The Ref Stop

Changed drop ball law … devil in the detail

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

Russell Jones

Russell Jones

RefChat Addict
I’m far from convinced about this year’s revision to the drop ball law .. as ever, well intentioned, but opens up the possibility for confusion / surprising outcomes. As it’s a quiet week, anyone care to list the possible ways for play to proceed in the following straightforward and entirely possible scenario? Bonus points if you list them in your best guess as to ‘order of likelihood’ 😊

An attacker shoots at goal and the ball hits the referee in the penalty area ……
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
The Ref Stop
Order of likelihood:
  1. Dropped ball to GK if the ball enters the goal, changes possession or a promising attack starts while the ball is inside the penalty area
  2. Goal kick if the ball passes over the goal line but does not enter the goal
  3. Dropped ball to attacking team if not clear that the GK / defender was clearly going to gain possession before the ball touched the referee, and then the possession changes or a promising attack starts while the ball is outside the penalty area
  4. Dropped ball to defending team if the GK or a defender was clearly going to gain possession before the ball touched the referee, and then the possession changes or a promising attack starts while the ball is outside the penalty area
  5. Play on if the ball returns to an attacker and they don't start a promising attack (e.g. they play / dribble the ball away from goal)
  6. Throw-in if the ball passes over a touchline
 
Last edited:
CaptainsPlease said:
Order of likelihood:
  1. Dropped ball to GK if the ball enters the goal, changes possession or a promising attack starts while the ball is inside the penalty area
  2. Goal kick if the ball passes over the goal line but does not enter the goal
  3. Dropped ball to attacking team if not clear that the GK / defender was clearly going to gain possession before the ball touched the referee, and then the possession changes or a promising attack starts while the ball is outside the penalty area
  4. Dropped ball to defending team if the GK or a defender was clearly going to gain possession before the ball touched the referee, and then the possession changes or a promising attack starts while the ball is outside the penalty area
  5. Play on if the ball returns to an attacker and they don't start a promising attack (e.g. they play / dribble the ball away from goal)
  6. Throw-in if the ball passes over a touchline
Click to expand...
That’s a great starter for ten (especially with the edits 😉). And hopefully well illustrates the point I was aiming to make. I’d maybe add one additional reason for stopping play in the first place and add in one, admittedly incredibly unlikely, additional restart ..
 
I have 13 scenarios (some debatable). The most likely scenario is having a very hard decision to sell.

The ball:
Enters goal
1--- directly - DB to keeper
2--- via opponent deflection (did the law intend a different outcome here?) - Goal?
--- via teammate deflection - covered under 12/13

Goes out of play over goal line
3--- directly or via teammate deflection - Goal kick
4--- via oppoent declection - corner kick

Goes out of play over touchline
5--- directly or via teammate deflection - TI defenders
6--- via opponent deflection - TI attackers

An opponent gains posession outside PA
7--- an opponent would have gained possession anyway - DB opponent
8--- a team mate would have gained possession - DB attackers
9--- unclear who (if any) would have gained possession - DB attackers

An opponent gains posession inside PA
10--- regardless of who would have gained possession - DB keeper

Teammate gains possession
11--- no promising attack - play on
12--- a promising attack, posession in the PA (this can also be via deflection) - DB keeper
13-- a promissing attack outside the PA - DB attackers
 
Think I prefer the pithier summary from @CaptainsPlease 😊. The additional reason for stopping play could be if the referee was incapacitated after being struck by the ball (not mandated immediately but certainly possible!). There is also (theoretically) the possibility of a corner kick at the other end of the FOP. @one, your #2 should see play stopped for a change of possession IMO.

Overall, horrifically complex. Which I fear will lead to some referees defaulting to simply give the DB based on where it hit them instead (which, IMO, would have been a more elegant solution)
 
Thinking about the possibilities to all extents, and ball becoming defective after hitting referee came to mind 🤔 🤣
 
one said:
Makes more sense and would sell better but technically incorrect.
Click to expand...
Given that the team ‘in possession’ is the team that last touched the ball, then I think a deflection off the opposing team (ie a change in possession) would be justification for stopping the game and giving a drop ball?
 
Russell Jones said:
Given that the team ‘in possession’ is the team that last touched the ball, then I think a deflection off the opposing team (ie a change in possession) would be justification for stopping the game and giving a drop ball?
Click to expand...
Is that “possession”? I ask tht more technically. In th games I do, I’m going to drop it to the keeper and no one will complain as no one is going to know the technical argument against the DB—I think most people who aren’t refs think it is. dB every time it hits the ref. (And maybe it should be for simplicity . . .)
 
socal lurker said:
dB every time it hits the ref.
Click to expand...
Mostly agree with an exception. If ball bounces to the same team with no attacking opportunity, play on. Stopping play will just frustrates players, especially if you drop it to the other team's keeper.
 
Russell Jones said:
Given that the team ‘in possession’ is the team that last touched the ball, then I think a deflection off the opposing team (ie a change in possession) would be justification for stopping the game and giving a drop ball?
Click to expand...
It would if a deflection touch is the same as gaining posession. I don't see how it could be! And if it is it will throw offside interpretations into all sorts of disarray.
 
one said:
It would if a deflection touch is the same as gaining posession. I don't see how it could be! And if it is it will throw offside interpretations into all sorts of disarray.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Helpfully ‘possession’ is not even defined in the Glossary of the Laws. So, in that case, happy to go with your view, as it more closely aligns with the regular meaning of the word (outside of demonic contexts 👹)
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top