bobzy Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 2 minutes ago, bobzy said: Do we actually know what the rule is regarding another ball being on pitch? OK, I looked, and it's not this: 16 minutes ago, blandy said: I can’t believe we’re having this (friendly) chat. A second ball on the pitch is a thing that’s covered clearly and directly in the laws of the game. Stop play. That’s the basic simple thing that the ref massively messed up. The rule is actually: "If an extra ball, other object or animal enters the field of play during the match, the referee must stop the match only if it interferes with play. Play must be restarted by a dropped ball from the position of the match ball when play was stopped, unless play was stopped inside the goal area, in which case the referee drops the ball on the goal area line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the ball was located when play was stopped. If an extra ball, other object or animal enters the field of play during the match without interfering with play, the referee must have it removed at the earliest possible opportunity" ...and it could absolutely be deemed to be interfering given it's proximity to the player running forward, but I'm not sure it's actually interfering. It's stopped dead, everyone can see that isn't the ball which is being played with and no-one is remotely put off by it. I guess the question is whether the ref should stop playing as the defender kicks it (because it's then interfering with play) or whether he gives the penalty for the defender using the ball as an illegal object - and he went for the latter. It's sort of like that disallowed goal at the Euros for Netherlands(?) which was given offside because there was a player somewhere near the goalkeeper, but not impacting him. I didn't think it should've been given as offside, plenty of others thought it should have been (and it was). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 (edited) Just now, Zatman said: Yeah the game ia stopped for a drop ball As above, this isn't actually the rule. Edited July 22 by bobzy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 23 Moderator Share Posted July 23 12 hours ago, bobzy said: The rule is : "If an extra ball, other object or animal enters the field of play during the match, the referee must stop the match only if it interferes with play. Play must be restarted by a dropped ball from the position of the match ball when play was stopped, unless play was stopped inside the goal area, in which case the referee drops the ball on the goal area line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the ball was located when play was stopped….. ...and it could absolutely be deemed to be interfering given it's proximity to the player running forward, but I'm not sure it's actually interfering. It's stopped dead, everyone can see that isn't the ball which is being played with and no-one is remotely put off by it. I guess the question is whether the ref should stop playing as the defender kicks it (because it's then interfering with play) or whether he gives the penalty for the defender using the ball as an illegal object - and he went for the latter. When the rogue ball was first thrown on and the play was elsewhere (in midfield) it’s not interfering, but once the attacker, defender and match ball are, what, a few feet away and in the case of the defender in his path, that’s when the ref should have stopped play. That the defender is so close to the rogue ball he can and does kick it, it’s absolutely interfering. Sure he didn’t have to kick it and could have avoided it instead, but the rogue ball is directly in the area of action. He’s got to stop the game there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 (edited) 20 hours ago, blandy said: When the rogue ball was first thrown on and the play was elsewhere (in midfield) it’s not interfering, but once the attacker, defender and match ball are, what, a few feet away and in the case of the defender in his path, that’s when the ref should have stopped play. That the defender is so close to the rogue ball he can and does kick it, it’s absolutely interfering. Sure he didn’t have to kick it and could have avoided it instead, but the rogue ball is directly in the area of action. He’s got to stop the game there. He should do, but there's also a rule about unsporting behaviour too. Maybe ref concluded it wasn't interfering because the defender had no other means of tackling the player, and then by kicking it the defender made it become an intefering object. At that point, that's unsporting behaviour, and denial of a goal scoring opportunity. It's a subjective call whether it is interfering or not before the player kicks it. For my two cents, I think it does block the defenders run which is why he then kicks it, so even though defender probably couldn't tackle the attacker, he's got no opportunity to even try, so not a penalty in my view. Edited July 24 by MrBlack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
il_serpente Posted July 24 VT Supporter Share Posted July 24 Pretty simple, really. A second ball is on the pitch in close proximity to where the match ball is. It's interfering, period. Second, a defender should not have to dodge a rogue ball in order to defend against an attacker. Question for those of you supporting the penalty decision: If the defender had not kicked the ball and had to jump over it or go around it, do you contend that the ball did not interfere with his ability to defend? Unless you're making that argument, which is a pretty difficult one to make, you're basically saying it's ok for a second ball to interfere with a defender even if it results in a goal. The fact that he kicked the ball shouldn't matter at all. The ball was interfering with play whether he kicked it or not. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 24 Moderator Share Posted July 24 2 hours ago, MrBlack said: He should do, but there's also a rule about unsporting behaviour too. You’re right. Throwing or kicking an object at another player, or the match ball isn’t allowed within the laws. But when a player kicks a stray ball that’s on the pitch, and is within a very very close distance of the player, the attacker, the match ball, that stray ball has clearly, already, been interfering with play and the game should already have been stopped by the ref is how I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted July 24 VT Supporter Share Posted July 24 Brilliant defending. Doubt there's any instrument for awarding a penalty for unsporting behaviour is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 2 hours ago, il_serpente said: Pretty simple, really. A second ball is on the pitch in close proximity to where the match ball is. It's interfering, period. Second, a defender should not have to dodge a rogue ball in order to defend against an attacker. Question for those of you supporting the penalty decision: If the defender had not kicked the ball and had to jump over it or go around it, do you contend that the ball did not interfere with his ability to defend? Unless you're making that argument, which is a pretty difficult one to make, you're basically saying it's ok for a second ball to interfere with a defender even if it results in a goal. The fact that he kicked the ball shouldn't matter at all. The ball was interfering with play whether he kicked it or not. I can definitely see that. Personally, I don't think the defender has to actually do anything to avoid the ball - in fact, he goes slightly out of his way to kick it - but it's close enough to be considered interfering. As I said before, the second ball thing is becoming more farcical generally so I can the rule being altered in some way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 36 minutes ago, fightoffyour said: Brilliant defending. Doubt there's any instrument for awarding a penalty for unsporting behaviour is there? There's a rule about awarding a penalty (or, direct free kick) for using an object to 'tackle' an opponent - which would apply here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 24 VT Supporter Share Posted July 24 I think I'm in the middle of this one. Should the play have been stopped before? Probably. But in the scenario where the ref has deemed they should play on, if the defender has then used that rogue ball to stop a goalscoring opportunity, a penalty feels right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted July 24 VT Supporter Share Posted July 24 29 minutes ago, bobzy said: There's a rule about awarding a penalty (or, direct free kick) for using an object to 'tackle' an opponent - which would apply here. Really? I wonder what kind of objects they were envisaging. A ball would surely be referred to as a ball, but it's a grey area for me. I guess a ball that's not the ball could be classed as any other object. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 24 VT Supporter Share Posted July 24 I also think the ref doesn't even see the extra ball until it's being used by the defender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 2 minutes ago, fightoffyour said: Really? I wonder what kind of objects they were envisaging. A ball would surely be referred to as a ball, but it's a grey area for me. I guess a ball that's not the ball could be classed as any other object. The FA guidance is: "If a player makes contact with the ball with an object (boot, shinguard etc.) held in the hand play is restarted with a direct free kick (or penalty kick). If a player who is on or off the field of play throws or kicks an object (other than the match ball) at an opposing player, or throws or kicks an object (including a ball) at an opposing substitute, substituted or sent-off player, team official, or a match official or the match ball, play is restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the object struck or would have struck the person or the ball." Essentially, if you're not using the match ball but "something else", it's a direct free kick (or penalty kick, depending on where on the pitch). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted July 24 VT Supporter Share Posted July 24 33 minutes ago, bobzy said: If a player who is on or off the field of play throws or kicks an object (other than the match ball) at an opposing player, or throws or kicks an object (including a ball) at an opposing substitute, substituted or sent-off player, team official, or a match official or the match ball, play is restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the object struck or would have struck the person or the ball." Well it's actually crystal clear then, thanks. Penalty it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 24 Moderator Share Posted July 24 7 hours ago, fightoffyour said: Brilliant defending. Doubt there's any instrument for awarding a penalty for unsporting behaviour is there? There is (as I think @bobzy suggested) - if you throw or kick an object at another player or the ball (when it's in play) - a direct free kick and a caution awarded, so if it's in the box, then it's a pen. In the game clip in the twitter, the game should have been stopped and the ball would then be dead, and none of the next part happens. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villaphan04 Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 yeah, with that one, the ref either did not see the second ball before or determined that it was not interfering with play. Once it's past that point, then as soon as the defender playing the second ball off the main ball in play is a direct freekick offense. As it occurred in the penalty area, it's a penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted July 24 Moderator Share Posted July 24 I am baffled by the Olympics game between Morocco and Argentina. Morocco were leading 2-1 going into the 16th (yes, sixteenth) minute of injury time. Argentina scored after a goal mouth scramble. Morocco fans, unhappy with the length of time added on, starting throwing bottles and flares onto the pitch and pressuring the stewards to get on. The ref called everyone off the pitch more than an hour ago. There are apparently three minutes still to play. Argentina's goal was disallowed by VAR about half an hour after it was scored. We're going to kick off at 18:00 to play the last three minutes of a game that kicked off at 14:00. I think it's currently 2-1 to Morocco. All the fans have gone home. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted July 24 Moderator Share Posted July 24 Finished 2-1. Technically, the VAR decision wasn't given until the referee looked at the screen and confirmed it. That was at 18:01 - the goal was scored at 16:10. That's an hour and fifty one minutes to disallow a goal. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 24 VT Supporter Share Posted July 24 PGMOL looking to get some tips. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 6 hours ago, fightoffyour said: Well it's actually crystal clear then, thanks. Penalty it is. But.. as I said in my post, if the ball is already interfering with play before that happens, the ref should stop play. In this case the defender couldn't run towards the attacker, because the ball was where he'd want to plant his foot. It's a borderline call I reckon....it's definitely in the defenders way, but would the defender have reached the attacker even if it wasn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts