Keith Hackett's "you are the ref" -Question

[o5iiawah]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jan/06/youaretheref
Do FA rules differ from FIFA regarding dropped balls? In his answer to Question 3, regarding teams who crowd a dropped ball, he answers that you should only let one player from each team participate,

Yet the LOTG say that any number of players may participate and that the referee has no authority to say otherwise.

discuss..

[boylanj64]

Certainly true that the laws say as many players as want to can participate. In terms of common sense though, Keith Hackett is right that two players should be the maximum before, oops, dropped the ball, sorry you weren't faster to get here lads. In almost every drop ball situation, I either make sure the players will kick it back to the other team, etc, in the spirit of fair play, or I drop it directly to one team. (I know many of you will say fair play is bogus, and maybe I agree, but I'd rather have it followed than some ruffian feel the need to enforce the concept himself).

I'm puzzled by his second answer on the post as well. A fairly challenged keeper catches the ball in the box and is knocked out of the box. Keith Hackett says handball on the keeper. Technically, he may be right, but would anyone seriously make that call? Call a push on the striker or decide it is trifling imo.

[PVancouver]

Law 8 itself is completely silent on whether players are to be involved in a dropped ball at all. Unless you believe that a picture is indeed worth a 1000 words, which shows a referee dropping a ball between two solitary opponents.

However, the Interpretation of the LOTG for Law 8 is completely clear:

Dropped Ball
Any player may challenge for the ball (including the goalkeeper). There
is no minimum or maximum number of players required to contest a
dropped ball. The referee cannot decide who may or may not contest
a dropped ball.

An illustration here shows a referee dropping a ball among three opponents.


Here is what (the older) Corsham site says:The loose wording of the dropped ball procedure is another good example of how the Laws have been cleverly written to allow the Referee some discretion as to how many players he can allow during a dropped ball restart. He can have zero, 1, 2, as many players as he likes. This flexibility allows the Referee to make a decision based on the individual incident. If a goalkeeper goes down injured with the ball still in his hands, to restart the game, an astute Referee will drop the ball to the goalkeeper alone. If play is stopped because a dog has entered the filed, then two opponents can contest the dropped ball. If there are 2 seconds to go before the end of the half, and the players don't seem too interested in gathering around for the dropped ball, then what's to stop the Referee dropping it to nobody, then blowing his whistle for the end of the half?

There are some instances when the Referee will want to control a dropped ball restart due to fairness. For example, when an injured goalkeeper in the goal area has the ball controlled with his hands, and the Referee has to stop play due to the injury. In the restart for this situation, the Referee would normally drop the ball directly back to the goalkeeper and would not allow an opponent to participate. It is not necessary for each team to be present for the restart with a dropped ball.

A Referee has no say whatsoever in whether or not a dropped ball is contested. If for example, the Referee has to stop play when the goalkeeper has the ball in his hands, and the other team wants to contest it, then there's nothing the Referee can do about it.

However, there's nothing stopping the Referee from dropping the ball at the goalkeeper's feet before the opponents get there - that's common sense applied within the boundaries of the Laws. If the opposing team want to contest the dropped ball, the Referee could suggest that they let the goalkeeper have it, in the interest of fair play, but that's all the Referee can do.

In the modern game, Referees discourage players from kicking lumps out of each other; there rarely is little justification for a contested dropped ball. The procedure is simple in Law 8: in a large number of cases, the Referee drops the ball at the place where it was located when play was stopped. The players themselves seem to appreciate this last vestige of gentlemanly behaviour, and it is rarely a problem.


I think one could argue that the referee actually does have some discretion in limiting the number of players at a dropped ball, if he feels that having mulitiple players from one side is unsporting or disrespects the game, but the clear language opposing this in the current LOTG/I obviously argues against this.

A referee who drops the ball in inappropriate but entirely legal ways, such as at the feet of a single player when the situation calls for a fairly contested dropped ball, or dropping the ball earlier than expected without the presence of anyone from either team, would not be well received.

[intechpc]

I'm puzzled by his second answer on the post as well. A fairly challenged keeper catches the ball in the box and is knocked out of the box. Keith Hackett says handball on the keeper. Technically, he may be right, but would anyone seriously make that call? Call a push on the striker or decide it is trifling imo.

My thoughts exactly. Honestly, if the challenge is enough to push the keeper out of the box, I'm not sure I see a situation where it could be considered a fair challenge anymore. I'm certainly not going to call handling at that point and would have no problem telling the opposing team if they complained that it was their player that pushed him out of the PA.

[IASocFan]

I agree with the comments that you can't fairly charge a keeper with the ball in his hands!

[PVancouver]

The question described the contact as a "fair shoulder charge", so I don't see how the "striker" could be penalized. Presumably the keeper was charged before or simultaneous to receiving the ball with his hands.

If the debate is between penalizing the goalkeeper and not penalizing the goalkeeper, Hackett answered the question in the way it should be, IMO.

I should have noted that the LOTG/I did not discuss dropped balls in 2006 when the You Are The Ref strip was originally published.

[rippingood]

Is it any wonder that there is such misinformation from announcers, etc.

hackett doesn't deserve to get off so easily here...

In 2006, the Q&A did indeed include discussions about dropped balls. it specifically states:
May a goalkeeper join other players at a dropped ball situation?
Yes. Any player may take part
It's very clear - Since a goalkeeper may join other playerS, this confirms that there can be more than one from each team.

In Hackett’s "official" answers, he has no problem relating a war story for the answer to part 1 so it's clear there is not a word limit to his answers, but he really provides misinformation by his terse, inaccurate response to #3. The previous responses here about unsporting behavior or disrespect could easily have been included in his answer.

Ditto with the GK question - a normal (non-referee by definition?) person who looks at the picture and reads the panel might readily go away thinking that an opponent can shoulder charge the GK who has the ball. I don't think this impression should be fostered. While it is true that the GK is better protected by the LOTG than in olden times, I don't recall much a difference in this respect between '06 and now.

Note this is the most recent version of "you are the ref" (Jan 2009). Even if the event happened a while ago, the current interpretations should be used.

[o5iiawah]

there's about 50 other sets of 3 strips, some with very interesting situations. We can all discuss them here. Some are straightforward like a throw-in that goes directly in an own-goal and some are no so clearcut like a lower league stadium with loud music.

[refmedic]

Hackett has a history of giving inappropriate, and sometimes completely inaccurate answers to some of these questions.

[IASocFan]

By the way, who is Keith Hackett? :confused:

[Sachsen]

By the way, who is Keith Hackett? :confused:

Wikipedia is your friend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Hackett)

;)

[code1390]

By the way, who is Keith Hackett? :confused:

Head of Premier League referees.

[jkc313]

I think one could argue that the referee actually does have some discretion in limiting the number of players at a dropped ball, if he feels that having mulitiple players from one side is unsporting or disrespects the game, but the clear language opposing this in the current LOTG/I obviously argues against this.

A referee who drops the ball in inappropriate but entirely legal ways, such as at the feet of a single player when the situation calls for a fairly contested dropped ball, or dropping the ball earlier than expected without the presence of anyone from either team, would not be well received.
Law 8 may be silent but Interpretation is explicit. The referee has no authority as to how many players participate at a dropped ball. You can argue all you want but you'd be wrong as is Keith Hackett. Referees make quick drops all the time and there's little complaint.

[PVancouver]

Really? Referees make quick drops all the time? Please explain when a quick drop is appropriate in any situation where neither team had uncontested possession or imminent possession of the ball when play was stopped. Even in cases were one team had possession, that team should be ready for the dropped ball. It should not be some sort of surprise before anyone is ready.

If a referee has no authority to determine number, how does he have the authority to drop a ball before one or both teams have provided the number of players they desire to be involved, or before a second player from one team arrives? This makes no sense to me at all. He is determining number by procedure.

How about a situation where the referee blows play dead for an injury at a time when the ball is stationary. Three members of one team quickly move to stand in a tight circle around the ball. When the referee is ready to drop the ball, the opposing team complains to the referee that a dropped ball in this situation would not be fair to them. Do you drop the ball amongst the three players from the one team anyway? Does this seem like a fair play to you? Does Law 8 give you a choice?

I understand that the current interpretation is explicit but I can't say that it makes a whole lot of sense. Was it written as a technical interpretation of the laws? I'm not sure. I side with Keith Hackett in that I don't see any need for more than one player from the same team at a dropped ball. Perhaps other players should be at least 2 yards back like on a throw-in. I also don't see a need for a dropped ball without any player present, except in the highly unusual case where neither team was willing to provide a contestant. If time is about to expire, simply call time. There is no need to drop a ball at all.

[jkc313]

Really? Referees make quick drops all the time? Please explain when a quick drop is appropriate in any situation where neither team had uncontested possession or imminent possession of the ball when play was stopped. Even in cases were one team had possession, that team should be ready for the dropped ball. It should not be some sort of surprise before anyone is ready.

If a referee has no authority to determine number, how does he have the authority to drop a ball before one or both teams have provided the number of players they desire to be involved, or before a second player from one team arrives? This makes no sense to me at all. He is determining number by procedure.

How about a situation where the referee blows play dead for an injury at a time when the ball is stationary. Three members of one team quickly move to stand in a tight circle around the ball. When the referee is ready to drop the ball, the opposing team complains to the referee that a dropped ball in this situation would not be fair to them. Do you drop the ball amongst the three players from the one team anyway? Does this seem like a fair play to you? Does Law 8 give you a choice?

I understand that the current interpretation is explicit but I can't say that it makes a whole lot of sense. Was it written as a technical interpretation of the laws? I'm not sure. I side with Keith Hackett in that I don't see any need for more than one player from the same team at a dropped ball. Perhaps other players should be at least 2 yards back like on a throw-in. I also don't see a need for a dropped ball without any player present, except in the highly unusual case where neither team was willing to provide a contestant. If time is about to expire, simply call time. There is no need to drop a ball at all.

Ok, here's an easy one. Keeper has the ball in his hands and a player goes down seriously enough you stop play. restart is dropped ball after you take care of the injured player. A quick drop to the keeper. What's unfair about that? I've done this and see it done all the time at youth level games. You are correct the current interpretation is explicit. The referee has no right to tell anyone who may or may not participate at a dropped ball. As for your example of the 3 players surrounding the ball the referee does have the authority to move them so others may compete. A quick drop oftentimes allows the referee to continue the game in a fair manner. How fair is it to the team whose keeper had complete control of the ball and was going to punt it away to now drop a ball one on one 7 yards in front of his goal? There are instances like this where the Law by not requiring a specific number of players to take part allows us to maintain fairness. Obviously if neither team had control a quick drop to one team would be unfair. Did you take my answer to imply that? Let me be clear, a quick drop can and should only be used in the interest of fair play. The only time I've ever dropped the ball to no one was when some U Littles simply wouldn't come over to where I was so I dropped it and told them to go kick it which they did. I understand your logic and agree there's no reason more than 1 player from each team need participate. But, you, or Keith Hackett, at this point in time do not have the authority to demand that.

[njref]

As a practical matter, I think referees have a great deal of control over a drop ball.

I have had never had a team try to present more than one player for a drop ball. I do only youth games, and I think that if a team tried to present more than 1 player, the other team would view that as a form of "cheating" or at least unfair play, and therefore allowing this might have a detrimental effect on the game. Similarly, I have never had a team try to interfere with a drop directly to the keeper when appropriate, but if a team was allowed to do so, this would have a very detrimental effect on my authority and the game. Therefore I would make sure that the appropriate number of players participate.

The laws may not allow the referee to control the number of players at a drop by ordering players about. But the referee can perform the drop to get the desired number of players participating. As previously stated, for a keeper drop, you do a quick drop to the keeper when ready, no big announcement needed ahead of time. I just say "the keeper has possession, we are in play," ask the keeper to hold for a few seconds while I get downfield, and away we go. In the very unlikely situation where an opposing player tried to interfere, I would tell the player that a 1 player drop was intended and why if it was not obvious, or just move and wait until I was happy that the player was not in position to interfere. If needed I would use my body to screen the player from the drop.

If I was unhappy with the number or position of players for a contested drop at the location where the players thought I was doing the drop ball, I would just turn around 180 degrees and do the drop 2 feet away when I had the configuration I wanted. I control when and where the ball is dropped, and therefore I control whether and how the drop is contested. In particular, if I think a 1 player drop is warranted for fair play, there is no way I am allowing an opposing player to participate.

[refmedic]

I think you are all arguing something that, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't really matter much. I guess this is what happens in the off-season. The dropped-ball is a way for the referee to restart play after it has been stopped for something other than an infringement of the laws or the ball going out of play. There is no reason that ANY players need to be ready, never mind standing there, when the ball is dropped. We are not hockey referees, and a dropped-ball is not a face-off. The idea of fair-play is not in the laws, and although we would like it to happen that way, we can't make it happen that way. WHen the referee is ready to restart play, he or she should hold the ball out and drop it. It's not our job to make sure that they players are ready. They should be paying better attention. That, IMO, is the practical book answer.

That being said, if you are in or near the penalty area, you should let both teams know what you are doing. Even though neither team has a right to be standing there when you drop the ball, if theres a chance a goal could be scored directly from it, it will create less headaches for you if everyone knows what you're doing. That, IMO, is the practical on-field answer. Needless to say, if I'm not in the attacking 3rd, I just drop the ball when I'm ready. To make this more likely, I try to wait until the ball is kicked up field before stopping play, if possible. Sometimes I wonder why we must make a federal case out of every little issue.

[PVancouver]

As for your example of the 3 players surrounding the ball the referee does have the authority to move them so others may compete.This authority comes from where, exactly?

How fair is it to the team whose keeper had complete control of the ball and was going to punt it away to now drop a ball one on one 7 yards in front of his goal? There are instances like this where the Law by not requiring a specific number of players to take part allows us to maintain fairness.Except that the law now states quite clearly that the referee is not permitted to control the number of players at a dropped ball. So if the attacking team was wise to this fact so if the team or a player on the team was willing to ignore the obvious lack of fairness in challenging the dropped ball, there is nothing the referee could do about it.

I do only youth games, and I think that if a team tried to present more than 1 player, the other team would view that as a form of "cheating" or at least unfair play, and therefore allowing this might have a detrimental effect on the game. Similarly, I have never had a team try to interfere with a drop directly to the keeper when appropriate, but if a team was allowed to do so, this would have a very detrimental effect on my authority and the game. Therefore I would make sure that the appropriate number of players participate.
I agree with your reasoning, but again, the Law seems to make clear that you do in fact do not have the authority to that the appropriate number of players participate.

As previously stated, for a keeper drop, you do a quick drop to the keeper when ready, no big announcement needed ahead of time. I just say "the keeper has possession, we are in play," ask the keeper to hold for a few seconds while I get downfield, and away we go. In the very unlikely situation where an opposing player tried to interfere, I would tell the player that a 1 player drop was intended and why if it was not obvious, or just move and wait until I was happy that the player was not in position to interfere. If needed I would use my body to screen the player from the drop.But there is no such this as a "1-player drop". There is only a dropped ball, and both teams apparently have a right to present as many players as they wish at this dropped ball. I struggle to see in the laws where a referee is given the authority to screen players on purpose.

If I was unhappy with the number or position of players for a contested drop at the location where the players thought I was doing the drop ball, I would just turn around 180 degrees and do the drop 2 feet away when I had the configuration I wanted. I control when and where the ball is dropped, and therefore I control whether and how the drop is contested. In particular, if I think a 1 player drop is warranted for fair play, there is no way I am allowing an opposing player to participate.
The ball is to be dropped at the location of the ball when play is stopped. So technically you have no control over its location. I can't disagree that you have control some over the timing, but using timing to subvert the Laws' stated intent that the number of players present at at dropped ball cannot be controlled by the referee puts the referee in conflict with the Laws. If five opposing players stand near the goalkeeper waiting for a dropped ball, I am a bit curious as to how you would prevent these opposing players from participating.

We are not hockey referees, and a dropped-ball is not a face-off. I disagree. That is exactly what it is (with the caveat that my understanding of hockey faceoffs is extremely low).

It's not our job to make sure that they players are ready. They should be paying better attention.True, but it is your job to give players a reasonable about of time to be ready. It is not the referees job to trick one team or the other with a quicker than expected start in the interest of "fairness".

I wonder why we must make a federal case out of every little issue.

Because the Law could be rewritten so that no more than one player from either team could participate. Because the Law or the official interpretation of Law could be changed so that the referees are given the authority to deny the participation of one or the other team (by threatening a caution to the denied team). Because some referees seem quite willing to take extreme liberties with the current Law. Although these referees would be technically in the wrong, in my mind, they certainly have the support of the historical game and a sense of fair play. For me the status quo is inappropriate. Either the Law should be changed or referees should change.

[boylanj64]

Except that the law now states quite clearly that the referee is not permitted to control the number of players at a dropped ball. So if the attacking team was wise to this fact so if the team or a player on the team was willing to ignore the obvious lack of fairness in challenging the dropped ball, there is nothing the referee could do about it.

Yes there is. The ref can drop it before the jerk is ready, because if you allow him to ignore fair play like that, someone else is going to break his legs for you. There was an incident in the last World Cup where a team challenged a drop ball they probably shouldn't have and the opposing player chased him around the field until he got in best position to slide tackle him from behind. If he insists, simply drop it a yard away so he has no shot at winning the ball.


But there is no such this as a "1-player drop". There is only a dropped ball, and both teams apparently have a right to present as many players as they wish at this dropped ball. I struggle to see in the laws where a referee is given the authority to screen players on purpose.


The ball is to be dropped at the location of the ball when play is stopped. So technically you have no control over its location. I can't disagree that you have control some over the timing, but using timing to subvert the Laws' stated intent that the number of players present at at dropped ball cannot be controlled by the referee puts the referee in conflict with the Laws. If five opposing players stand near the goalkeeper waiting for a dropped ball, I am a bit curious as to how you would prevent these opposing players from participating.

If they ignored common sense, I'd drop it and immediately whistle for dangerous play.

...it is your job to give players a reasonable about of time to be ready. It is not the referees job to trick one team or the other with a quicker than expected start in the interest of "fairness".

No one is being "tricked." We are not handing one team a goal scoring opportunity they did not have; in fact, by regulating drop balls, we are doing the exact opposite. If a keeper is set to punt the ball upfield, is it now fair to give the opponent a 50/50 shot at possession? By stopping play then dropping back to him, nothing has changed in this situation. I have never had a problem with players feeling that a quick drop somehow "cheated" them. There is little that upsets me more than refs who call an opponent over to participate in a drop ball in the opponents box; from where does our power to tell them to come over come from, if we cannot tell them to go away?

Because the Law could be rewritten so that no more than one player from either team could participate. Because the Law or the official interpretation of Law could be changed so that the referees are given the authority to deny the participation of one or the other team (by threatening a caution to the denied team). Because some referees seem quite willing to take extreme liberties with the current Law. Although these referees would be technically in the wrong, in my mind, they certainly have the support of the historical game and a sense of fair play. For me the status quo is inappropriate. Either the Law should be changed or referees should change.

I'm not sure what you're saying here; it seems you find the discrepency between the written law and its application troubling, but as you say, such is the history of the game. We are alone among sports in having such a thin lawbook; there is a reason for this, and adding an extensive section on how and when to fairly drop a ball seems ludicrous when what we have works fine IF you apply common sense.

[PVancouver]

Give the referee the authority to determine the number of players from each team that may participate in a dropped ball and the problem will be solved. No explanation for how a referee comes to his determination need be given in the Laws. This authority, which had always been in existence historically AFAIK, has only recently been taken away by the new Interpretations.