Burst Ball Going Into Goal Ruling?

[beachesl]

Situation:

http://www.lalibre.be/pict_articles/pict_60700.jpg

In Saturday's Anderlecht-La Louviere tilt, La Louviere led early 1-0, but ultimately conceded two second half goals and lost 2-1 at Anderlecht. The really weird thing about the match was that on the first Anderlecht goal by Basseggio, the ball exploded in mid air! La Louviere protested that the goal shouldn't have counted, but the protests fell on deaf ears. La Louviere currently tied for third at 20 points with Charleroi and Standard Liege, but ahead on goal difference.



quote from voyageurs site:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by loyola

i don't know if we have some referee on this board but when I took a referee class when I was young I learned that if a ball burst before going into the goal, the goal should not count.???? Am I right?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You may be right:
---------------------------------------------------------------
from Law 2:

"Replacement of a Defective Ball
If the ball bursts or becomes defective during the course of a match:
the match is stopped;

the match is restarted by dropping the replacement ball at the
place where the first ball became defective.*(see page 1)
If the ball bursts or becomes defective whilst not in play at a kick-off, goal kick, corner kick, free kick, penalty kick or throw-in:
the match is restarted accordingly."

"* Unless covered by the Special Circumstances listed in Law 8 – The Start And Restart of Play"


from Law 8

"Dropped Ball
A dropped ball is a way of restarting the match after a temporary stoppage that becomes necessary, while the ball is in play, for any reason not mentioned elsewhere in the Laws of the Game."

"Special Circumstances"
"A dropped ball to restart the match after play has been temporarily stopped inside the goal area takes place on the goal area line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the ball was located when play was stopped."

http://www.fifa.com/en/regulations/regulation/0,1584,3,00.html#

-------------------------------------
Strictly speaking, I think that a "dropped ball" restart at the point it was kicked (where the ball ostensibly burst) would have been the technically correct method. However, it would probably be impractical in this situation, especially that close to goal.

It's unfortunate for the GK in a way, as a burst ball would probably spiral and be more difficult to stop. I would not have wanted to be a careful by-the-book referee in that situation, especially where the questioned goal was by the home team as it was here.

I suppose the call could be justified because the referee may not have been able to know at what point the ball became "defective" (ie: maybe after it crossed the goal line), and thus not in a position to call the play "stopped". If a ref cannot determine where and when the act requiring stoppage occurred, he can't very well determine that there should be a ruling at all (and thus the goal would stand).

**************************************************
Whaddya Think?

[IASocFan]

The ruling as given seems reasonable to me. Not knowing exactly when the ball exploded and assuming the outcome wouldn't have changed had the ball not exploded, the goal should stand. I've only experience a burst ball once - a simple drop ball just outside the penalty area after a big kid stepped on the ball while trying to control it.

[Caesar]

As you've concluded, the laws are very clear on this. As soon as the ball bursts, it fails to fulfil the requirements under Law 2 and the game should be restarted with a Drop Ball at the location where the ball became defective.

It's a lousy thing to happen and you're never going to get a 100% fair outcome, but if the ball bursts before crossing the line then it's always going to be a Drop Ball restart.

Of course, this is assuming that the referee knew where the ball burst. If it merely was found deflated in the net, then there's nothing to say that the ball deflated before the goal was scored.

[ProfZodiac]

This would also be creepy as hell. Like, Exorcist.

Can you imagine being the goalkeeper, hearing some unnatural sound, and have the source of the sound coming at you at upwards of 30 mph? I'd be getting the hell out of the way.

[jc508]

I recall reading about a game in Italy possibly in the 50's or 60's where a fan ran out to the field towards a ball rolling towards the goal and SHOT the ball stopping it before it entered the goal.

That call was easy, if unnerving. Dropped ball was given to the teams and the shooter went to jail.

I would concur that unless the ref knew the ball was deflated before it entered the goal, the goal should stand. It's probably the safer decision too regarding the referee's physical well being.

Just my opinion.

[Alberto]

Drop ball from the point where the ball was noticed as being burst or deflated. You would really need to look at a replay to see where the ball was when it was deflated. Very bizzarre circumstance. I've never had it happen in hundreds of matches when the ball was in flight.

[Jeff L]

The explanation given above is 100% correct. The goal should not have been allowed and the game re-started with a drop ball.

[tog]

The explanation given above is 100% correct. The goal should not have been allowed and the game re-started with a drop ball.

If you can't definitively say that the ball burst before it went it, then you cannot disallow the goal. You simply can't reverse what has happened because the ball "might" have burst before crossing the line.

Now, if you know for certain that the ball had burst before crossing the line, then a drop ball is correct.

If there is any doubt, however--any doubt--you must let the play stand. This is especially true if you are uncertain on the call and the ball was not going to be saved, burst or not.

[Alberto]

If you can't definitively say that the ball burst before it went it, then you cannot disallow the goal. You simply can't reverse what has happened because the ball "might" have burst before crossing the line.

Now, if you know for certain that the ball had burst before crossing the line, then a drop ball is correct.

If there is any doubt, however--any doubt--you must let the play stand. This is especially true if you are uncertain on the call and the ball was not going to be saved, burst or not.


This is a good example of the state or condition of the ball being trifling to the play. If there is no way the ball would have been stopped. If the ball did not suddenly dip and cause the goalkeeper to be fooled because it deflated, a strong case could be made that the ball could not be judged to have deflated before entering the goal or that the deflation was trifling to the play. Regardless of it being deflated or not it would have still been a goal.

Perhaps this falls into the spirit of the law and of fair play. You take away a sure goal on a technicality.

[Gary V]

... that the deflation was trifling to the play. Regardless of it being deflated or not it would have still been a goal.

Perhaps this falls into the spirit of the law and of fair play. You take away a sure goal on a technicality.
I'm not sure I want to extend the concept of trifling beyond fouls and misconducts. Else we'll be getting onto a slippery slope. Sure the ball was a little bit over the line, but it was trifling, so let's keep playing. Or that while the foul occurred in the PA, it was only kinda in the PA, really heading away from the goal, just at the top corner of the PA, so let's not bother with a PK because it was trifling.

Rather, let's look at the situation on its own merits:

Foot hits ball, ball goes bang, stop play now - even if you can't blow your whistle before the carcass ends up in the net. No goal.

- or -

Foot hits ball, ball makes slightly abnormal sound (little woosh, or flat sounding) but no visible signs of bursting - well, we can't tell it was flat until after it's retrieved from the net. Goal counts.

[Alberto]

I'm not sure I want to extend the concept of trifling beyond fouls and misconducts. Else we'll be getting onto a slippery slope. Sure the ball was a little bit over the line, but it was trifling, so let's keep playing. Or that while the foul occurred in the PA, it was only kinda in the PA, really heading away from the goal, just at the top corner of the PA, so let's not bother with a PK because it was trifling.

Rather, let's look at the situation on its own merits:

Foot hits ball, ball goes bang, stop play now - even if you can't blow your whistle before the carcass ends up in the net. No goal.

- or -

Foot hits ball, ball makes slightly abnormal sound (little woosh, or flat sounding) but no visible signs of bursting - well, we can't tell it was flat until after it's retrieved from the net. Goal counts.

Good point Gary. But to play devil's advocate, if the ball was deflated or burst at the time it was kicked does not this requirement to stop play and restart with a drop ball not pose a harsh penalty on the attacking team. Perhaps the referee was correct to have judged it as a goal. I'm very interested to hear from our fellow posters on this subject. It seems in this one strange circumstance the attacking team is severely penalized for something that is clearly beyond their control.

[Jeff L]

I believe that you have to go with the LOTG on this one. If the ball burst before crossing the line and the referee know that then it has to be disallowed. The points raised for the attacking team are valid, but what about the goalkeeper? Would he have saved it, (or positioned himself "correctly") on the basis that the ball was sound?
Obviously if the referee didn't know the ball was defective then he has to allow it. As with all decisions, it's down to the referee, and as we all know, we are going to upset 11 players, whatever the decision.

[Alberto]

I believe that you have to go with the LOTG on this one. If the ball burst before crossing the line and the referee know that then it has to be disallowed. The points raised for the attacking team are valid, but what about the goalkeeper? Would he have saved it, (or positioned himself "correctly") on the basis that the ball was sound?
Obviously if the referee didn't know the ball was defective then he has to allow it. As with all decisions, it's down to the referee, and as we all know, we are going to upset 11 players, whatever the decision.

But, Jeff what happens in the scenario where the ball does not knockle down or do something strange with respect to it's flight? As an example assume that regardless of whether the ball was deflated or burst at the time of the kick there was no way the keeper could stop it. Perhaps he was badly out of postion or the flight of the ball was fairly true and you could see by his actions that he moved correctly and was not fooled. What then?