Man Utd/Chelsea corner kick [R]

[code1390]

In the final moments of the 1st half, with no score, United have a corner next to the AR. Rooney places it in the corner arc then rolls his foot over the ball, putting it a yard or so into play. Rooney then left the corner, leaving the ball, and went towards the penalty area. Ryan Giggs then ran to the corner and started dribbling to goal. He crossed the ball and Ronaldo headed it in.

When Giggs started dibbling the ball, AR Darren Cann (whos on the FIFA list) raised his flag. Howard Webb blew the whistle after the ball went in, and had the corner re-taken. Manchester United scored on that corner kick...again, and won 3-0.

Cann said he disallowed the goal because Rooney hadn't told him he had taken the corner.

The LOTG say the ball is in play, but if Giggs had came over and picked the ball up and set it in the corner arc and the AR flagged for deliberate handling, United would have erupted.

Did anyone else see it? What do you think?

[cachundo]

Cann said he disallowed the goal because Rooney hadn't told him he had taken the corner.

The LOTG say the ball is in play, . . . . . So if the CK was taken at the opposite corner, how the hell are United supposed to tell him that they had taken the corner?

Saw the same stunt pulled at a Serie A game last season, all I can remember is that it had to be one among Juve, Milan, or Inter.

LOTG says ball should be at the arc and roll one circumference, which is what United did exactly. Not United's fault that he's not as sharp as they are.

[code1390]

LOTG says ball should be at the arc and roll one circumference, which is what United did exactly. Not United's fault that he's not as sharp as they are.


Thats been changed. Now the laws say "kicked and moved". Not a big deal. Just thought I would correct that. :)

[jkc313]

Thats been changed. Now the laws say "kicked and moved". Not a big deal. Just thought I would correct that. :)

While these Brits don't have to abide by Advice To Referees, Advice tells us that rolling the ball as Rooney did does not constitute "kicked and moved". That said, I never thought I'd see this trick work at a high level of play. If the referee actualy called it back only because he wasn't told Rooney was taking the corner, he has no legal basis for that. The only problem I would see is that there was no "kick" of the ball.

[refmedic]

Sounds to me that there needed to be better communication between the referee and his AR. When Webb asked what happened, all he needed to hear was that after the ball was placed in the corner arc, it was kickced and moved. So far this year in the EPL, they have awarded a goal that never was, and at least in this case, denied a perfectly good goal. In this case it seems more like they didn't know the law and/or didn't communicate properly. If they just didn't see it this would be a much less controversial thing. I hope it was just a case of poor communication. Luckily for all involved, it didn't change the outcome of the match, so there wil undoubtedly be less press on the issue.

[DadOf6]

In the final moments of the 1st half, with no score, United have a corner next to the AR. Rooney places it in the corner arc then rolls his foot over the ball, putting it a yard or so into play. Rooney then left the corner, leaving the ball, and went towards the penalty area. Ryan Giggs then ran to the corner and started dribbling to goal. He crossed the ball and Ronaldo headed it in.

When Giggs started dibbling the ball, AR Darren Cann (whos on the FIFA list) raised his flag. Howard Webb blew the whistle after the ball went in, and had the corner re-taken. Manchester United scored on that corner kick...again, and won 3-0.

Cann said he disallowed the goal because Rooney hadn't told him he had taken the corner.

The LOTG say the ball is in play, but if Giggs had came over and picked the ball up and set it in the corner arc and the AR flagged for deliberate handling, United would have erupted.

Did anyone else see it? What do you think?

It sounds like a good goal was disallowed.

NOTE: I hate trick plays that are likely to fool the referees. Execute them at your own risk. I especially hate this one because suppose the defenders were to charge the ball. You know that the attackers are going to claim that they never put the ball into play.

[Falc]

Roma was the Serie A side that tried that trick last season.

Here is a video of the play ...

YouTube - Manchester United vs Chelsea - Clever Corner Kick HD 11/01/09

I don't know where in the Laws it is required to give notice to the AR that a corner was taken. An argument can be made that Rooney did not let the ball set as it looks like he rolled the ball into the arc and out in the same movement. But that was not the justification. And if the thought was that Rooney was leaving the CK for Giggs, is there not an argument that he is wasting time? What we don't see, or hear, is any conversation between Rooney and Giggs. The Chelsea players look ridiculous moving away from the play instead of going after the ball. If the two players said something to the effect that it appeared that Giggs was taking the corner, then there might be a case of unsportsman like conduct. But this would not be absolved if Rooney informed the AR that he put the ball in play.

[Falc]

This play by Roma against AC Milan was a bit more subtle as Totti barely moves the ball ...

YouTube - Crafty corner

[PVancouver]

What constitutes "kicking" a ball might not be completely clear in the ATR, for example rolling the ball forward with the foot might be allowed, but the ATR does specifically state that "Being 'kicked' does not, for example, include an action in which the ball is dragged by continuous contact with the foot", which is exactly what occurred in this case.

Unfortunately, I think this puts too fine a point on it. Either allow any play with the foot, or only allow plays with the foot where an impact of some sort is made with the ball. In the latter case, any prolonged contact with the ball (a drag, push, or roll) would not be considered as a "kick". The "kicking motion" concept should be dropped.

[bdndyc]

What you have to bear in mind as well is that the Corner came as a result of a rejected handball penalty appeal from United.

Some of the United players in the middle were complaining quite strongly, as a result the refs attention at the time Rooney touched it was not on the corner taker, and neither, presumably was the assistant refs.

Legally, there's nothing to stop him doing it, but if Rooney had any sense about him he'd have quickly mentioned it to the AR as he was doing it, or someone from Man U would have asked the officials before the game if it was legal... etc.

The fact was that there is no way Mr Cann was looking for this to take place, it's not something you're expecting to happen really and therefore his flagging was probably more out of confused surprise.

Also notice that Rooney's foot never leaves the ball, I can't recall off the top of my head the rule regarding that but it was surely all in more than one movement.

At the end of the day the kick can't be taken if the referee isn't ready. Howard Webb was distracted in the middle and Darren Cann wasn't aware of what was going on.

The theory behind the idea, in my opinion is legal, it's just the way United executed it was very naive on their behalf.

And of course, like people have said, if a Chelsea player had ran up and got to the ball before Giggs, United would have played hell.

[DadOf6]

What constitutes "kicking" a ball might not be completely clear in the ATR, for example rolling the ball forward with the foot might be allowed, but the ATR does specifically state that "Being 'kicked' does not, for example, include an action in which the ball is dragged by continuous contact with the foot", which is exactly what occurred in this case.

Unfortunately, I think this puts too fine a point on it. Either allow any play with the foot, or only allow plays with the foot where an impact of some sort is made with the ball. In the latter case, any prolonged contact with the ball (a drag, push, or roll) would not be considered as a "kick". The "kicking motion" concept should be dropped.

I think too much emphasis is given to "kicked" and not enought to "moved."

For me, a "kick" is any motion of the foot to the ball. Easy. It doesn't matter from which direction. Easy.

The part I look is "moves." The ball must leave the foot as a result of the kick. If the foot leaves the ball because the ball stopped moving or never moved at all, the ball did not move and the ball is not in play. But if the ball leaves the foot it must have moved.

So if the ball is continuously dragged with the foot it has not moved as a result of a kick. But it has been kicked and it has moved if it was dragged with the foot and keeps moving when the ball-foot contact ceases. In this case the drag was not continuous and the ball is in play.

I look for the same thing in the case of contact with the top of the ball. If the ball just quivers we can be certain that the foot left the ball and it is not in play. But suppose the player applies steady pressure to the top of the ball and it squirts out? The foot moved to the ball (very slowly) and as a result the ball moved from one place to another. It is in play.

In the video the ball clearly kept moving after the foot-ball contact was broken. It should have been allowed.

But I still hate a play when the ref can easily be fooled. It would have been so easy to quietly tell the AR that he was putting the ball in play. The closest defender was at least ten yards away and Rooney's back was to the pitch.

I also have to wonder if there is an understood protocol that the AR be informed. Otherwise the ref's statement that they were NOT told makes no sense to me.

[boylanj64]

While players think this makes for a nifty trick play, I agree with the AR. The deabt isn't over whether it was kicked, but that Rooney should've said something, either before the match or the kick. The problem with this trick play is it applies a double standard. If a player sets the ball adjusts the ball with his foot, or dribbles over as Rooney does, then takes a normal corner, he will never get called for a double kick, but by this standard he should. Unless they are told, there is no way for officials to discriminate between the two, and that has to be done. Otherwise, we should call a double kick every time a player dribbles a ball to put it in position.

[Falc]

Either the ball has been put in play or it has not. Informing the AR is irrelevant and not part of the Laws. The only judgment call is whether the kick was legal. If the Chelsea players charged to the ball and beat Giggs to the ball, complaining does not change anything, as was the case in reverse. Unfortunately, the excuse given was that the AR was not informed. So the argument was that it was a legit play but for the lack of notification. That is BS. Either Rooney executed a proper restart or he didn't. That is what should be the debate.

[Rufusabc]

On the Premier League Highlight show last night, the announcer said that the referee was aware of the gambit, but "thought it violated the spirit of the game".

After watching the replay of the event, I thought it to be perfectly legal. Although, I could argue that the ball was not stationary in the corner arc before Rooney kicked and moved it.

I also thought Webb controlled the match with his early yellows, and that Ian Dowie, failed manager turned commentator, had NO CLUE as to what Webb was doing with the early cautions.

Rufus

[code1390]

I also thought Webb controlled the match with his early yellows, and that Ian Dowie, failed manager turned commentator, had NO CLUE as to what Webb was doing with the early cautions.



He said something like "you can't give a caution in the 3rd minute". I must have missed that when looking through the laws.

[chrisrun]

Either the ball has been put in play or it has not. Informing the AR is irrelevant and not part of the Laws. The only judgment call is whether the kick was legal. If the Chelsea players charged to the ball and beat Giggs to the ball, complaining does not change anything, as was the case in reverse. Unfortunately, the excuse given was that the AR was not informed. So the argument was that it was a legit play but for the lack of notification. That is BS. Either Rooney executed a proper restart or he didn't. That is what should be the debate.

The hard part about these plays is that the attacking team is going to claim whatever is best for them. That's why they execute them in this manner.

In this case they are claiming that Rooney put the ball in play and the goal should count. However, if a Chelsea player had run over and taken the ball before Giggs got there, they would be complaining that Chelsea was delaying the game, and Rooney simply moved the ball before Giggs took the corner.

If the AR saw Rooney do this, then Giggs saw a defender approaching and picked up the ball and placed it in the corner arc, do we really expect the AR to flag for handling?

The referee and the defense are really in a no-win situation, whereas the attackers are in a win-win situation.

[Englishref]

On the Premier League Highlight show last night, the announcer said that the referee was aware of the gambit, but "thought it violated the spirit of the game".


This trick came around about 2 years ago, but was eradicated a) when players were told to tell the referee or AR (whoever was closest) what was going to happen, and b) when opposition players wised up to it. I thought we'd seen the last of it. The 'spirit of the laws' theory was what was put around at RA and FA meetings when this trick came around last time. It was said that this trick was against the spirit of the laws, and whilst there was nothing against it in the LOTG, in order to prevent controversy, if a player wanted to do it, they should tell the referee or AR prior to it happening, and then he/she would shout something along the lines of "we're playing". Both sides would have been told to do this before the kick off, so both would know the protocol. It sort of worked, though I wasn't too comfortable with it, and it soon disappeared.

So far this year in the EPL, they have awarded a goal that never was

Just to clarify, that wasn't in the EPL, that was in the Championship, albeit it was given by a SG official.

[PVancouver]

So if the ball is continuously dragged with the foot it has not moved as a result of a kick. But it has been kicked and it has moved if it was dragged with the foot and keeps moving when the ball-foot contact ceases. In this case the drag was not continuous and the ball is in play.

You see a distinction here I had not considered until now. Your distinction is plausible, but there is little way for me to know if the ATR had this same distinction in mind. In your opinion, while Rooney continuously dragged the ball with his foot, once he released the ball with his foot with the ball still moving, it became a legal "kick". Had he dragged and moved the ball but left it stationary upon release, it would not be a legal kick. Interesting concept but a bit dubious.


I look for the same thing in the case of contact with the top of the ball. If the ball just quivers we can be certain that the foot left the ball and it is not in play. But suppose the player applies steady pressure to the top of the ball and it squirts out? The foot moved to the ball (very slowly) and as a result the ball moved from one place to another. It is in play.

I don't see how you can derive a "kicking motion" out of this.


I would prefer to disallow both types of "kicks" and require that the ball be "hit with the foot" without any form of continuous contact. This would solve many problems.

[Falc]

The hard part about these plays is that the attacking team is going to claim whatever is best for them. That's why they execute them in this manner.

In this case they are claiming that Rooney put the ball in play and the goal should count. However, if a Chelsea player had run over and taken the ball before Giggs got there, they would be complaining that Chelsea was delaying the game, and Rooney simply moved the ball before Giggs took the corner.

If the AR saw Rooney do this, then Giggs saw a defender approaching and picked up the ball and placed it in the corner arc, do we really expect the AR to flag for handling?

The referee and the defense are really in a no-win situation, whereas the attackers are in a win-win situation.

Who cares what the attacking team is going to claim. You make a call based on whether it is allowed under the Laws of the Game, period. If in the opinion of the AR, Rooney had put the ball into play and Giggs picked up with his hands, then yes, call hand ball.

And this business about not being within the spirit of the game is total BS too. Chelsea got caught napping. There is no need for the referee or AR to shout the ball is in play. The referee is not there to help an opponent. Making up rules that do not exist is the worst thing to do.

[USSF REF]

No. 21 - my response on this issue. (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/blog.php?b=2978)