A&H

uncontested drop ball

Tino Best

Tino Best

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
Is it me or a players having more issues with this than any other law change. I had to stop for pink player due to a head injury, and pinks had possesion. Re-start with an uncontested drop ball. Tell the nearest red players it is uncontested and they start to retreat. Pinks attack the goal while reds are just not playing, ball goes out for a goal kick. Red captain comes up to me and says we were expecting them to it play it back to us. I say all drop balls are contested I told your players before it was taken. Are you not aware of the new laws? He says yes but they almost scored. You didnt tell us it was uncontested. We need to know when it is uncontested.
Another game at another drop ball blue had possesion when play was stopped by me. I call over blue, but red comes over. I ask him to go the required distance and his reply just droop it ref Im going to knock it back to them. If i wasn't bald already I would be pulling my hair out!
 
The Referee Store
I had a drop ball for the blue team. Blue then passed it to red to kick back to the blue GK. Madness.
 
Not had issues when I've explained it to them. They seem to pick it up easier if you tell them it's their ball and they can play on with it.
 
My issue with it is it is becoming a tactical set piece. So now stopping play is almost awarding a free kick for no offence.
Also have seen and been on receiving end. Ball dropped. Then pinged 45 yards to the to the other side of the pitch and suddenly massively our of position
 
and a FK where the kicker can dribble . . . though opponents are only 4 meters away

seems to me that it works well in the defensive third and is a challenge in the attacking third (and is less of an issue in higher levels of competion where DBs are less common)

another one of the changes that seems certain to be tweaked next year

does anyone know if this one was trialed somewhere? I don't recall hearing about a trial
 
I'd be avoiding a DB in the attacking third by waiting a few seconds (hopefully) for possession to retreat a bit
 
Big Cat said:
I'd be avoiding a DB in the attacking third by waiting a few seconds (hopefully) for possession to retreat a bit
Click to expand...

I agree--when we can. We can control timing of some things, but not all.

If an attacker makes a long but poor cross that is going to end up with the GK, but a dog runs onto the field and hits the ball just outside the PA, we have no choice but to stop and give a DB right there to the attacking team right outside the PA. And that is going to make managing an IFK on the GA line look easy.
 
socal lurker said:
I agree--when we can. We can control timing of some things, but not all.

If an attacker makes a long but poor cross that is going to end up with the GK, but a dog runs onto the field and hits the ball just outside the PA, we have no choice but to stop and give a DB right there to the attacking team right outside the PA. And that is going to make managing an IFK on the GA line look easy.
Click to expand...
It shows that the Law has a flaw if we're aware of the potential issues less than a month into a new season. TBH it occurred to me after my very first DB this campaign
 
Isn't that the point of the new dropped ball law? If a team had possession in the attacking third when play was stopped, they should continue with possession in the attacking third..
 
The Referee said:
Isn't that the point of the new dropped ball law? If a team had possession in the attacking third when play was stopped, they should continue with possession in the attacking third..
Click to expand...

Yes, but . . .

The DB law doesn't require possession, it pertains to last touch--my scenario was pretty clear that that there would not be possession by the attacking team. And the DB can create a level of control that can take mere possession and turn it into a scoring opportunity.

Most of the time the new DB law is going to do a better job of re-establishing the prior setting. But at the edges it creates advantages that really aren't intended.

I'm not getting too worked up--there will be tweaks next year.
 
socal lurker said:
Yes, but . . .

The DB law doesn't require possession, it pertains to last touch--my scenario was pretty clear that that there would not be possession by the attacking team. And the DB can create a level of control that can take mere possession and turn it into a scoring opportunity.

Most of the time the new DB law is going to do a better job of re-establishing the prior setting. But at the edges it creates advantages that really aren't intended.

I'm not getting too worked up--there will be tweaks next year.
Click to expand...
Hopefully, teams won't forget that they can kick the ball back to the opposition in these situations which has been tradition for many decades.
 
The Referee said:
Hopefully, teams won't forget that they can kick the ball back to the opposition in these situations which has been tradition for many decades.
Click to expand...
That would defy the whole point of the change -to avoid manufactured restarts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
JamesL said:
That would defy the whole point of the change -to avoid manufactured restarts.
Click to expand...
Teams have deliberately kicked PKs wide when there's a guaranteed clean tackle and no foul, because it's a sporting thing to do when you've been given an opportunity you didn't deserve and didn't have before.
This is entirely different from a player of the team who should have possession and use it, kicking it to someone else to be kicked back to the goalkeeper to be kicked to the original player, and wasting time in the process.
 
Nij said:
Teams have deliberately kicked PKs wide when there's a guaranteed clean tackle and no foul, because it's a sporting thing to do when you've been given an opportunity you didn't deserve and didn't have before.
Click to expand...
Literally never seen or heard of this happening before.
Nij said:
This is entirely different from a player of the team who should have possession and use it, kicking it to someone else to be kicked back to the goalkeeper to be kicked to the original player, and wasting time in the process.
Click to expand...
I dont know if you are arguing with or against me here.

Tbh the new system works in that it gets play moving again. We as referees just need to be careful around tactical impact of our decision to stop play. For now it's going to have to be for head injuries or obviously serious injuries. Might also, in time, stop players feigning injury to have play stopped.
 
The Referee said:
Hopefully, teams won't forget that they can kick the ball back to the opposition in these situations which has been tradition for many decades.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. While there are isolated stories of deliberately missed PKs or teams letting the other team score, they are isolated. I think it is going to be very rare that teams are going to give the ball back on DBs--at least once they actually understand the law changed.
 
Nij said:
And didn't even put "deliberate miss penalty" into Google to check whether it indeed does?
Click to expand...
Well, no. You say it like its a common thing to happen. But like I say I couldnt ever recall an incident.

A quick Google suggests it's not really very prevalent. A Danish player in 2003 and another one in 190 something. Other than that some Gatasary u14 lad dominates the articles and you'll have to forgive me for not keeping up with Turkish U14 football....

Yes we need fair play. But, the main reason for dropped balls are injuries. And players all to often feign injury to influence play to stop. There are far far more examples of players not acting in a fair play manner than there are that do exercise fair play
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top