1:16, pretty unique situation where an extra ball on the field is thrown at the game ball inside penalty area. Can you actually go with the pk here is my question, with extra ball becoming an extension of the hand logic? Finally, there is an interesting red card at the end to a white player stomping a spectator who came on the field and attacked another white player. This is Turkish league, #2 vs #3 teams playing each other earlier Sunday.
Dead ball the moment an outside agent interferes with play. This will be argued again and again. I'm not going to re-argue here today. But my position is that if someone unlawfully enters into your place of employment, you may assume that they are there to cause you harm. Thus, you may use force to end that threat.
For the record, Billy, I 100% agree with you, and I absolutely think this should be enforced. But I don't think FIFA or USSF agrees.
At the start of that clip #6 Blue already has the extra ball and is carrying it throughout the play and then throws that ball at the game ball. I'm not sure where it came from, but that play should have been dead at the other end of the field.
That s--t is bananas. I watched it 7 times and still could understand what happened on the extra ball or the pitch invasion. Do we have any more information. Very interesting.
If a player has or is holding something which they then throw at the ball (e.g. another ball) then I'd say that's definitely a foul. Unsure whether it'd be generic unsportsmanlike or deliberate handling, but it'd definitely be a direct free kick (or a penalty) and potentially denying a goal-scoring opportunity as well (although not in this case).
The extra ball is an object just as anything else is so I'd say that handling (and thus a PK) would be correct. A few questions raised as to how the player came to hold the extra ball and why (or if) this wasn't noticed and handled by the referees prior to the incident. I think that there were 2 white players that got sent off for kicking the "fan". For those wondering, blue team was the home team and was leading at the time of the incident and the "fan" apparently ran onto the pitch to assault a white player (which he did) and the "fan" is claimed to be a supporter of the white team. In principle I'd agree with that. However that opinion does not in any way make a difference for the incident in this match as both guys that got carded came running in well after the "fan" had been stopped, surrounded and subdued (by players from the other team) and then started kicking and stomping the "fan" while he was still lying on the floor. They didn't respond to any threat, they just tried to kick the shit out of the "fan" in retaliation and their red cards were well deserved.
My mistake. I did not see that. I still don't. The clip is very poor quality. But if true, and I assume it is, you are correct.
The ball came in behind the referee, the player caught it and held it, once play continued into the area he throws it at the game ball. I am not sure when the whistle blows but if he throws the ball before the whistle this is handling in the area so PK. He had plenty of time to throw the ball out of play, or not catch it to start with, or keep it - any number of things rather than throw it at the ball in play. If the whistle blows before he throws it then nothing really as he is just frustrated and does not throw the ball at anyone although the yellow card he is shown could be easily justified.
Agree. I see three possible rulings that can come out of this play conceptually (link isn't working for me): Referee decides to stop play before player does something stupid: DB Referee decides to stop play because player is being stupid but before ball-to-ball contact: USB, IFK. (DOGSO-F to be considered.) Referee decides to stop play because ball thrown by player hits game ball: handling, PK (or DFK depending on location), USB, with possibility of DOGSO-H or -F. I'm more likely to envision the second or third options, as I don't see a player picking up a ball and running around with it evidence that the ball interfered with play so much as the player's lack of judgment got in the way of his playing.
link is working here - i will break this one up so it doesn't embed http://www.youtube.com/ watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i-XM-C10POk youtube search for i-XM-C10POk or 2 balls on the field, what to do? brings it up - about halfway through the clip you see the ball coming in from our left and the defender grabbing it. Once you see it, I don't think DOGSO is met but definitely handling by extension unless the whistle blows before he throws the ball and I can't see a referee waiting until that moment (good attack going on) to stop play so thinking he blew the whistle after the defender throws the ball.
comcancay's video is better quality, I was on my mobile when I originally posted it. On that video, if you look at 27th sec or so, you see the point where the second ball gets in the field and then referee turning his head and looking at that direction. Since the ball is not actively involved with play yet, he does not stop the game right there and then. This is where the defensive player picks it up, and then decides to throw it later on to stop the attack. Based on other comments from media and video evidence, referee blows the whistle *after* white player throws the second ball. Ideal call should have been earlier whistle to stop the game. (and it might be argued that he saw the ball come in and waited for active involvement, and decided in his mind to stop the game before the player threw the ball even though he blew the whistle afterwards) In absence of that though, since the player actively picks it up, carries it around, and then throws it to stop the attack, I also think that at that point this should've been a handling PK. This is creating a lot of controversy in Turkey, and white team (Besiktas) is planning to request a re-play of the game based on the reasoning that there was misapplication of the laws here. I'll keep y'all posted regarding what happens.
Help me here, where does the handling come into it? Wouldn't it be more along the lines of using an object to interfere with play? For instance, if a player picked up a water bottle and threw it at the ball. I guess I can't get my head around calling it handling just because the object used happened to be a ball. And would it necessarily be a PK even though he carried the ball into the box? Cheers, Mi3ke
Page 119 of the LotG: The rationalisation is that the object (here the ball) is an extension of the arm because it was intentionally thrown. Ahh SoCal... The offence takes place where the contact of the object and the ball happens so it doesn't matter where to he carried the ball, just where the 2 balls meet.
Not sure I agree with that. The ball doesn't really interfere until it is thrown so why stop a promising attack? The defender had ample time to get rid of the ball before he got involved with the play and keeping hold of the ball and throwing it were decisions he made (poor ones admittedly but that really has to be on him).
Before I have reread the LOTG about foreign objects and throwing objects an opponents. There is no mention of throwing foreign object at a ball (just legal equipment like shinguards). I was going to say that the player committed Unsporting Behavior for using illegal equipment and not a handling offence. But since I have re-read the Laws I must concur with others on this thread and consider this to be a deliberate handling offence, and book the perp for Unsporting behavior. As for DOGSO-H. No the offence was not moving toward the goal so no Obvious goal scoring opportunity was denied.
Going back to the original question and taking into account the language socal and others have pointed out... It's not a question of "can you." You actually must go with a PK. This is one of those black and white clauses in the Laws that is somewhat trivial, yet needs to be applied consistently. If you're stopping play because the extra ball was deliberately thrown at the ball (and hit the ball), then then you are punishing a deliberate handling foul and the restart must be a PK. A very interesting corollary debate to this would be what you would do in the exact same situation, but the extra ball did not actually hit the other ball. The Laws require that the thrown object must hit the ball for deliberate handling to occur (which is logical, given there's no such foul as "attempted deliberate handling"). But I think you'd still have to have misconduct and an IFK. It's a greyer area than the one in the video, though. It's a game critical call that is explicitly spelled out in the Laws. Restart has to be a PK and the referee got this wrong. As for the red cards at the end of the video, Sport Billy is right that we have debated this before and it's not worth re-hashing now. I agree with him, to an extent, that a player has a right to defend himself in his work environment. But the VC clause for acts against a spectator do exist, so there are situations where such behavior needs to be punished with a red card. Were the players actually defending themselves here or was the threat neutralized and they were just gratuitously attacking the pitch invader? I'd probably have to see the whole match (and definitely the whole incident) to pass judgment, but the stomp from #9 certainly looks like the latter (not sure about #31). Anyway, this question isn't as clear-cut as the extra ball thrown at the ball question. People are always going to have different opinions on this sort of thing.
It looks like #9 White was given a yellow for the stomp and a red for second yellow. At least that's what it looks like, two cards are shown.
THANK YOU for posting that SECOND video (that I can watch in 720p). I watched the first one about 10 times and the extra ball just seemed to appear out of nowhere! In the second video you can clearly see the blue player throw it down. USB to blue player. (and yellow card to the OP for posting the 260p video!)
Only thing that changes from what I wrote before is that deliberate handling is no longer in the mix:
Handling can no longer be considered but a bright yellow would be and maybe a more liberal look at DOGSO although in this case that would be a big stretch even considering the premeditated USB. Even though I would like to punish harsher I don't see where the LOTG allow anything past a YC and extended AC (not that the AC would do anything but make me feel better - maybe).
Well - not a huge stretch I guess but in my opinion there are two defenders (counting the one that threw the ball) and the keeper and the ball is 17 yards away and the attacker is kind of moving parallel to the goal line - his first touch was not very good and the ball goes to his left a good ways then the defender throws the ball although if the other ball were not there the attacker may have had an opportunity, the defender who threw it would have been very close to being able to actually defend legally plus still looked like the other defender was close enough to rule out DOGSO but again maybe not a huge stretch at all.