Outside Interference (FA Cup)

[midmogooner]

In Sunday's FA Cup Sheffield United-Man City game one of the goals was scored after the ball hit a balloon that was lying on the pitch (there were several balloons there). See the linked Youtube-video on the incident. My question: Should the goal have been allowed? My intuition (without consulting LOTG, maybe I should have) that this is like the "dog run on the the pitch" situation from grade 8 clinic and the proper restart would have been a dropped ball. Any thoughts?

Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqz1YxhnuyM

[andymoss]

Aside from my being born and raised in Manchester and am thus a huge City fan, I concur. Outside agent = stop play and dropped ball. Same as if another ball had come onto FOP.

[macheath]

Well, the defender and keeper don't seem to lose sight of the ball as it comes across--defender just whiffs on it, goes through to the Sheffield attacker. Pretty funny, though--the ball hits a white balloon which then heads towards the goal. And those were Man City balloons, yes? Guess some other form of decoration should be used in the future...

[Ref Flunkie]

If the balloon had no impact on the flight of the ball or the view of the players, then let it go. Streamers are outside agents too, but the game is not stopped everytime a ball (or player) hits those.

[refmike]

Another consideration is to ask how long the balloons were on the field.

Once the referee allows the game to start (or restart) he is accepting the conditions (tree limbs, overhead wires, etc.) as part of the field. So if the balloons were already there, it was not outside interferrence. It is common for things to be thrown on the field and this is no different. How many times have balls taken a bad bounce off a bottle thrown on the field?

Consider the effort required to keep all foreign objects off the field. And the balloons did not cause the goal, only the confusion as the ball got mixed in with them. I think the goal was good under the circumstances.

[MassachusettsRef]

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but...

I think the call would have been different if they weren't Manchester City balloons.

With a flimsy object like a balloon, can you determine if the ball's path was actually (and/or tangibly) affected? No, probably not. But how often do you see a professional defender completely whiff on a pretty straightforward clearance six yards from his own goal?

It's completely circumstantial, but I think the balloon affected the ball. And there is contact with the balloon--which is all that's technically necessary to make the outside interference call.

That said, as silly as it sounds, I think a referee would be incredibly hard-pressed to deny the home team a goal because the away team's fans released balloons that interfered with the away team's defender.

I think the right call was a drop ball for outside interference. Now, could I have made it in a split-second in that environment? I really don't know.

[MassachusettsRef]

Another consideration is to ask how long the balloons were on the field.Good point and one which I was going to make when someone compared the balloons to streamers.

When there are a ton of streamers on the field, most referees in most leagues stop play to allow for their removal. If there is a stray one remaining somewhere, big deal.

But if dozens and dozens of streamers came down during dynamic play and then they affected an issue in the penalty area, I think there's a very good chance they can be considered outside interference.

I don't know these particulars, but considering how quickly the players were able to step on the balloons right after and destroy them, I'd bet the balloons only recently got there.

[IASocFan]

I didn't watch it live, but watched the replay several times. I probably would have stopped the game when I noticed the balloons on the field - most likely when the responsible supporters' team had control of the ball. Once play is underway, it's a lot harder to take away a goal because it may have been scored with the aid of a balloon.

[andymoss]

What if a branch had fallen off a pre-existing, noticed and discussed overhanging tree limb and was on the field for a few seconds/minutes?

What if the same City fans balloons were at the other end and City had scored?

What if it were a large inflatable banana? (look it up)

A bottle?

A flare? That had already gone out and no longer posed a danger, etc., before that is suggested.

If it's on the FOP and shouldn't be there and somehow interferes with play or has the potential to do so, play must stop. Alan Wiley (whom I personally rate very highly) telling Joe Hart to pop the balloons is not enough for me.

[NHRef]

How could they possibly have NOT effected the play? From the reply looks like basically the same color/size/shape of the ball and as MassRef says how often does a player at this level wiff on a rolling ball.

I believe the ball going through and hitting the balloons distracted/confused players for a split second wondering which was the ball. I know I lost track of the ball at first viewing.

[Ref Flunkie]

How could they possibly have NOT effected the play? From the reply looks like basically the same color/size/shape of the ball and as MassRef says how often does a player at this level wiff on a rolling ball.

I believe the ball going through and hitting the balloons distracted/confused players for a split second wondering which was the ball. I know I lost track of the ball at first viewing.

Then I would have no problem whistling it down. However, I think if we start making sweeping decisions about foreign objects on the field, then we will run into issues down the road. Just use your brain IMO.

[falcon.7]

Is it just me, or did anyone else notice that the ManCity defenders didn't say a word about it to the referee? If the defender who wiffed at the ball thought that the balloons affected it, why didn't he say something. If you're playing at that level you must know about the whole "outside agent" deal, or at least have heard rumors about it.

Strictly speaking, the balloons are not part of the field, so the ball is dead as soon as it hits one of them. In spirit, if your own fans cause you to let in a goal, then I have no sympathy. Irony ho! Justice is served.

[campton]

It clearly affected teh flight of the pass, the defenders ability to stop the ball and the goalkeepers ability to see it.

Drop ball.?

[MassachusettsRef]

Is it just me, or did anyone else notice that the ManCity defenders didn't say a word about it to the referee? If the defender who wiffed at the ball thought that the balloons affected it, why didn't he say something. You answer your own question later in your post. They were "their own" balloons. They'd look pretty foolish protesting the referee here and it would only make matters worse for them.

But, as to the idea that they didn't think it affected the play: Look how quickly they all went to stomp on the balloons in disgust. You can tell from their reaction that they felt the balloons interfered, they were just too ignorant of the Laws or too embarrassed by their own fans' idiocy to protest. The former of which brings me to your next point...

If you're playing at that level you must know about the whole "outside agent" deal, or at least have heard rumors about it.I think you assume way too much about the the level of knowledge professional players have regarding the Laws.

[chrisrun]

I didn't watch it live, but watched the replay several times. I probably would have stopped the game when I noticed the balloons on the field - most likely when the responsible supporters' team had control of the ball. Once play is underway, it's a lot harder to take away a goal because it may have been scored with the aid of a balloon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/01/28/sfgshe128.xml

Apparently the ref knew about the balloons, and didn't feel they were enough of a distraction to stop the game.

[Rufusabc]

I read in the Guardian that the Man City manager was not upset about the balloons, but they also take unbelievable pains not to upset the traveling support.

The Man City 'keeper is very young (I think 20) so he probably didnt want to go stomping about bursting the balloons. And Rob Styles is usually a calm cool referee, and he decided not to blow it dead for however long it would have taken to pop them all.

Some one mentioned flares....how exactly do you get through security with a flare in your pocket?

R

[refereejoe]

Did the balloon get accredited with an assist?

My take is that if you remove the outside agent from the scenario and the outcome remains the same, there is no real interference. Only when the referee has no doubt that the outside agent interfered can the call be made.

[Alberto]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/01/28/sfgshe128.xml

Apparently the ref knew about the balloons, and didn't feel they were enough of a distraction to stop the game.


You see this all the time especially with streamers. Some are quite large and long. I believe you should stop play add time and have the grounds crew clean up the mess. The balloons interfered with play. The referee should have called it sooner.

[Wreave]

Once the referee allows the game to start (or restart) he is accepting the conditions (tree limbs, overhead wires, etc.) as part of the field. So if the balloons were already there, it was not outside interferrence. It is common for things to be thrown on the field and this is no different. How many times have balls taken a bad bounce off a bottle thrown on the field?

Without addressing the play in question, I am not sure this statement is accurate.

Tree limbs and overhead wires are permanent conditions. They're there at the beginning of the game and, if all goes well, they'll be there at the end. Balloons are a far more transient item. I'd assume the same would apply to bottles thrown onto the field, though I don't watch enough professional soccer to see these things happen.

[Ref Flunkie]

I saw the replay on PTI (yes I know, a soccer story made PTI!!). On one hand, I DO think they impacted the play to a certain extent (I can not say for sure that it was the sole reason for the misplay by the defender). On the other, they WERE Man City's balloons. I don't know, considering no one seems to have had an obvious issue with them, I'm inclined not to have an issue either.