The Ref Stop

Dutch Referee Blog - Laws of the Game Quiz #06 of 2026-2027

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jan ter Harmsel
  • Start date Start date

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

The Laws of the Game Quiz #06 of 2026-2027 is ready. This quiz has again 5 videos. Let me know what you prefer the most, now I’ve tried a couple of different quizzes on [email protected]. You can participate on the embedded form below or directly on Google Forms. Do the quiz in Google Forms Do the quiz Laden…

Continue reading...
 
Click to expand...
The Ref Stop
Q5 makes for good discussions. Maybe give it a few days (as to not spoil the 'video analysis' quiz) and I will post a question.
 
I have no questions. I thought all the answers were completely obvious 🐈
This was an entry level test. I shall await Jan posting something a bit more challenging
 
Ok, here we go for question 5. Allowing the goal, which is the answer for the quizz, is the easiest decision to sell and probably the fairest outcome. But given this is a laws of the game question, is it the correct answer in law, or would it even be incorrect in law? Here is the relevant law (or at least one of them)

1000049505.jpg
 
one said:
Ok, here we go for question 5. Allowing the goal, which is the answer for the quizz, is the easiest decision to sell and probably the fairest outcome. But given this is a laws of the game question, is it the correct answer in law, or would it even be incorrect in law? Here is the relevant law (or at least one of them)

View attachment 8906
Click to expand...
I inferred that it was akin to a defending player throwing or kicking an object at the ball in an unsuccessful attempt at DOGSO, and that advantage could be played as doing so benefited the other side. Although yes, in this case the object was a ball, which is otherwise explicitly defined in your excerpt. I went with the 'Laws cannot handle every situation' mentality
 
Big Cat said:
I inferred that it was akin to a defending player throwing or kicking an object at the ball in an unsuccessful attempt at DOGSO, and that advantage could be played as doing so benefited the other side. Although yes, in this case the object was a ball, which is otherwise explicitly defined in your excerpt. I went with the 'Laws cannot handle every situation' mentality
Click to expand...
What would you do if, hypothetically but in a similar scenario, the 'play ball' was on its way out narrowly missing the goal but the extra ball that was kicked by a player from the defending team actually hits the 'play ball' changing its course into goal?
 
one said:
What would you do if, hypothetically but in a similar scenario, the 'play ball' was on its way out narrowly missing the goal but the extra ball that was kicked by a player from the defending team actually hits the 'play ball' changing its course into goal?
Click to expand...
Run to the changing rooms to call you!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: one
one said:
What would you do if, hypothetically but in a similar scenario, the 'play ball' was on its way out narrowly missing the goal but the extra ball that was kicked by a player from the defending team actually hits the 'play ball' changing its course into goal?
Click to expand...

Great hypo. I think I’m going with USB on the defender, considering the ball an extension of the player (akin to a thrown object), and playing advantage to allow the goal.
 
socal lurker said:
Great hypo. I think I’m going with USB on the defender, considering the ball an extension of the player (akin to a thrown object), and playing advantage to allow the goal.
Click to expand...
Not sure if I agree with you there on allowing the goal. The 'extension' was facilitated by the outside interference. For me this is a much more clear cut case of outside interference compared to Q5 clip with not much room for interpretation.
What if the extra ball was thrown/kicked by a defending substitute directly from outside the field of play?

For Q5 clip, I'd still allow the goal but not for the reason stated in the quizz (which in my opinion would be an error in law). I would form the opinion that there was no interference from the extra ball and allow play to continue.
 
I guess it depends on how you exactly picture the scenario. In getting my answer, I was picturing the defender deliberately kicking the ball at the forward/real ball in an effort to interfere, I think it holds up in that context. If it’s a defender who was impacted by the ball and just kicks it away, then I agree it would be improper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top