http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/video_audio/116950.html?sport=3 Yet another case of a team not acting sportingly and then everything going to hell.
Ah, but the question is... which team? Injuries occur at 0:07 of this video. By 0:13, white players are calling upon blue to play the ball out of play. Seconds later, it appears a blue player in the penalty area even joins those calls. Instead, the blue player with the ball plays a dangerous ball into the penalty area, attempting to score, only for it to be cleared out. A second blue player then attempts to trap the ball, with the seeming intention of playing it back into the penalty area again. Only when he mis-traps, the ball heads toward the touch line, and two white players converge does he then raise his arm to remind everyone of the injuries and allow the ball to go out of play. I don't know Arabic or Korean, but from the microphones on the touch you can hear one of the players from the white team saying "no, no, no" as he points back toward the middle, indicating there was no way they were going to play the ball back to blue because they just tried to score during the injuries. I don't want to say I have no problem with the way white acted, because I don't know if they acted under the false premise that they would give the ball back during the period we don't see. But given what we do see, I don't think white has any obligation whatsoever to return the ball to blue. It's unfortunate that a brawl resulted, but if blue wanted to maintain possession and have everything remain above board and sporting, all they had to do was play the ball out deliberately in the first place. As an aside, after the brawl, it apparently took 4-5 minutes to restore order and the only sanctions (for players and substitutes, at least) was a red card a piece. Match report is linked here: http://www.the-afc.com/en/component/joomleague/?view=report&compID=410&matchId=4126
This is why players playing the ball out for injuries needs to end. If the injury is severe, the CR stops play. That being said, the blue team plays the ball in. Maybe the guy didn't think it was severe. But then when it comes across, blue plays the ball out. Poor sportsmanship for white. As officials, not much we can do about it (other than not "seeing" when somebody cheapshots the goal scorer.) Goal should stand. Although it's hard to imagine the attacker was onside.
Disagree strongly. I don't want to legislate out one of the last consistent examples of true sportsmanship from our game. Examples like this are the rare, rare exception to the rule. And when there is potential conflict, it can usually be managed ahead of time by a perceptive referee. Ok, that's fine. But that's his choice. Once he's played it in, his team is trying to score and he's putting possession of the ball in doubt. I don't see this. I see a blue player who realizes he mis-trapped the ball and is now boxed in by two white players. The blue player then tries to make it look like he's sportingly shepherding the ball over the line. I don't buy it for a second. If he had executed that trap, he would have played the ball right back in. Unless white did something to make blue believe they were playing the ball back, I don't agree here at all. They had their player injured in the penalty area. They defended against a cross during it. And they had to pressure the second blue player in order for him to relent. They then made it clear immediately that they weren't going to play the ball back. I can't see a fault in what white did at all here.
I am pretty surprised that you are defending the practice AND defending the white goal. I am not seeing a "consistent example of true sportsmanship" here. That ship has sailed long ago. Every time there is an injury and the referee allows play to proceed there is a miniature version of this debacle. Play continues for 3 or 4 or 5 seconds, some players are shouting, some players are playing. Is he really injured? Is it my problem? Who plays it out? Who should get the ball back? Confusion and disorder will destroy your game. Why allow it? ...to perpetuate a myth of sportsmanship? Stopping play is a job for the referee. He carries the whistle; play stops when he blows the whistle. When he stops play, he gets to decide where, when, and how it is restarted.
MassRef, I don't dispute how you see things happen in the video. Suwon did not act like they were particularly concerned for the well-being of either injured player, and it may be disputable as to whether they played the ball into touch on purpose. Journalist John Duerdin actually gives a particularly thoughtful analysis of the incident on Soccernet in which he blames all three parties involved... both teams and the referee. A valid point is you have two players on the ground in the PA, one with a head injury, and the referee is allowing play to continue. That's kind of a no-no... head injury, not to mention they are prone in an area to which the action is obviously going to migrate. Because he doesn't stop play, you end up with a ball being played into touch and some question as to whether that was done deliberately. But the one thing he did say that I thought was particularly striking was that Suwon had all of its players in the attacking end on the restart. They were clearly assuming that the ball would be played to them, even if it was kicked back to the keeper. To which, when I watch this, I think the first Al Saad player may have been trying to do that (the field view of the replay at the 2:20 mark) and his teammate jumped it. The Suwon defenders did not move when the ball was played long into their own half, likely assuming the Al Saad player was playing the ball to their keeper. The referee has no control over this, obviously, but Suwon showed plenty of indications to think that the ball would be played back to them. Al Saad could have recognized this and pulled out of the attack. The Al Saad coach (from Uruguay) made post-match comments that he was embarrassed by his players' behavior. The honorable thing to do, if Al Saad has a sense of dignity, would be to allow Suwon to score from the kickoff of the return leg and pick up their own away goal. This would not exactly even the match (a 2-1 result for Suwon in Qatar would still allow Al Saad to advance, whereas without the 1st leg controversial goal the same result would allow Suwon to advance) but it would be a gesture of recognition that what happened was not really in spirit of the competition.
This never had to happen, player sportsmanship aside, after all didn't FIFA say to stop playing the ball out? Two players are down, one from each team, center of the PA, ball gets crossed into the PA! STOP PLAY BEFORE THE BALL GETS THERE! This puts the injured/down players in danger.
I'm defending the practice because situations like this are the exception that prove the rule. We are only talking about it because it was so outside the norm and it resulted in a brawl. Meanwhile, whether youth, amateur or professional, I have at least one example of playing the ball back in nearly every match I do. I suspect it's the same for everyone else here. So we are going to remove a sporting practice that occurs thousands of times a day around the world because one team screws it up every once in awhile? I hope not. It is a good, sporting practice that deserves to stay. I'm defending the white goal because it appears blue didn't want to play by the norms and then tried to claim them on their behalf. If white indicated that they were going to play the ball back and used it as a ruse to score the goal, then I wouldn't be defending them. But everything we can see and hear shows they made it clear they weren't going to play the ball back. No use debating here because we just feel differently--very differently, in fact. What you see as a miniature debacle I see as human beings working out a solution in a sporting manner. If you vest all power in the referee, it very likely might only make things worse. Not only that, but how could you ever even outlaw this practice? If teams want to do it, they are still going to do it. And it's just as easy to say playing the game is for the players. If they decide they don't want to play because there is consensus or near-consensus that an opponent is injured, why do we want to try to legislate that out of the game?
I'm not sure why I feel as strongly as I do on this one, because I do understand your logic. But I disagree completely. What if Suwon had scored a goal while the two players were down on the ground? Would they have then conceded after the kickoff because it would be the sporting thing to do? No, they wouldn't have. And not too many neutrals would be saying they should. They lose all credibility here because they tried to score a goal while the injuries had taken place. You can't un-ring the bell here and demand two bites. They tried to score while the white player was down and failed. If they truly felt that white was injured, then they were the ones attempting the dishonorable act. Then they want the ball back so they can try again after the injury is dealt with. Sorry, no dice. You can go back to a couple past threads (they are very old)--one involving Ajax, I think, and another involving Nwonkwo Kanu. Both involved somewhat similar situations to this and I came down strongly with the position that you are holding here, vetshak. So I understand the concern. But there's more to this one and you can see it from the reaction of the two white players as the ball finally goes out of bounds. They knew blue was trying to score and they weren't going to give the ball back. That was their right and they made it clear. Again, unless there's something not on video where white intimates they would play the ball back, white did nothing wrong. From a referee perspective, since that's what this forum is for, I would agree that he... A) Could have stopped play for the head injury & B) Should have managed the restart better to at least help communicate to everyone what the expectations were. I'll put blame on the referee after the blue team. White deserves the least amount of blame in my eyes, but they'll be the easy scapegoat.
I will say this, MassRef, I never have a problem with you disagreeing with me because I always feel like we can do so cordially! I'm probably too much of an idealist here. If I was the referee in this situation, I would most certainly not interfere with play once the restart was taken, but if it was so apparent to me that white wanted to attack and blue was expecting the ball back, I probably would hold up the restart to make sure both teams were on the same page. One would obviously be very unhappy (probably blue), but at the least I would not want the restart to proceed under the impression that they were going to get the ball back only to have white spring a counter on them. Maybe I would blow the play dead and have white bring the throw back to do it "from the right spot." Or I would claim my AR had not given me the ready signal. I just don't think allowing play to proceed like this was wise... with the subsequent brawl justification for my inherent sense of danger. And yes, I'm sure that many people would say I have no business monkeying around with any of this. Which may be true, but it would seem the spirit of the game would be better served by such an outside-the-box intervention.
Yep. BTW, I know we must whistle if we think the injury is serious. So there are sometimes the ref will let the players go, and they will go. But, practically speaking, SHOULDN'T we whistle once the teams have gone into "hesitation mode". You know, that unpleasant time when they are trying to decide if they are going to kick the ball out. What is the downside of stopping play at that point (even if you aren't convinced it's serious)?
I think so. I just don't understand this whole "play the ball out" mentality for injuries. Blow your damn whistle and stop play. Referee should assess the injury as best he can and to me, unless the injury is obviously not serious and/or there is no threat of an imminent goal/attacking situation, stop play, deal with the injury, and do a dropped ball.
Seems pretty clear the blue player misplayed the ball and only when he realized the two white players were converging on him did he decide to act as if he was doing it on purpose. I while the ref may have not thought the injuries were serious to stop play right away, he had two players on the ground and the ball went back to midfield. You would think that would be a perfect time for the ref to stop play before Blue plays the ball back in. Maybe White shouldn't have taken advantage of Blue the way they did. But I honestly have no issue with it. Blue has only themselves to blame imo as White had no reason to give the ball back to them since it was Blue who misplayed the ball out of bounds while attacking White's goal. Instead of trying to deceive/take advantage of White and make White look bad, they should have manned up and expected White to keep the ball.
FIFA already "legislated" this a few years ago by directing officials to not allow players to stop play for an injury. Referees are to stop play when appropriate and not wait for players to play the ball out. This Referee did not follow the directive and on top of that, did not manage the problem before it blew up. Poor officiating.
That referee should've stopped play - a player from each team down in the PA? Letting them play wins you (as the referee) nothing in this scenario - and the restart is a dropped ball away from goal. I understand those wanting to let play continue, but it's not like these two were writhing on the ground, Italian-style. They were down for the count. An easy call the referee made more complicated all by himself, and the teams were all too happy to complicate the situation further. What was he hoping to gain by letting play continue? Nothing against those in the "teams play the ball out" camp, I'm just not in it.
Here is a bit of video from the afc. (They 'cleaned' it up a bit.) But, at least I can understand the announcer. http://www.liveafc.tv/vodplayer/video/1864359/title/Suwon_vs_Al_Sadd Not sure what the referee directives in the AFC are... but USSF directive is quite clear that play should have been stopped BY THE REFEREE for the head injury on the blue player: http://www.ussoccer.com/News/Referee-Programs/2009/03/Head-Injuries.aspx In regards to the restart... While blue might have thought white should have played the ball back to them, white is under no obligation to do so. Did white violate any of the Laws of the Game on the restart? Nope.. Goal allowed. If play had been stopped for the head injury (again using USSF directives), the whole ugly mess would have been avoided.
Is it just me or does it look like the referee has absolutely no presence there? The scrum starts and the referee doesnt seem to be trying to regain control at all. Anyways how can you not stop the play, you have 2 players down one with a head injury. Seemed shockingly bad from the center referee to allow play to continue. Both players looked like they needed medical attention. Oh, and even if you allow for the restart the goal also looked horribly offside.
This is a great learning tool/ video that refs should learn from because this does happen more than you think with injuries in the box. However, the players are not under any obligation to give the ball back after the opponent kicked the ball out of play for injuries. Since refs are not obligated to referee sportsmanship in the game, would it be wise for the CR to verbally indicate for the other team to get the ball back just to ensure sportsmanship aspect holds up?
I admittedly struggle with this even at the level I referee, but I always come down to "my job here is to ensure player's safety, enforce the Laws of the Game", etc. but not to ensure sportsmanship. If their coach wants to be an a$$ and for them to be the same, I perceive myself as having influence but no authority. IMO when you start down that road it can be a slippery slope of inserting yourself into the game more than necessary. To prevent a chance of this I usually take the tack of stopping play myself and playing a dropped ball - which is saying something about my level of commitment to this, because I HATE dropped balls (ok, ten second break while the appopriate locker room joke is inserted here) Perhaps I'm looking at it incorrectly, but just my 2 cents.
Gotta play devil's advocate here, but first a nod to the prior statements which are absolutely true. I agree that the referee cannot control the actions of the players with regards to sportsmanship... playing the ball out at an injury, asking them to give it back, etc. But... If our job is to make the game safe and fun, then isn't what happened in the aftermath of this restart neither? Are we not supposed to use preventative measures to avoid allowing our games to boil over? I think this referee should have stopped play for the injury. In my college match yesterday, I was faced with a similar situation, player on the ground hurt after a CK, ball bouncing around just outside the PA, I stopped play because I didn't want a cross coming back in with this player laying face down at the 6. This video clip was on my mind as I made this decision. On the restart, I told the players it was a DB at the edge of the PA. I asked both teams if they wanted to challenge for it. Black said they would kick the ball to the keeper. Before I dropped the ball, I quietly told the black player, "Please try not to score." She obliged. I don't think I interfered with anything. I made a polite request... she could have ignored me and cracked an unchallenged shot on goal. I did everything I could to prevent a meltdown, but still left it to the players. I don't think Al Saad was required to give the ball back in this clip, but the referee certainly could have made sure that this was clear what was happening prior to the restart. Suwon was flat-footed, because they thought they would get the ball back. Granted, I'm sure the Korean team would still have been upset when they realized they weren't getting the ball back, but maybe not as upset as giving up an away goal without any attempt to defend it. Which took a small fire and turned it into a conflagration. If we point the wrong way for a throw-in or free kick, we typically should make the restart ceremonial and allow the opposing team to get back into a defensive position. They're out of position because of our mistake. We impose ourselves on the match in this sort of situation... I don't see it as a stretch to do so in this one either.
The real question is..."Is it necessary for a ref to insert itself into the play to prevent a future conflagration between teams over the issue of sportsmanship?" Like vetshak said, it is a real slippery slope to do this.
U10's and U12's, when they don't know the traditions yet, the ref probably should get involved. At an injury I had a U10 keeper ask me last week, "Do I just keep the ball?" I told him no, that I would have to drop the ball after the injured player and coach cleared, but that I would drop it right back to him and he could pick it up. Older ages, let the players figure out what to do, and it is their slope to slide down, not yours.
A couple of years ago I was a spectator at a U16B recreational game where one of the teams was from a fairly small, relatively new, soccer association with enthusiastic but unsophisticated players. The referee stopped play for an injury, and on the subsequent dropped ball restart players from both teams stepped up to the ball. Rather than offer any explanation about sportsmanship, the referee simply stepped in front of one player and dropped the ball to the other. Let's just say that the "wronged" players did not take this well. In this case a brief word would have made a significant difference. Once the coach belatedly explained the practice to the players at the half, they were fine. The ref was either a 6 or a 5, so maybe he was used to a higher level of games, but his approach seemed like a bad idea at the time.
It is a very slippery slope. And this incident is a good reason why. How many of you actually think that ball was intentionally played out of bounds? Why should they just give the ball back to the attacking team after they misplayed the ball out of bounds while attacking in their offensive 3rd of the field?
I want to redirect the issue here again. I'm not saying Al Saad needed to give the ball back. I don't know if the ball was played out intentionally or not, and regardless Al Saad isn't required to give it back anyway. What I do think the referee could have done was hold up the restart until both teams were clear what the next action was going to be. The issue here is not that Suwon wanted or deserved the ball back. The issue was that they were not prepared for a quick counter attack because of their incorrect assumptions. The original article even noted that a Korean player on Al Saad was trying to tell his teammates to play the ball back to Suwon. The Al Saad coach was openly humiliated by his own team's actions. Suwon was not the only ones thinking this would be the case. The referee can't make Al Saad give the ball back. But he can hold up the restart so that nobody is taken advantage of due to incorrect assumptions. Again, we do this all the time when we point the wrong way on a throw-in or free kick. When we set a wall, we are ordered to use the whistle because it is not fair for the attacking team to restart quickly while we are setting the wall and the defense is thus unprepared for the restart. This is not an odd concept. Ref: "White, are you giving the ball back?" White Player: "No." Ref (to the protests of blue): "OK blue, they're not going to play it to you. We go on my whistle." At that point, if blue wants to argue or throw a fit, then it's their problem they chose to ignore their defensive responsibilities. But at least you provided fair warning. And I don't think that is over-involvement. Insisting that white play the ball back to blue... yes, that's wrong.