed, though personally I find most of those sorts of things fit nicely into common sense for the most part.

I remember when spirit of the game was first introduced Padfoot predicted that it would cause some problems where referees would abuse it in order to avoid doing their jobs.

Turns out he was correct.
 
zarathustra said:
Agreed, though personally I find most of those sorts of things fit nicely into common sense for the most part.

I remember when spirit of the game was first introduced Padfoot predicted that it would cause some problems where referees would abuse it in order to avoid doing their jobs.

Turns out he was correct.
Click to expand...
He usually was.........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top