Law 5 quiz question
- Thread starter one
- Start date
If the ball goes in the goal off the referee, none of them.
If the ball hitting the ref had resulted in a change of possession or started a promising attack, none of them.
If the ball hits the ref, stays in possession of the team that played it and they go down the pitch and score, it is legal as if the referee is temporarily incapacitated, play can continue under the supervision of the other match officials.
As always overarching advice is don’t get hit by the ball.
If the ball hitting the ref had resulted in a change of possession or started a promising attack, none of them.
If the ball hits the ref, stays in possession of the team that played it and they go down the pitch and score, it is legal as if the referee is temporarily incapacitated, play can continue under the supervision of the other match officials.
As always overarching advice is don’t get hit by the ball.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Under 18/19 Laws I think the correct answer is A. Though I'd hope that the Senior Assistant would consult with his colleagues if he's in any doubt!
Erm...
Well, I was going to pick a, but then I thought, what if the goal is scored over where the Junior assistant is, in which case, his judgement should be fine and it would be great for his morale as well, cos can you imagine ignoring him and asking the bloke on the other side just because he's the senior?
Also, A implies (to me) that you'd ignore the junior if he spotted a foul or whatever in the build up, since it's only going to be in the opinion of the senior A/R, who again, could be on the other side of the pitch.So, b would make sense if you didn't have a fourth official and c would make sense if you did have a fourth official.
So I'd pick c, since it's the blanket answer.
one
RefChat Addict
To make it relevant for you (and 19/20 laws), assume the ball did not hit the referee. The question and the answers are not about that. It's about the ball entering goal while the referee is temporarily incapacitated.
Isn't d the blanket answer?
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
It's just a crappy question. Law 5 says:
"If a referee is incapacitated, play may continue under the supervision of the other match officials until the ball is next out of play. "
The important part is that the goal is valid unless there was a prior offense.
I think that makes "c" the best answer, as a and b are not necessarily true. But its just a stupid question that tests what the test maker thinks about weirdly formulated questions rather than anything about Law 5.
"If a referee is incapacitated, play may continue under the supervision of the other match officials until the ball is next out of play. "
The important part is that the goal is valid unless there was a prior offense.
I think that makes "c" the best answer, as a and b are not necessarily true. But its just a stupid question that tests what the test maker thinks about weirdly formulated questions rather than anything about Law 5.
one
RefChat Addict
In addition to the quote from @socal lurker, the laws define "other match officials" as:
"Other match officials (two assistant referees, fourth official, two additional assistant referees, reserve assistant referee, video assistant referee (VAR) and at least one assistant VAR (AVAR)) may be appointed to matches."
C assumes you have 3 (AR1, AR2 and 4O) appointed and only them. C is the expected answer but a and b can be correct just as much as c can be correct given no assumptions. Which means d can also be correct. By the same token they can all be incorrect depending who is appointed. I thought it was a pretty bad question and just wanted to confirm it be putting it out there.
"Other match officials (two assistant referees, fourth official, two additional assistant referees, reserve assistant referee, video assistant referee (VAR) and at least one assistant VAR (AVAR)) may be appointed to matches."
C assumes you have 3 (AR1, AR2 and 4O) appointed and only them. C is the expected answer but a and b can be correct just as much as c can be correct given no assumptions. Which means d can also be correct. By the same token they can all be incorrect depending who is appointed. I thought it was a pretty bad question and just wanted to confirm it be putting it out there.