The Ref Stop

Luton v Wimbledon

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

C

CaptainsPlease

Level 3W and
Level 4 Referee
49th minute, Luton kick ball which deflects off the referee and is clearly going to Wimbledon's possession. Referee drops to wrong team (Luton) and from the wrong position under the updated law?
Caveat: watching without sound so not sure when the whistle went, but to drop from that position would have had to have blown too early anyway.
 
The Ref Stop
Spoiler: Yes it really is that bad a game that these are the talking points.

Going to be a long season at this rate.
 
Really poor example of the 8 second rule at the end there. Keeper parries a ball in the box, takes 3/4 steps and then does the Pickford knees to the floor in the motion of picking it up. Gets up snd runs toward an attacker and complains there’s a striker there before the referee finally puts his hand in the air
 
CaptainsPlease said:
49th minute, Luton kick ball which deflects off the referee and is clearly going to Wimbledon's possession. Referee drops to wrong team (Luton) and from the wrong position under the updated law?
Caveat: watching without sound so not sure when the whistle went, but to drop from that position would have had to have blown too early anyway.
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen this incident but (based on the explanatory video on the IFAB website) if the only reason it was going to a Wimbledon player was the deflection off the referee) then a drop ball to Luton remains correct. And the location of the DB should (I THINK 🤔) be where the ball hit the referee, which is where it is deemed to have gone out of play.

Overall, in the effort to sort out fair DBs in injury situations, I think the ball hitting officials situation might have ended up as collateral damage / complexity 🙄

Law changes | IFAB

www.theifab.com www.theifab.com
 
Russell Jones said:
I haven’t seen this incident but (based on the explanatory video on the IFAB website) if the only reason it was going to a Wimbledon player was the deflection off the referee) then a drop ball to Luton remains correct. And the location of the DB should (I THINK 🤔) be where the ball hit the referee, which is where it is deemed to have gone out of play.

Overall, in the effort to sort out fair DBs in injury situations, I think the ball hitting officials situation might have ended up as collateral damage / complexity 🙄

Law changes | IFAB

www.theifab.com www.theifab.com
Click to expand...
IFAB's FAQ in Law 9 confirms it has changed.

A ball touches a match official (outside the penalty area), remains on the field of play and the team in possession of the ball changes. What is the referee's decision?

The ball is out of play and play is restarted with a dropped ball for the team that would have gained possession, if that is clear; otherwise to the team that last touched the ball. The ball is dropped at its position when play was stopped.
Click to expand...
 
CaptainsPlease said:
IFAB's FAQ in Law 9 confirms it has changed.
Click to expand...
But the video at the link makes clear that the team that gets the DB is the one that would have got possession had the ball not hit the referee. Which makes complete sense given that the sole reason we are having a drop ball in this situation is to avoid an unfair change of possession.

I see these situations being confusing / problematic for the initial period of the season 😐
 
Russell Jones said:
But the video at the link makes clear that the team that gets the DB is the one that would have got possession had the ball not hit the referee. Which makes complete sense given that the sole reason we are having a drop ball in this situation is to avoid an unfair change of possession.

I see these situations being confusing / problematic for the initial period of the season 😐
Click to expand...
Exactly this. If the ball hits the referee and this results in a change of possession that otherwise would not have occurred it makes zero sense that we would then give the ball to the team that profited from the touch of the match official, unless it was clearly going to the opposition anyway had the match official not interfered.
 
Russell Jones said:
But the video at the link makes clear that the team that gets the DB is the one that would have got possession had the ball not hit the referee. Which makes complete sense given that the sole reason we are having a drop ball in this situation is to avoid an unfair change of possession.

I see these situations being confusing / problematic for the initial period of the season 😐
Click to expand...
I can't see any video, have you put the wrong link?
JamesL said:
Exactly this. If the ball hits the referee and this results in a change of possession that otherwise would not have occurred it makes zero sense that we would then give the ball to the team that profited from the touch of the match official, unless it was clearly going to the opposition anyway had the match official not interfered.
Click to expand...
It would make some sense if the intention of the law is to prevent sudden counter-attacks. i.e. ball hits referee leading to a change of possession, everyone gets a chance to set up again even if it is a different team with the ball now.

Annoyingly the law text and the FAQ answer are both ambiguous.

The FAQ answer does not simply say the ball is dropped for the team that received it following the contact with the match official, so I think your interpretation is probably how it is intended.

Law 9 says the ball is out of play once the possession has changed, and Law 8 now says we should drop to the team that has or is gaining possession when play was stopped. This implies that the ball is never given back to the team that last touched it in this scenario.

The text does not make clear that the moment when play is stopped matters for the position of the ball, but not for who the ball is dropped for in this scenario.

I'm going to get in touch with IFAB because I think at the very least the FAQ needs to be clearer.
 
Last edited:
I really don’t think it is unclear. It’s the team that would have gained possession if the ball hadn’t hit the ref. The concept is utterly simple fairness idea—the team doesn’t get the ball back by bouncing if off the ref when it was going to the other team. But implementation is not going to be so easy as it is a very subjective call for a ref.
 
socal lurker said:
I really don’t think it is unclear. It’s the team that would have gained possession if the ball hadn’t hit the ref. The concept is utterly simple fairness idea—the team doesn’t get the ball back by bouncing if off the ref when it was going to the other team. But implementation is not going to be so easy as it is a very subjective call for a ref.
Click to expand...
I'm happy with this being the intention, as it is absolutely fair, but I don't see how the Law 8/9 text written as it is actually tells us that.
I think Law 8.2 needs a tidbit adding to disregard contact between ball and ref when determining possession.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
I'm happy with this being the intention, as it is absolutely fair, but I don't see how the Law 8/9 text written as it is actually tells us that.
I think Law 8.2 needs a tidbit adding to disregard contact between ball and ref when determining possession.
Click to expand...
The language is “would have” not “did.” We know who the ball did go to after it hit the ref, the judgment, which may not be clear is who it would have gone to if it hadn’t hit the ref. I’m among the first to criticize IFQB’s usual poor use of language, but I really don’t see a lot of ambiguity here, especially when one uses context to understand it. Sure, it could be better, but it is far from the worst of IFAB’s drafting offenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top