Now that I had a chance to see the replay, I have to agree that it should not be a goal and restart with a drop ball. The defender did not touch the ball. The ball was also redirected after striking the balloon.
The relevant USSF instruction can be found here: http://www.ussoccer.com/Referees/Laws-of-the-Game/~/media/F7A008C197604FE0965250C9E22B355D.ashx To: National Referees National Referee Candidates National Instructors National Assessors State Directors of Referee Administration State Directors of Referee Instruction State Directors of Referee Assessment State Directors of Coaching From: Alfred Kleinaitis Manager of Referee Development and Education Subject: Objects on the Field Date: April 3, 2008 Soccer matches are exciting events, attended by partisan fans who celebrate the successes and bemoan the reverses of their favorite team. They wave flags, blare trumpets, beat drums, swirl scarves, and, sometimes, they throw things onto the field. Usually, what is thrown onto the field (confetti and streamers) is inconsequential, at most a momentary distraction. At times, however, what is thrown onto the field constitutes a serious interference in the match, either because of the specific nature of the object (e.g., bottles or lit fireworks) or because of the volume of the material covering the field and making the surface dangerously unstable. In such cases, the referee must suspend play, preferably at a stoppage called for some other reason but otherwise without delay if the issue is the safety of the players, the officials, or team personnel in the technical areas. Before play can be resumed, it is the responsibility of the home club (the organization sponsoring the match) to resolve the problem without undue delay. Under certain circumstances, the referee may consider removing players from the field for their safety during this time. A more difficult case is presented when what is thrown onto the field is not intrinsically dangerous but carries the threat of interfering with play in some significant way. Referees are, of course, alert to such interference when a ball enters the field and comes close enough to play to be mistaken for the match ball. Another example that might be cited is an EPL match (Sheffield United v. Manchester City) in which, about 10 minutes into the first half, the ball was played into the attacking third of the field at a time when more than a dozen balloons were also in the area (it may be important to note that the balloons were generally similar to the match ball in size and color). On a shot across the face of the goal, the ball hit a balloon, causing the former to be redirected slightly and the latter to be knocked toward the goal. Further play resulted in other balloons moving and bouncing in front of the goalkeeper. A goal was scored during what may have been a very confusing few seconds. In these “gray area” situations, the referee must evaluate a number of factors in order to determine if and when play should be suspended until the problem is resolved. • What is the likelihood that the foreign object(s) might interfere with the safe movement of the players? • What is the likelihood that the foreign object(s) might confuse players and/or disrupt the flow of play? • Is the problem with foreign object(s) primarily at one end of the field and therefore more likely to disadvantage one team over another? Play should not be suspended for inconsequential reasons and the referee must remain vigilant to the possibilities of the match being disrupted by the sudden appearance of unwanted objects on the field. Match officials must be sensitive to things which interfere unduly with the beauty of the sport and make a mockery of skilled play.
More quotes ..... http://msn.foxsports.com/soccer/story/10235600/Winter-stunned-by-'beach-ball'-strike
Another poster referred to it as an exercise ball so I used that terminology. On the field, it is difficult to tell - however, the video of the kid whacking the ball onto the field indeed shows it is a 'beach ball'. What is an exercise ball? If a beach ball is a glorified balloon, than an exercise ball is a glorified beach ball. Basically just increased rubber / plastic wall thickness. (ever play '4-square' or use one of those red rubber playground ball? An exercise ball is more-or-less a bigger version of one of those) Exercise ball is heavier - heavier than a soccer ball usually. I see people use them to do situps. Arch back over ball with feet on floor, etc. So - it is more substantial and can support more weight than a beach ball which, in turn, can saupport more weight than a balloon. An exercise ball would introduce a greater deflection to the soccer ball. No quibble with your other comments..
An exercise ball, as you describe it, sounds more like a medicine ball. Had that been a medicine ball, it certainly would have deflected the soccer ball, but I very much doubt the medicine ball would have moved at all. Not that it really matters.
big detour here... medicine balls are sometimes called exercise balls but c'mon, that is not a realistic connection here. Medicine balls are heavy (several pounds) and intentionally weighted. They are used for plyometrics. A kid is not going to whack a medicine ball as in the video nor is a medicne ball going to bounce like the red ball in the video does. http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/medicine-ball-exercises.html exercise ball, as I described it, and as I suspect it was originally intended, is along the lines of a substantial beach ball or an oversized playground ball. Sometimes also called stability balls. exercise ball: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Weighted_sit-ups_on_an_exercise_ball.jpg playground ball: http://www.discountschoolsupply.com...CSE&utm_medium=weblink&utm_campaign=becomecom But - why worry about such distinctions when the real deal is on sale now! http://store.liverpoolfc.tv/products/souvenirs/giftsandmisc/beach-set/pid-28099
I understand that this is the rule, but to me this is ridiculous. Liverpool fans put a Liverpool ball on the pitch, which Liverpool players could have cleared off. If these are the rules then surely it will only encourage fans to litter their goal with objects in the hope that one may touch the ball on any attack, thus ruling out any goals.
Ahh, I reread what you wrote, you are correct. I saw "situps" and immediately thought of holding a ball in front of you for added weight, as I sometimes do with medicine balls. Of course had I paid more attention, I would have realized you meant the significantly larger balls that one sometimes sits on, which this obviously was not.
Or in the hope that the match will be stopped every two minutes and rendered an unplayable farce, not to mention they will be ejected and out 50 quid, possibly with a ban to boot, due to the preponderance of CCTV in a modern EPL stadium.
Not quite. Scroll down and have another look... "Sorry, this item is out of stock!" No doubt snapped up by Sunderland supporters. The reviews are hilarious.
Maybe Sunderland should have some made up and sell them on their own web site. Those reviews are pretty good!
On the other hand, it is just an experiment in progress. Balloons - not outside interference Beach balls - not outside interference Exercise balls ??? (tune in next week) and if those are not a problem, then we go with the medicine balls. (in the US - that would be Philadelphia...)
Can't tell if you are being sarcastic or serious in your post, but I hope you are joking. All of the above are outside interference. They have no place on a field of play. They can distract players or as in the case in the referenced game lead to a deflection which resulted in a goal.
This is just a version of the classic running dog or ball from the next field over... If it interferes with play, usually meaning hits your game ball, whistle, remove object, drop ball at the spot of contact. At younger ages where players are easily distracted, you might stop play before actual contact is made, eg. if the players start chasing the dog... I had a situastion once in a u-12 game... shot wide of goal, rolling slowly out of play, stray ball from nearby approaches the game ball and almost hits it to keep it in the field, 6 yards from the goal. Luckily it missed, but I panicked as I couldn't remember the how to deal with the situation, which almost changed from a goal kick, to 'something' near the end line in the penalty area. First thing after the game was to figure out the rule, drop ball at spot of contact. It took me about a week to figure out the correct resolution: ask the attacking team to be sporting and kick the ball over the end line to re-create the goal kick. (This ball was clearly going out.)
"Beach ball blunder referee banished to English second-tier game" http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/soccer/10/19/beach-ball.ap/index.html I have to imagine that this assignment was made well in advance of the L'pool-S'land match and is not a knee-jerk reaction. Even if Jones has been "banished," I'm sure he'll be back in the Premiership soon.
This past weekend, I was coaching my U-5's and a helicopter flew over relatively low. The game stopped for a full minute with all the little guys waved. On a more serious note, could someone please explain why this isn't grounds for a replay? I thought misapplication of the law was the only ground for replay. Is Jones saying something other than a misapplication?
I don't know, it may be punishment. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...layed-while-referee-Mike-Jones-faces-axe.html EDIT - see also: http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8652_5638514,00.html
The CR/AR may have decided the one ball never struck the other, and from there decided any interference was trifling. A dubious case, but one that will avoid a replay.
Easy out, law 5 says decisions on the facts of play are up to the CR and final, they decided it was NOT outside agent effecting play, so it isn't. Once you accept that, then they made no mistake in the LOTG, just a lapse in judgement is debatable, which is not appealable.
But that's a non-truth. Should those responsible for upholding the laws of the game take the easy way out by ignoring the truth of what happened? That's even worse than the misapplication in my book.
Then are you wanting instant replay to help judge the facts. Perhaps, if the CR claims he didn't see it strike the other ball, which might more easily be the truth, the call would be more palatable. Or do you want him to call things he doesn't see? Or to be able to see everything? Or do you want 3 or 4 CRs on the field to be able to see everything/more? Or do you just want him to see everything like you and I do when we ref? [/flippancy]
No need for instant replay. Certainly, if he didn't see it, he cannot call it. My point is, however, if he saw it, and simply made the wrong call, he should not claim he didn't to avoid the consequences. That brings us to the point, however, that if an entire team of officials did not see the ball strike the beach ball, maybe they need to be doing something else. I'd also argue that there need not have been contact for interference. The fact is, that a ball was struck while an outside object was between the shot and the keeper. The keeper was clearly distracted by the outside object. There's still interference. Assume for a moment that the two balls never touched. Assume that the defender kicked the beach ball into the net. The keeper followed the beach ball. There is still interference from an outside object. The two need not touch. How a team of officials can say it didn't interfere is beyond me.
Maybe they were just following the precedent set by the balloon goal in the Man City game last year. It seems that time everyone just laughed and said: "Tough bananas." Except the Man City people, of course.