The Ref Stop

Dropped Ball

zarathustra said:
Not sure, but in my example do you think it would be fair and in the spirit of the game that team B get possession simply because the ball hit one of the players on the back of his head and then hit the referee?

My argument for the scenario I sent to IFAB is that neither team had possession, so there would be no need to award a dropped ball in the first place.

Team A lost possession when the pass was misskicked, and team B never had possession because all it did was hit one of their players.

All we really need to do is avoid getting hit by the ball, but you know that there will be a time when an edge case like this happens and no one will be happy with the outcome
Click to expand...
That's my point. When the ball hits the referee, there are no other options between "give DB to last team touched" and "don't give DB to last team touched, do [other procedure] instead". The first one solves more problems more often with simpler language, the second creates more problems more often and would require complicated language to resolve, and would end up half the time becoming "give DB" anyway.
As things go, the "unfairness" of being awarded the DB for having it sconed into the back of your head is nothing compared to the absolute mess that would be needed to sort it out any other way.
 
The Ref Stop
Nij said:
That's my point. When the ball hits the referee, there are no other options between "give DB to last team touched" and "don't give DB to last team touched, do [other procedure] instead". The first one solves more problems more often with simpler language, the second creates more problems more often and would require complicated language to resolve, and would end up half the time becoming "give DB" anyway.
As things go, the "unfairness" of being awarded the DB for having it sconed into the back of your head is nothing compared to the absolute mess that would be needed to sort it out any other way.
Click to expand...
True
 
Nij said:
Clearly if a team gains possession from the ball hitting the referee, they may have gained an advantage from doing so,
Click to expand...
Not if they would have received the ball even if it hadn't hit the referee, possibly even in better position.

Nij said:
So, what would you have the laws say instead?
Click to expand...
I can tell you what would be a fair outcome (not necessarily what the the law should say). It is for "the ball to be dropped to the team who would have had posession of the ball had it not contacted the referee". Using it in the laws however could be problematic and would need speculation from the referee.
 
This does all seem to be a huge fuss over nothing. For about 140 years we have happily given a throw-in (and a change of possession) to the team that didn't touch the ball last. No complaints about the unfairness of this. The idea of Law 15 is that the team that puts the ball over the touch line loses possession. But according to the way you all argue over the new Dropped Ball, if team A boot the ball towards the side line and it just happens to flick off a player from team B then why should team B lose possession (by team A getting a Throw-in) when according to the arguments here team B never really had possession at all, so why should they lose it? Players deliberately blast the ball at opponents to win a throw. No one moans about the inherent unfairness of this. And so with the new dropped ball. It's just a rule to find out who gets the ball back. Get over it.
 
Apples and oranges. I'd throw a pear in there too. Do the 'last touched' comparison for offside now. Not really the same thing.

For me it's not about 'not being over it'. It's forum to debate about it and the more we do the more we understand it and can apply it the way the laws intend it (and sometime word it as such :) ). And that goes for every law.
 
one said:
Not if they would have received the ball even if it hadn't hit the referee, possibly even in better position.

I can tell you what would be a fair outcome (not necessarily what the the law should say). It is for "the ball to be dropped to the team who would have had posession of the ball had it not contacted the referee". Using it in the laws however could be problematic and would need speculation from the referee.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly what I said in the first place. We have enough trouble with wording handball in a way that is fair and unambiguous, even though the concept of handball is no more complicated (and probably less so) than the concept of offside.
I'd like to see actual numbers to make the firm conclusion, but if it's determined that in most cases (strict majority suits me, maybe others would prefer a greater margin) the last team to touch the ball would have gained possession next but for the touch of the referee, or that the majority of situations of ball touching referee result in change of possession, why not simplify it down to that and give ourselves an objective unambiguous decision, instead of one more complicated law that ends up just being ITOOTR anyway? I'm not opposed to more leeway for referee decisions to ensure SOTG, but football works on adherence to LOTG first.
 
RobOda said:
Depends how many ref's get hit!

They won't change it if there's not enough issues with it. :)
Click to expand...
Actually, it depends on how much money a team loses in a high profile televised game when there is an unfair outcome applying the law. Then everyone is up in arms about the problem in the law. Then a knee-jerk reaction to change the law so that specific scenario is fixed. And then comes the other scenarios that the new wording breaks.

Sigh, I know the cynic in me has revealed itself again.
 
Had an incident yesterday, Red team running through but across the yellow penalty area, not sure if they lose control of the ball or tried a pass, but it hits me the referee, goes to no one in particular bobbles around various players and ends up with a red player again who fires in a cross.

Few comments about, that should be our ball ref its the new law. I reviewed the LotG afterwards and still think playon was the correct decision but putting it out there for further comment
 
Not very clear but If it was the the penalty area and the cross was a promising attack then it should have been a drop to the keeper.
 
one said:
Not very clear but If it was the the penalty area and the cross was a promising attack then it should have been a drop to the keeper.
Click to expand...

The ball hit me, it didn't start a promising attack, possession didn't get turned over and the ball ended up with a red player who was able to play in a cross. It was kind of a wait and see scenario or are we expected to make the decision as soon as the ball hits us?
 
boblardo said:
The ball hit me, it didn't start a promising attack, possession didn't get turned over and the ball ended up with a red player who was able to play in a cross. It was kind of a wait and see scenario or are we expected to make the decision as soon as the ball hits us?
Click to expand...
I believe the drop ball only comes into effect if possession changes.
 
boblardo said:
are we expected to make the decision as soon as the ball hits us?
Click to expand...
This is a new law so there is no "football expects". What we do in the next year or two sets the expectations. For me you would wait a moment or two for assessing a promising attack. Something like a wait for advantage.
 
Worth trying REALLY hard not to get hit by a ball played by an attacker on those rare occasions when we venture into the Penalty Area . The understandable annoyance when that ball gets dropped to the GK will certainly challenge match control!
 
Had an incident a couple of weeks ago which left me in a bit of doubt.

Sustained attack following a corner, attempted clearance hits attacking player in the head and she goes down, ball bounces to attacking player just outside the box, but I stop play for a head injury.

I know play should restart with a dropped ball to the attacking team but I didn’t, given it would have been at the edge of the box. Rightly or wrongly at the time I dropped the ball to the keeper to no complaints from anyone.

I know I was wrong to do that by law but what would anyone else have done? A dropped ball to start a promising attack seemed a bit controversial!
 
Eddie said:
Had an incident a couple of weeks ago which left me in a bit of doubt.

Sustained attack following a corner, attempted clearance hits attacking player in the head and she goes down, ball bounces to attacking player just outside the box, but I stop play for a head injury.

I know play should restart with a dropped ball to the attacking team but I didn’t, given it would have been at the edge of the box. Rightly or wrongly at the time I dropped the ball to the keeper to no complaints from anyone.

I know I was wrong to do that by law but what would anyone else have done? A dropped ball to start a promising attack seemed a bit controversial!
Click to expand...

I would probably have waited a couple of seconds for the ball to go into the area (so the keeper can have the drop ball) or to go away from the edge of the area to a more neutral zone (so the drop ball is in a less promising position) which avoids any complaints when restarting.
 
Eddie said:
Had an incident a couple of weeks ago which left me in a bit of doubt.

Sustained attack following a corner, attempted clearance hits attacking player in the head and she goes down, ball bounces to attacking player just outside the box, but I stop play for a head injury.

I know play should restart with a dropped ball to the attacking team but I didn’t, given it would have been at the edge of the box. Rightly or wrongly at the time I dropped the ball to the keeper to no complaints from anyone.

I know I was wrong to do that by law but what would anyone else have done? A dropped ball to start a promising attack seemed a bit controversial!
Click to expand...
I don't know untill it happens to me. We are still on old laws but thanks for sharing. This is one case when I would learn from other people's experience. Knowing this know, I would try and either be quicker while the ball is still in the area or wait a bit longer if possible to make it a fairer dropped ball.

Having said that, the attacker having the ball on the edge and getting it back on the edge isn't that unfair unless he was being closely challenged when you stopped the game.
 
alexgr said:
I would probably have waited a couple of seconds for the ball to go into the area (so the keeper can have the drop ball) or to go away from the edge of the area to a more neutral zone (so the drop ball is in a less promising position) which avoids any complaints when restarting.
Click to expand...

Ok so regardless of who’s in possession, play being stopped for an injury, for example, would always result in the defending keeper being given the dropped ball?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top