Doesn't USSF specifically address the dual purpose goals/uprights, not the free standing uprights? I am perfectly fine if they are the same but technically the picture they use in their instruction power points is not a stand alone piece of equipment. The uprights they make a ruling on are physically part of the soccer goal structure.
Strictly speaking, I think you're right under ATR 1.7, but I believe 1.8(b)'s use of "include" is broad enough to capture the free-standing variant. But I suppose that's also open to interpretation, so again, best to make sure everybody's on the same page before the kickoff.
I felt the differences were based on "why" the item was there. In the case of tree, it is part of the natural environment and the pitch. If the pitch were moved, the tree could be removed from the field. In the case of the ball hitting the tree, if it stays on the field, play on; if it hits the tree on it's way out of the field, restart is whatever it would have been absent the influence of the tree. It normally doesn't affect one team more than another. They are part of "nature". As to man made structures, they were introduced to the field of play by man in an effort to have goals for all the games play on that field, this includes soccer goals, football uprights, etc. They influence the field where the field is placed and cannot be "removed" from the field since they were specifically placed where they are because the field is there. It may also be that most of these items occur near the defending team's goal and any influence they have on the ball will typically benefit the attacking team more. If the ball hits the football upright, it is will likely be above the soccer goal, the result of an inaccurate shot on goal, and on it's way off the field as a missed shot. If it were allowed to rebound back onto the field, it would likely drop near the goal area and in a prime location for a shot on goal, much like a player being in an OSP cherry picking a goal.
When I took my refereeing course many years ago I was taught to not watch the ball in flight when way up in the air, rather, watch the players. So....if the ball hits an overhanging branch or wire I probably will not see the event. I do tell the teams before the game that we will keep playing if the ball hits the tree or wire in the air, as long as the ball comes down on the field of play.
I was going to bring that up in my long-winded post above, but i thought my post was already long enough!
From NJ Ref - So, in one example of an overhanging tree over the goal, if a ball, which otherwise would clearly go in touch hits the tree and is deflected into the goal, we have a goal? I don’t know about you, but I’d like to leave the field alive. It is extremely clear in the ATR on what happens. People that want to referee USSF matches must follow the ATR - there are too many gutless people that refuse to make the correct call or no call.
There is a field in San Francisco ( actually 2 of them) Franklin Square and Crocker Amazon Fields both have trees that hang over the goal. At Franklin.. it is rather high so I have not seen it hit lately... but at Crocker, the tree can definitely become a factor. I include it in my pregame discussion with the teams(captains)so all know how it will be handled during the course of play.
It allows for ROC, not making up rules at the field if you are playing under USSF. The default is the trees are always in play when they overhang the field. If you don't know the ROC and play by some made up rules you have to report this in a full match report to be evaluated by your league as an unusual incident.
Yes, I've resurrected a 20 year old thread . Hopefully, the regular contributors back then are still involved with the game in some way. You'll never see a scenario in academy matches where a ball strikes a tree limb over the field since they're played on pristine turf fields or immaculate looking grass surfaces, well away from any pre-existing structure. However, in our neck of the woods (pun intended), lacrosse has taken over this spring pushing back soccer into the stone age for later kickoff times and where I am back on grass fields for your run of the mill club league games located behind schools that I haven't been to in many years. We had a situation recently where a ball almost struck a limb and my two colleagues said they would have done a dropped ball as a restart. Both guys started officiating after the ATR (Advice to Referees) was done away with about 9 years ago and were shocked to hear what I had to say what the previous guidance was. All I could find here what was the old references to the ATR (who could forget the horrific passback to the keeper guidance with that pyramid they gave?) and a reference to Jim Allen's website, which was not affiliated with the USSF. With the ATR extinct and this not being specifically dealt with in the current LOTG, is it safe to say in the modern era that it's something to be discussed in the pregame and with coaches and best dealt with common sense and a dropped ball? The explanation years ago was that it was similar to a ball striking a sprinkler head on the field, which made no sense even back then, since the change of direction the ball of a ball striking a limb is significantly greater than striking a pre-exiting structure on the field surface. Again, something that might never happen in your game in a thousand years, but still something you would want to handle correctly and something that actually was utilized as a question for several years in the recertification courses many years ago before it became the travesty it is today.
I can't remember what I did a few years ago but the players didn't like my solution. I talked with a couple of players after the game and we agreed that it should be treated like hitting the referee. If it changes position or creates a promising attack, do a dropped ball.
My understanding is that this falls into the category of an outside agent? So it would be a dropped ball.
I liked the old ATR answer, other than when the overhang was near the goal. Many of the pieces of guidance in the ATR came from prior guidance from FIFA/IFAB—I have no idea if that was one of them. I’m not aware of any current guidance on the subject—since it will never happen in a game that FIFA/IFAB really care about. I think it comes down to whether you treat the tree as part of the field like a clump of grass or as an outside agent. In the games where it is likely to happen, I’d lean towards keeping it live unless around the goal. But near the goal is problematic for the DB solution, as a defender kicking it up at the tree could be a DB to the GK.
I don't think that 'outside agent' stretches that far. Otherwise, we're talking about wind or rain as an 'outside agent.' In my read, an outside agent is a person or animal who is not an official and not on the roster of either team. Play on.
From the glossary of the current laws: Outside agent: Any animal, object or structure, etc., as well as any person who is not a match official or on the team list (players, substitutes and team officials)