Dropped Ball

[Big Cat]

If the players don't understand the intent of the new law (and many won't) then to start with, you're going to have to explain it to them. Just say something along the lines of, "Your team had the ball when I stopped play, I'm giving it to you, you don't have to give it back to the other team." In the Women's World Cup games you can see the referee taking a few seconds every time a dropped ball occurs, to explain the procedure to the players (they also do the same whenever a wall is formed). Until everyone gets used to this - which could take up to a season or so, referees will need to explain it.

I did just that as it was a youth game, but not sure I'll continue to invest a great deal of energy into educating adults. We weren't supposed to influence the outcome of a dropped ball previously so why should we become so actively involved now? It could work against us if we're seen to coerce with a team that scores from the set piece

 

[zarathustra]

I did just that as it was a youth game, but not sure I'll continue to invest a great deal of energy into educating adults. We weren't supposed to influence the outcome of a dropped ball previously so why should we become so actively involved now? It could work against us if we're seen to coerce with a team that scores from the set piece

I think that you're making this far more complicated than it needs to be.

Just do what Peter said, tell them they get the ball because they had possession when the game was stopped and they don't have to kick to the opposition if they don't want to.

 

[Big Cat]

I think that you're making this far more complicated than it needs to be.

Just do what Peter said, tell them they get the ball because they had possession when the game was stopped and they don't have to kick to the opposition if they don't want to.

Not complicated at all. I don't normally speak with the players (formally) before KO, but I'll step outside my routine for the first few games of the season to educate the players on the changes. I'm not intent on trying to convince players what to do, which was my first experience of the new rule.
Make sense??

 

[zarathustra]

I never talk to players before the game, except maybe a bit of small talk as I'm doing a pitch inspection or warm up etc.

And then maybe 20 seconds at most briefing captains and CARs before the coin toss.

No one is suggesting that you coerce anyone into doing anything. Drop the ball for a member of the team that had possession when play was stopped, if they ask whether they should kick it back tell them its their choice.

When they specifically made it so that referees couldn't manage a drop ball I was forever telling players that 1) they can contest it if they want; and b) they can do whatever they want once it has hit the floor i.e. kick it back, or not.

But that probably took no more than a couple of seconds, and that information was only offered if a player asked.

 

[Big Cat]

I never talk to players before the game, except maybe a bit of small talk as I'm doing a pitch inspection or warm up etc.

And then maybe 20 seconds at most briefing captains and CARs before the coin toss.

No one is suggesting that you coerce anyone into doing anything. Drop the ball for a member of the team that had possession when play was stopped, if they ask whether they should kick it back tell them its their choice.

When they specifically made it so that referees couldn't manage a drop ball I was forever telling players that 1) they can contest it if they want; and b) they can do whatever they want once it has hit the floor i.e. kick it back, or not.

But that probably took no more than a couple of seconds, and that information was only offered if a player asked.

I hadn't anticipated covering a game so soon after June 1st, but I'm glad to get some Dropped Ball exposure as its a banana skin in waiting

 

[socal lurker]

It's pretty easy, where the team that has possession is obvious you drop it to them. If it isn't clear, you aren't sure, and both teams are saying they should get the ball, you drop it to the defending team. Far better to incur a few complaints from the attacking team than you drop it to the attacking team and they score within 5 seconds.

We have to keep in mind that it is not possession, but "touch"--and there is, of course, the PA carve out. I think it makes it important for us to be aware of context in a new and different way before blowing for a stoppage that is going to be a DB, as a second or two delay may make things more clear and allow for cleaner restarts. (Obviously doesn't work for all scenarios.)

I do agree with when-in-doubt-give-it-to-the-defense (but better if we can avoid those doubtful scenarios). I think this whole thing is going to be a nightmare for newbie refs.

 

[Big Cat]

We have to keep in mind that it is not possession, but "touch"--and there is, of course, the PA carve out. I think it makes it important for us to be aware of context in a new and different way before blowing for a stoppage that is going to be a DB, as a second or two delay may make things more clear and allow for cleaner restarts. (Obviously doesn't work for all scenarios.)

I do agree with when-in-doubt-give-it-to-the-defense (but better if we can avoid those doubtful scenarios). I think this whole thing is going to be a nightmare for newbie refs.

I had two DBs at the weekend. On both occasions, I stopped the game at a 'predetermined' moment. A random stoppage could yield unwanted results

 

[Peter Grove]

We weren't supposed to influence the outcome of a dropped ball previously so why should we become so actively involved now?

Well firstly, that provision has been specifically removed from the laws and no longer applies. The IFAB has made it crystal clear what is supposed to happen here. The ball is supposed to go to and remain (at least in the first instance) with the team that had possession when play was stopped.

As IFAB Circular 15 states:

The new procedure is for the dropped ball to be ‘uncontested’ – the ball will be dropped for only one player [...] Play will then continue ‘as normal’, i.e. the ball is not given back to the opponents.

The IFAB has also explained the rationale behind this and how it is done for reasons of fairness, in the explanation section of the laws:

The current dropped ball procedure often leads to a ‘manufactured’ restart which is ‘exploited’ unfairly [...] Returning the ball to the team that last played it restores what was ‘lost’ when play was stopped ...

Note the clear direction in the wording of the circular - "the ball is not given back to the opponents." If the players are not aware of this and so are doing something that is against the unequivocal intent of the law simply because they're not aware what it is, then I think it's incumbent upon the referee, as the guardian and on-field proponent of the laws, to let them know.

As I mentioned before, referees won't have to do this forever, only until enough time has passed that players have become aware of, and familiar with, the new law. I suggested this might take up to a season or so but I reckon it will probably not take even that long.

To give a similar example from a recent change, I remember a couple of seasons back when they brought in the clarification and instruction that players cannot "cut across" the corner of the penalty area at a goal kick to close down an opponent, before the ball has left the penalty area. In one of the first EPL games of the season, a forward (I think it was from Arsenal or Tottenham though I'm not 100% sure) who was obviously unaware of the new law, did exactly this - not once but twice. Now, the referee could have decided not to bother telling the player and just keep having the goal kicks retaken repeatedly or he could have done what he did do, which was to step in and explain quietly to the player what the new law said, and what he was doing wrong. I know which approach I think is preferable.

 

[BCMilan]

Guys. Excuse my naivety, but what would you do in this situation ? There's a promising attack and the attacking striker dribbles into the penalty area. Then, from behind the goal, the opposition fans throw objects into the penalty area. Are we supposed to award a drop ball to the goalkeeper ?

 

[one]

Guys. Excuse my naivety, but what would you do in this situation ? There's a promising attack and the attacking striker dribbles into the penalty area. Then, from behind the goal, the opposition fans throw objects into the penalty area. Are we supposed to award a drop ball to the goalkeeper ?

Do the thrown objects interfere with play? In any case i don't see how the old law is any fairer than the new one (or vice verse).



On another point, you can always rely on IFAB to explain a law change perfectly but then change the wording when it comes to putting it in the actual laws to muddy the water.

Explanation "Returning the ball to the team that last played it (had possession) restores what was ‘lost’"
Law 8: "the referee drops the ball for one player of the team that last touched the ball"

I assume they know the difference.

 

[BCMilan]

Do the thrown objects interfere with play? In any case i don't see how the old law is any fairer than the new one (or vice verse).



On another point, you can always rely on IFAB to explain a law change perfectly but then change the wording when it comes to putting it in the actual laws to muddy the water.

Explanation "Returning the ball to the team that last played it (had possession) restores what was ‘lost’"
Law 8: "the referee drops the ball for one player of the team that last touched the ball"

I assume they know the difference.

Yep. The objects directly interfered with play. They landed in front of the player that was about to take a shot !

Good point ! I'm not sure they do ? I mean, what if a player was shielding the ball. You could argue they had possession, even though they hadn't actually touched it last.

 

[one]

Yep. The objects directly interfered with play. They landed in front of the player that was about to take a shot !

Yes. Stop play and restart with a dropped ball to the keeper.

Good point ! I'm not sure they do ? I mean, what if a player was shielding the ball. You could argue they had possession, even though they hadn't actually touched it last.

Or the ball was played by a Refchat United player, rebounds off an opponent but still on it's way to ta Refchat United team mate except that it hits the referee. Dropped ball is to an opponent.

 

[zarathustra]

Yes. Stop play and restart with a dropped ball to the keeper.


Or the ball was played by a Refchat United player, rebounds off an opponent but still on it's way to ta Refchat United team mate except that it hits the referee. Dropped ball is to an opponent.

No, no droped ball in that instance, as neither team was in possession. Unless a rebound is now classed as possession.

 

[BCMilan]

No, no droped ball in that instance, as neither team was in possession. Unless a rebound is now classed as possession.

I reckon they must be classing that as possession, as they were the last one to "touch the ball". Or is it the last one that "played" it ? answers on a postcard !

 

[one]

No, no droped ball in that instance, as neither team was in possession. Unless a rebound is now classed as possession.

Edit: I misread your post.

If the ball ends up with the opponents after it hits the referee then you must drop the ball as possession has changed.

 

[zarathustra]

Edit: I misread your post.

If the ball ends up with the opponents after it hits the referee then you must drop the ball as possession has changed.
View attachment 3523

But neither team was in possession, so possession has not changed.

Team A lost possession when the ball hit the player from Team B, and Team B were never is possession as it was a rebound from their player, not a deliberate play of the ball.

 

[Peter Grove]

There's a promising attack and the attacking striker dribbles into the penalty area. Then, from behind the goal, the opposition fans throw objects into the penalty area. Are we supposed to award a drop ball to the goalkeeper?

First things first - you don't necessarily have to stop play. The law says that if an object enters the field, the referee must:

- stop play (and restart with a dropped ball) only if it interferes with play [...]
- allow play to continue if it does not interfere with play and have it removed at the earliest possible opportunity

So only in the scenario where the object(s) did interfere with play, would it be a dropped ball, but yes, under the new law it would go to the defending team's goalkeeper.

Don't forget though, it wouldn't necessarily have been too much different under the old laws. It would still have been a dropped ball, which in the vast majority of cases (and especially at higher levels) would have been dropped for the keeper, the only difference being that it would then have been punted down the other end to the opponents.

As various people have pointed out, the contested dropped ball had pretty much died a death already and this is just the IFAB's way of dealing with that reality.

 

[one]

But neither team was in possession, so possession has not changed.

Team A lost possession when the ball hit the player from Team B, and Team B were never is possession as it was a rebound from their player, not a deliberate play of the ball.

Understand what you are saying but don't agree with it. It is not in line with the general use of the word 'deflection' in other parts of the law or expectations. It is not in line with the intent of the change to the dropped ball either.

Team A has possession, Team A would have kept possession with or without the deflection off team B if it wasn't for the referee. The deflection had/would have had no impact at all. The expectation (intent of the law change) is for a dropped ball to team A. Your answer mean team B keeps the ball. Most referees follow the new law literally for a dropped ball to team B.

 

[zarathustra]

Understand what you are saying but don't agree with it. It is not in line with the general use of the word 'deflection' in other parts of the law or expectations. It is not in line with the intent of the change to the dropped ball either.

Team A has possession, Team A would have kept possession with or without the deflection off team B if it wasn't for the referee. The deflection had/would have had no impact at all. The expectation (intent of the law change) is for a dropped ball to team A. Your answer mean team B keeps the ball. Most referees follow the new law literally for a dropped ball to team B.

That makes no sense.

Team A lost possession of the ball after it hit the player from team B

Team B do not have possession of the ball, so it is, for want of a better phrase a "loose" ball so if it hits the referee there is no need for a dropped ball, as possession has not changed.

A goal keeper is not deemed to be in possession of the ball after a save or deflection, so why would team B be in possession?

 

[zarathustra]

I've emailed IFAB about this