Manchester City Women vs Arsenal Women

[Russell Jones]

Whilst you're right @Anubis , the thing we need to be careful of is being 'ultra safe' "just in case". IFAB had every opportunity to decide that EVERY touch of the ball by a match official would result in a drop ball. They consciously chose not to do this and instead chose to specify a limited range of situations where a drop ball should occur .. we should all try and stick to this for consistency's sake. The challenge for our decision making will be exactly as it is when we have to decide what is an SPA caution

 

[one]

The closest we get to a definition is advantage which is a "few seconds".

Actually I disagree with this. The closest we get is when a non deliberate handball creates a GSO. This was wrongly interpreted and referees went back to handball even if GSO was created many seconds after the handball. The laws fixed this by adding the word 'immidiately' now. I would hope a similar clarification would be added for the case of ball touching the referee.

What does football expect? My guess is most of football expects a dropped ball,

Again this is easy in hindsight as a goal was scored. Had the referee stopped play, not knowing the eventual outcome, many including in this forum would have argued the referee should have allowed play to continue because that is what football expects as they had posession and maintained posession in their own half.

 

[Anubis]

Whilst you're right @Anubis , the thing we need to be careful of is being 'ultra safe' "just in case". IFAB had every opportunity to decide that EVERY touch of the ball by a match official would result in a drop ball. They consciously chose not to do this and instead chose to specify a limited range of situations where a drop ball should occur .. we should all try and stick to this for consistency's sake. The challenge for our decision making will be exactly as it is when we have to decide what is an SPA caution

Absolutely. As we know, its not in type but my play ons would be the short pass am maybe too close to, that goes back to the kicker, someone neutral, but not attacking third.

or, kinda similar to the clip, say right full back passing to left back, ball hits me in middle and rolls to centre half ( if we imagine a picture perfect formation)

the clip sees the ball roll into acres of space, a fair distance travelled, throw in also the confused now positions of the opponents.

 

[Kent Ref]

For me it's a dropped ball.

 

[JamesL]

Actually I disagree with this. The closest we get is when a non deliberate handball creates a GSO. This was wrongly interpreted and referees went back to handball even if GSO was created many seconds after the handball. The laws fixed this by adding the word 'immidiately' now. I would hope a similar clarification would be added for the case of ball touching the referee.



Again this is easy in hindsight as a goal was scored. Had the referee stopped play, not knowing the eventual outcome, many including in this forum would have argued the referee should have allowed play to continue because that is what football expects as they had posession and maintained posession in their own half.

Again, as I alluded to, others will have other scenarios which they feel are better suited. Your list only serves to back up my point. Although, I do still disagree with your interpretation as creating a scoring chance and starting a promising attack are very different principles and I think actually a very quick wait and see (a la advantage) is needed to wpkr out if we have a promising attack or not.

Had the referee awarded a dropped ball it wouldn't have even made it on here as a thread I wouldn't have thought. In fact I wouldn't have even known this game was being played.

 

[RustyRef]

The other thing to think about here is what would any observer say if she immediately stopped play. The players would all stop, play wouldn't have changed possession and there would be no question of a promising attack. They might be saying why has she stopped play when possession hasn't changed and Man City are in their own half. Perhaps not on the WSL with the video observation, but at lower levels it might well look a bit dodgy.

The only thing they could really do is say that if an attack subsequently develops within x seconds it can be brought back, but I don't think she could bring it back after around 10 seconds when it became really, really obvious that it was a very promising attack. Interestingly they have been discussing this on TalkSport, all the presenters and pundits are backing the referee, as did Mark Halsey, and are instead criticising the Arsenal manager for his outburst. That might possibly challenge the earlier assumption that "football expects" play to be stopped.

 

[JamesL]

The other thing to think about here is what would any observer say if she immediately stopped play. The players would all stop, play wouldn't have changed possession and there would be no question of a promising attack. They might be saying why has she stopped play when possession hasn't changed and Man City are in their own half. Perhaps not on the WSL with the video observation, but at lower levels it might well look a bit dodgy.

The only thing they could really do is say that if an attack subsequently develops within x seconds it can be brought back, but I don't think she could bring it back after around 10 seconds when it became really, really obvious that it was a very promising attack. Interestingly they have been discussing this on TalkSport, all the presenters and pundits are backing the referee, as did Mark Halsey, and are instead criticising the Arsenal manager for his outburst. That might possibly challenge the earlier assumption that "football expects" play to be stopped.

That assumption is only made based on my own games where if I don't stop play when it hits me I get around 28 very Confused players and 7 or 8 confused technical area occupants.

Based on law there are a myriad of possible outcomes here as detailed in that very same post. The time elapsed is irrelevant as there is none specified. It simply. Say starts a promising attack. With the benefit of seeing the outcome of said attack how anyone can say that it wasn't a promising attack is kidding themself.
If the referee realises an error before play restarts she really could bring that back to the dropped ball. Yes an even harder sell and we'd probably all debate that back an too as well.
All down to opinion of the referee on the day and how they saw it...
To be fair it was 10 seconds til the ball was in the goal it was probably 5ish before it became very obvious a promising attack was ensuing.

 

[RefIADad]

This is obviously an area where erring on the side of caution is the best course of action. For me, if the ball hits me, changes direction, and goes to another player, I'm just going to stop the game and award a dropped ball. I realize that this "overly safe refereeing" and not completely within the letter of the law, but when the ball hits me and changes direction I'm going to have a bunch of people anticipate stopping the game and awarding a dropped ball.

Here's another situation that, fortunately, hasn't happened to me yet: Attackers play a ball, and the ball touches me but doesn't have any impact on the play. The ball doesn't change direction, speed, or spin. It then goes to another attacker for a promising attack.

By the letter of the law, we could stop the game here even though the ball touching me had zero impact on the game. In fact, it's likely here that no one except me even knows that it has hit me.

If I were the Emperor of Soccer and could change this ruling (in theory), I'd change the Law wording to say that we award a dropped ball anytime the ball hits the official and "materially" impacts the game. I realize that this adds subjectivity into the decision of when to stop the match, but I like this because 1) it gives the referee more leeway to stop the match if he/she feels the touch impacted the game and 2) removes the idea of a promising attack, change of possession, ball going out of bounds, etc. For me, it simplifies the matter of stopping the match. It also removes the ambiguity of situations like in the Man City-Arsenal match or the situation I've outlined. If a Law like this were in place, I'd just stop the match any time the ball hit me and didn't go where it was intended.

 

[RustyRef]

That assumption is only made based on my own games where if I don't stop play when it hits me I get around 28 very Confused players and 7 or 8 confused technical area occupants.

Based on law there are a myriad of possible outcomes here as detailed in that very same post. The time elapsed is irrelevant as there is none specified. It simply. Say starts a promising attack. With the benefit of seeing the outcome of said attack how anyone can say that it wasn't a promising attack is kidding themself.
If the referee realises an error before play restarts she really could bring that back to the dropped ball. Yes an even harder sell and we'd probably all debate that back an too as well.
All down to opinion of the referee on the day and how they saw it...
To be fair it was 10 seconds til the ball was in the goal it was probably 5ish before it became very obvious a promising attack was ensuing.

I think the really defining moment is when the Arsenal defender stupidly dives in, and that is probably around 10 seconds from when it hit the referee.

Agree though, all down to opinions.

 

[socal lurker]

Here's another situation that, fortunately, hasn't happened to me yet: Attackers play a ball, and the ball touches me but doesn't have any impact on the play. The ball doesn't change direction, speed, or spin. It then goes to another attacker for a promising attack.

By the letter of the law, we could stop the game here even though the ball touching me had zero impact on the game. In fact, it's likely here that no one except me even knows that it has hit me.

Just make sure you make better contact with ball!

 

[Ben448844]

Had this on Saturday in the same position with a FIFA & WSL referee observing me. Almost identical. Blew up when I saw the team on the ball have what was clearly going to be an obvious PA. Was unsure if I'd get picked up for being incorrect in law but its a very easy one to explain why you stopped the game. Very glad I didn't overthink things and just blew up because it was the lesser of two evils. I have played on before and tried explaining the law but nobody cares and your match control has already taken a small blow at least. Blow up, apologise and take time out of the game whilst you do it for all to calm down and I always drop the ball to the side of a player if it's in an attacking situation, especially if there's a player free behind them as they will pass it backwards to them 9 times out of 10 and then the games moved on with no goal involvement from me.

 

[RustyRef]

Putting another angle on this that hasn't been covered, when the pass is made and as the ball hits her the referee is rightly facing play, she has no idea what is going on behind her. Given this she has absolutely no idea that the Arsenal midfielder would have probably intercepted the pass had the ball not hit her and deflected backwards. You can only see this from TV replays, and I still maintain that almost every referee would have played on in real time there. Almost everyone that has said play should have been stopped has said it was because the Arsenal player would have intercepted, but there is zero chance the referee could have possibly known this unless she has eyes in the back of her head or an AR or 4th official steps in.

 

[socal lurker]

Almost everyone that has said play should have been stopped has said it was because the Arsenal player would have intercepted, but there is zero chance the referee could have possibly known this unless she has eyes in the back of her head or an AR or 4th official steps in.

Not to mention that "it would have been intercepted" is irrelevant to the criteria on whether to stop as Manchester last touched at the time it hit the ref. The only relevant question is whether Manchester started a promising attack.

 

[Peter Grove]

For me, if the ball hits me, changes direction, and goes to another player, I'm just going to stop the game and award a dropped ball.

If you're saying you would always stop play simply because the ball goes to a different player regardless of which team they're on, then that would be wrong in law. You should only stop play if the other player is on the opposing team (or one of the other conditions is met).

Overall, I think there's a lot of people here using hindsight to justify what they think the decision should have been.

Of course we can say now that a promising attack ensued (because a goal was scored) but at the precise moment the ball hit referee I don't think anyone could have predicted that the attack was going anywhere.

I think there's also an argument that from the referees perspective it would have looked as though an attacking City move that was already under way with a ball being played forward through midfield, was simply redirected by the ball being deflected slightly backwards and out onto the wing.

For me, it just wouldn't have been sufficiently clear to the referee at the moment the ball deflected off her, that a separate, new promising attack was started, rather than an already ongoing attack just continuing from a different angle.

Just to address another point about the gesture the referee made, it was quite clearly to indicate that the ball had gone to a Man City player. A point made by the commentator on the BBC Women's Football Show precisely when it happened.

 

[Justylove]

Regardless of my views on her stopping the game or not, I do feel sorry for the ref here. I think we've all been in situations where something has happened and we've made a decision that in hindsight we would have

Putting another angle on this that hasn't been covered, when the pass is made and as the ball hits her the referee is rightly facing play, she has no idea what is going on behind her. Given this she has absolutely no idea that the Arsenal midfielder would have probably intercepted the pass had the ball not hit her and deflected backwards. You can only see this from TV replays, and I still maintain that almost every referee would have played on in real time there. Almost everyone that has said play should have been stopped has said it was because the Arsenal player would have intercepted, but there is zero chance the referee could have possibly known this unless she has eyes in the back of her head or an AR or 4th official steps in.

Think I covered it in an earlier post. AR and 4th have a great view and on Comms could have been clear. It might have been messy, but it would have been safe refereeing.

I feel for the referee, we've all been there where you've had that "ohh ****" moment and hope beyond hope that nothing comes of it, and then invariably it does and the ball ends up in the net or you have a big KMI to deal with in the next phase.

 

[PinnerPaul]

So how long do we wait? 2, 3, 5, 10? Sure the deflection wrong footed an arsenal player but it doesn't start a promising attack. It merely starts a run of the mill attack. The next pass doesn't even start it, it's the actions of the defender diving in that creates it.

Try selling the difference between "run of the mill" and "promising" to the players

Think you're over thinking it, with all due respect.

 

[PinnerPaul]

I think it is very difficult to say this created a promising attack. In their own half, sends the ball backwards, not sure any referee here would have alarm bells ringing telling them to stop play. Of course they would be ringing loud and clear ten seconds later, but you can't then go back and give a dropped ball after the goal has been scored. I don't think I'd be stopping this at the time, but I then probably wish I had after the goal was scored. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Can't agree for once, as others have said its gone form being a ball heading to the centre circle to be contested by two opposing players who have a roughly equal chance of winning it, to a player with no one around her and half the pitch into which she can progress.

The location of Arsenal's left side players and their 'poor play' is immaterial, they are not there, therefore it IS a promising attack and becomes one as soon as the Man City player collects the ball, no hindsight needed IMHO.

 

[PinnerPaul]

Putting another angle on this that hasn't been covered, when the pass is made and as the ball hits her the referee is rightly facing play, she has no idea what is going on behind her. Given this she has absolutely no idea that the Arsenal midfielder would have probably intercepted the pass had the ball not hit her and deflected backwards. You can only see this from TV replays, and I still maintain that almost every referee would have played on in real time there. Almost everyone that has said play should have been stopped has said it was because the Arsenal player would have intercepted, but there is zero chance the referee could have possibly known this unless she has eyes in the back of her head or an AR or 4th official steps in.

Yep that's a fair point, at ground level the change in the 'promising'ishness of the attack may not have been as 'obvious' as the TV pictures make it appear.

 

[es1]

Try selling the difference between "run of the mill" and "promising" to the players

Think you're over thinking it, with all due respect.

i get where you're coming from but i don't agree, imagine you give it and someone's clued up on the laws...try explaining how the ball with the left back in their own half is a promising attack

 

[Anubis]

i get where you're coming from but i don't agree, imagine you give it and someone's clued up on the laws...try explaining how the ball with the left back in their own half is a promising attack

Easier than saying a promising attack equates to the left winger being fouled in the left wing position

The player who gets the ball has acres of free space to run into, ball under control


Which leaves us an unwritten guide of, must be central and forward to a central attacking player, which of course is incorrect too