Hey all, I wanted to get this forum's thoughts on the following play that happened in a pre-season match last year between Barcelona and Arsenal. The incident involves Ronald Araújo and Gabriel Jesus. The referee did not call a foul on the play. Should have this been called a foul (and, if so, what would be severity of punishment) or did the referee get this right in the end? Here's a link to a video of the incident: https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/com...=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Thanks.
This is a new one. Flamengo awarded a last minute penalty! Criciúma player kicks a second ball that’s on the pitch as Cebolinha is about to shoot. https://t.co/8ntmLXwU8t— All Things Brazil™ 🇧🇷 (@SelecaoTalk) July 20, 2024
Very curious to get the opinion on this. Clearly throwing an object (like a cleat) at a ball to interfere with the play is a foul. But a 2nd ball on the field interfering with play should call for it to be stopped.
Maybe nobody noticed the second ball, as they were all focused on the real in play one? I remember an experiment to show "blindness", that is baffling. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...roblem-with-inattentional-blindness-17339778/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invisible_Gorilla https://practicalpie.com/invisible-gorilla/ Edit: nobody, but the one who almost trips over it
See my post above it. Another reason might be, he didnot want to interrupt a very big chance for the attacking team. Edit: Would that be against the rules? the ref has the second ball in his line of sight. It all happens in one second! So both explanations are possible.
Law 5: • an extra ball, other object or animal enters the field of play during the match, the referee must: • stop play (and restart with a dropped ball) only if it interferes with play - unless the ball is going into the goal and the interference does not prevent a defending player playing the ball, the goal is awarded if the ball enters the goal (even if contact was made with the ball) unless the interference was by the attacking team • allow play to continue if it does not interfere with play and have it removed at the earliest possible opportunity the ball wasn’t interfering with anything—the player chose to kick it into the other ball. So I guess we did need that new DFK offense after all….(EDIT: oops, no we didn’t . The DFK offense is for thrown or held, not kicked—what is the basis for a penalty here?)
I'm not convinced it didn't interfere with play. The defender was clearly distracted by the ball. I'm not sure how you can have a ball in the penalty area like that during an attack and it not be interfering with decisions. I'm happy to have a better interpretation of 'interfere with play', but to me play should have been stopped.
I don’t think “led him to do something stupid” qualifies as interfering with play. . . .IFAB changed the rule specifically to allow play to continue unless it can’t. I think IFAB would say this was an absolutely proper application and proper caution.
What is the rules justification for a penalty kick? I mean yes giving a PK is justice, and I am happy this was the call, but the only IFAB justification for an outside agent DFK is an object being deliberately thrown, so it's treated like a handball. I feel like the only IFAB rule you could do here is a drop ball to the keeper and a YC to the defender for lack of respect? Maybe I'm missing something
I've been out of the refereeing game for nearly a decade so I'm not totally up to date on the rules -- was there a law change that specifically makes this a DFK? I know there's the language that a held or thrown object counts as a handball, but otherwise -- I truly don't know how you can go DFK here. IDK + yellow could make sense, but what's the DFK offense?
!!!! What is the restart for play stopped for a caution?!?! but agree that I can’t figure out the basis for a PK. Careless challenge?!?
Finally found my answer: buried at the very end of law 12, there is specific language that says if a player throws or kicks an object (other than the match ball) at an opponent, play is restarted with a direct free kick. Not sure how long that language has been there, and it's odd how it's just kind of thrown in at the end of law 12 (the separate language about throwing or holding an object still exists in a separate paragraph), but kudos to the referee for knowing that.
It's before the 'led him to do something stupid' that I'm questioning. It's a distraction a few feet away from him which he obviously saw or he wouldn't have reacted like that. So then the question is how much did it affect him, prior to him deciding to kick it, and more important does grabbing a player's attention who is involved in the active play constitute as interfering? I would think it would, but there's a lot of judgement and assumption that needs to happen there. (I'm not arguing for a different referee decision here. I'm wondering where the line.)
I think the fundamental change is that a loose ball doesn’t give players an excuse to stop playing. The defender had a choice to try to defend or do something stupid, and chose to do something stupid. If the ball had been in his way or hit his, it would be a whole different story.
So my oops was an oops . . . That’s what I thought the Law was, but when I went to quote it, I only looked at the DFK list. Sometimes I really think they need a better editor . . . Um, no, really all the time I think that . . .
Ah yes I meant IFK, long day yesterday. And yes, the geniuses at IFAB write in the direct free kick section a bullet point specifically about an object thrown. And then there's following sections about handball, IFK, everything about yellow and red cards, and then, buried in the second to last paragraph of the law, the word "throws OR KICKS" is present. Instead of adding it to the bullet point talking about throwing an object. Brilliant.
I get that and if that's where the line is, then that's where it is. I don't really agree with with it b/c the ball being there and that close to active play was a clear distraction for me. A split second in that situation in my decision making because I see the ball can be huge. So I don't like it, but if that's the intent of the law these days then that's the intent.
The PK is the just decision. What I'm still stuck on is that the moment the ball is played by the defender, it has interfered with play and should be whistled dead. So IF the whistle was correctly blown (after the kick before the ball/ball contact). Does the misconduct occur when the ball is kicked or does it only become misconduct when it hits the other ball? (If the ball goes through without striking anything, is there a misconduct) But where is the foul that justifies a PK?
i don’t agree with your starting point at all. The ball didn’t interfere with play. The player chose to stop playing and kick the ball instead. The ball didn’t interfere with anything until the defender chose to kick it—and the offense occurred when it was kicked as the offense is kicking the ball at the game ball.
Curious about your thoughts on this penalty at 2:50 (vid should start there). Looks like the GK gets the ball about the same time he punches the player in the head. So you can call that reckless for sure. I am nearly certain this would not be called a penalty in England, but that isn't really that important. Nevertheless, anybody has strong thoughts against this penalty or is this good?
Clean all day long. Attacker is backing in without looking (a minimum of careless) Keeper has eyes on ball, BOTH fists hit the ball before the head and fists come together. Unfortunate, but no foul.