The Ref Stop

New York Red Bulls v Chicago Corner

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

The Ref Stop
"Unsporting" but allowed as per LOTG ...

I like the role the AR plays in this - looks like the 2nd player is talking to him telling him what is going on and the AR plays a blinder by not visibly reacting ... hopefully the AR claimed an assist in the goal ;)
 
The first player touches it three times (twice with right foot, once with left) ... where does it say in LOTG that a player cannot set the ball with their foot ? ... the ball is stationary before his final touch
 
At the very start of the video the ball is already set. I think he takes the corner with the initial touch and then touches it again to make it look obvious to the assistant referee that he's taken it so IDFK for two touches
 
Yep - the ball is already set (still) within the arc - is he not allowed to re-set it though with his foot ?
 
Yes but I would say that he doesn't need another 3 touches to re-set the ball when the position of the ball is irrelevant if it is going to be dribbled by the second player
 
How many touches is a player allowed to set / re-set the ball - is there a limit defined in LOTG ?
 
Which one put the ball into play? If he wanted to be clearer about it... he touches it once with his foot and that's it.

Touching it 3-4 times? Well, either the ball is in play on the first, or it's never in play.
 
It's got to be in play at some point - and in this example - the player(s) are deciding for themselves when it is in play

It's such a grey area ...

If the 2nd player had decided to then pick the ball up and set it down again (e.g. for a left-footed in-swinging corner) and then booted it into the box - no one would have batted an eye-lid ... AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !! !!
 
For me, that ball is in play. The assistant knows it, but I dont think he considered that the first player touched it 3 times.

I have to add though, that is some shocking defending!
 
As soon as the second person ran out with it. I'd bang my whistle and give an IDFK. No controversy or goal. And no one would be talking about this all over the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SM
Poor officiating there. The assistant shouldn't be getting into that conversation and should communicate with the ref immediately.

And the touching three times when stationary in the arc means this is an easy IDK for me too, as shown on TV.
 
Alex71 said:
If the 2nd player had decided to then pick the ball up and set it down again (e.g. for a left-footed in-swinging corner) and then booted it into the box - no one would have batted an eye-lid ...
Click to expand...
This is why it is a crappy tactic that should be stamped out. If the 'ball in play' is not clear to the defenders then how can the ref be certain it is in play? Certainly not because of some verbal agreement between player and AR.
 
Law 17 should be changed. It currently states "The ball is in play when it is kicked and moves". It should read "The ball is in play when it is kicked directly out of the corner arc". For this incident though, IDFK that the AR should have been flagging for because of the multiple touches of the first player.
 
The first player had too many touches for me. He's tried a trick and, franky, has executed it pretty badly. I would have liked to see the AR pick upon on this.
 
It's legal for me. First touches are re-setting the ball (which I think are just part of the 'sell' by that player).
The problem with saying it's an IFK for those touches, is that nobody would give that IFK until the other player ran off with the ball. So you're making that decision several seconds after it happened. The second player did nothing wrong, if anybody did (and it is up to referee judgement), it's the first player. But we're not even thinking about penalising him until the 2nd player is involved.....which still isn't a great situation to be in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top