Scoring from a dropped ball

I wouldn’t really have a problem explaining it. It is what it is. They changed the law to remove the loophole of the uncontested dropped ball that turned from an act of sportsmanship to the worst kind of BS when a player takes advantage of the defense not being ready or challenging and then trying to score.

Edit: this was one of the few changes I fully supported from IFAB in recent memory. Not the first version, that left it open to interpretation as to whether the first person to touch the ball could also be the second. The final version is a good change in my eyes.

 

It wasn't an entirely non-existent problem. Whether the cure is better than the problem is a whole different story.

There were a few examples of unintended results--most notably the ball sportingly passed back to the keeper that entered the goal. As I recall, that was solved by the players, as the scoring team permitted an uncontested goal. That works for a game--but does raise issues if goal differential matters, especially in a home/away tie where away goals count more.

The player dribbling into open play and eventually scoring was never what the rule was intended to prevent--it cured the problem of the first "Solution" that if the the player doing the sporting pass back settled the ball before kicking it over the keeper's head it was no longer direct from the DB.

(I had a game with a contested DB at midfield in which a player in the DB ultimately scored. I'm pretty sure it was touched by a second player (I think both touched in the DB), but not 100% sure--the coach politely asked at half time and thought it hadn't.)

 

Sounds like you put a lot of thought into you response...

You realize it’s just a drop ball, right? It’s the short bus equivalent of a throw in.

I️ couldn’t even tell you the last time I had opposing players contest for a ball that was dropped.

 

And for what it’s worth, not being able to convince one team or another to “give the ball back” to the team who was most imposed by the injury tells me quite a bit about a referees skills and abilities.

 

Yes, it's an invention of the players--but it's a great invention showing good sportsmanship. With all the gamesmanship we have to deal with, why should we object to the one common show of sportsmanship? Frankly, its a great thing about the Game. The referee stops play when one team has the ball, and the other team graciously lets them have it back. It's a great thing.

Your statement that "The whole idea of a dropped ball was to restart as if there had been no interruption." is incorrect. If it were, players would have to be in the same place they were when play was stopped. The most obvious demonstration of the falsity of the assumption is a if the GK is holding the ball when play is stopped--a contestedDB is a huge windfall for the other team. The DB simply restarts play in the same place that it stopped--there is no illusion in the LOTG that it restores the status quo ante. The sporting invention of the players does move it closer to the prior status by getting the ball back to the team that was in control when play was stopped.

Whether the law changes to protect it were good changes or using an overreaction to a minor issue is a separate issue.

 

More than one way to skin a cat, dude.

 

Like this?





http://proreferees.com/2016/09/21/play-of-the-week-28-start-and-restart-of-play-dropped-ball/

 

You cannot manufacture a dropped ball, no?
Asking a question regarding who's kicking it where is manufacturing a dropped ball, as is anything else regarding us telling a player where to kick the ball.

It's my job to communicate that it's a dropped ball and drop the ball, nothing more.

Am I crazy here? In my cert. class they drilled that into our heads. I'm guilty of at least dropping the ball "back" to a GK, nobody's ever complained (when whistle blew with it in GK hands), even though not technically correct.

I've done 160 something matches since March and only one of those matches featured a dropped ball that was NOT contested and attacking team told defending squad they would kick it to their GK and it happened that way.

Here's where I sit back and learn...

EDIT:
"Any number of players may contest a dropped ball (including the goalkeepers); the referee cannot decide who may contest a dropped ball or its outcome."

Not my job to decide what happens to the ball once I've dropped it. I don't do that. If players ask if they're supposed to give it to the other team I just tell them they can if they want, but don't have to, they should ask their coach for direction, I'll wait a second for them to ask.

 

Nothing technically incorrect at all--that's where the ball was so that's where the DB is. Now if you shoo away opponents, that would be technically incorrect.

At mature levels of play, it's none of the referee's business what the players decide to do. At lower levels of play, I do not think education is inappropriate. I'll ask young players if they are going to let the other team have the ball like the pros do, and I don't believe that is inconsistent with the LOTG or SOTG.

 

I am still waiting for my first scored directly from a dropped ball. Just like all the other law clarifications that coaches complain about (offside on your own half, entering the penalty during a goal kick, double touch on kick off, etc..) you explain and move on.

I tend to ask if we can have a fair play restart to the team of the injured player or to the team that did not have possession and most of the time they say yes and the rest of the time they ask what is that and I explain. If they don't want to then we will have a contested drop ball. So far this year no contested drop balls but then again I rarely stop for injury unless it involves the head.

 

I still steadfastly disagree that the unsporting dropped ball wasn’t a contributing factor to the change.

The problem for referees wasn’t the situations where a goal was mistakenly scored due to a poorly handled kick back to a keeper. As SoCal states most teams handled that on their own. It was the player that told the other team they were going to kick it back but then took off like a bat out of hell to try and score. As referees we had absolutely no recourse to stop this or punish it. So instead we had to deal with a game that had been flushed straight down the toilet.

To those that argue this change was a fix to a non existent problem. I would have argued the same for the kick off being able to go any direction now. It solved a non existent problem.

 

I think what the law change wanted to do is eliminate something like this:
Not quite the same because there is a second touch, but I do remember seeing a video of a player taking an uncontested ball running toward the goal and scoring. I just can't find in now.

 

Well at least they then went on to solve the new problem that the fix had created, by letting the kickoffer stand in the other side's half.

 

I think you should only be able to stand in the other half to a maximum of one circumference of your waist. Puts a premium on being "older, wiser"!

 

Solving non-existent problems... Does anybody really waste their time thinking about these things? (Other than those who are tasked with modifying the LOG’s)

I mean I just want the ball back in play and to not be inconvenienced with such trivial matters.

 

Many do. They like to take things very literally and pull them apart. Sometimes it is worthwhile, especially when it points out a potential conflict with the laws and practical applicability. Many times, it leads to long arguments over something that only happens once in a million years...

 

Okay. This made me laugh. Thanks. I needed it.

 

If it takes a 5 dollar deadbolt to prevent the extremely unlikely possibility of a robbery and possible physical harm, all while not materially causing damage or change to the door and Home, is it not worth the small expenditure?

 

What are you implying, sir?