Interfering with play ?

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

This has been mentioned in the Liverpool Sunderland thread already but I wanted to pose a question beyond the balloon incident which I think justifies a new thread.

Yesterday a balloon scored for Sunderland and there was a similar incident before with City v Sheffield Utd. In both cases the ref took no action. I'm just wondering what actually constitutes interfering with play or is there actually a rule that deals with this. My understanding is that if an object is on the pitch interfering with the field of play the ref can stop the match, deal with it and restart with a drop ball. If the match is not stopped then whatever happens on the pitch is allowed stand.

Assuming that's right, if a fan runs onto the pitch and scores before a referee blows his whistle does the goal stand ? Has it ever happened ?

That_Guy

They say that the ref should restart the game with a drop ball if there is an interference with play. But where do you draw the line?

Should the ref stop the game if the ball hits off him if it gives an unfair advantage to the other team? If they stop the game for every single interference it'll be disastrous.

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

Suppose it comes down to a referees individual judgement call on the day if that's the case. A good friend of mine is a referee and prior to a match last night himself and his two assistants were debating this and they couldn't say what the correct thing to do was either.

That_Guy

The referee is supposed to stop the game if there's any outside interference disrupting the game.

What classes as outside interference? The crowd jeering players? A pigeon flying overhead?

nicklauski

So should this have stood then? :P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sz8mTmC5QI

Good finish being honest! Keeper didnt move.

Bubs101

I thought Bent made a good point when he pointed out that the ball was in their 6 yard box and they did nothing about it. Personally I'm glad it stood because it won me 45 quid

Guy:Incognito

That_Guy wrote: »

Should the ref stop the game if the ball hits off him if it gives an unfair advantage to the other team? If they stop the game for every single interference it'll be disastrous.

Is the ref not considered part of the field of play? As in officially, not just common practice.

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

Stekelly wrote: »

Is the ref not considered part of the field of play? As in officially, not just common practice.

As far as I know the ref is technically part of the pitch alright.

daithijjj

Bubs101 wrote: »

I thought Bent made a good point when he pointed out that the ball was in their 6 yard box and they did nothing about it. Personally I'm glad it stood because it won me 45 quid

Well you would think that then, no surprise there.

The beachball came on the pitch as sunderland were attacking, expecting players who are concentrating on the actual game and the man in possesion etc to go out of there way to clear the obstruction away is ridiculous. If it was another matchball that came on, the ref would have no choice but to stop play, fact is, it happened so quick nobody could do anything. If an object on the pitch aids a goal how can it NOT be interferring with play?

Game should have stopped, drop ball. Sunderland deserved the 3 points anyway, no complaints with the outcome.

Zatman

was actually on the pitch for some time as on RTE showed it was actually in the goal of Reina when Liverpool were attacking.

Also should Liverpool not be fined for fans throwing objects on the pitch:p

mikemac

That_Guy wrote: »

Should the ref stop the game if the ball hits off him if it gives an unfair advantage to the other team? If they stop the game for every single interference it'll be disastrous.

As said, the ref is part of the pitch. If for example the ball strikes the ref and takes a wicked deflection to score a goal, it's a perfectly valid goal.

And it has happened on plenty of occasions already and will happen again

daithijjj

Zatman wrote: »

was actually on the pitch for some time as on RTE showed it was actually in the goal of Reina when Liverpool were attacking.

Also should Liverpool not be fined for fans throwing objects on the pitch:p

My bad, i appear to be the victim of some editing on the footage i saw. The beachball was moving (very slowly) inward onto the pitch when sunderland were attacking. Therefore i would assume it had travelled on at that time.

ctrl-alt-delete

daithijjj wrote: »

The beachball came on the pitch as sunderland were attacking,

Just to point this out, i was at the game and the beachball rolled onto the pitch just as the game kicked off. it was lying beside Reina's left hand post for quite some time. Not sure if he noticed it though - but you would think the linesman would have.

That_Guy

Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »

As far as I know the ref is technically part of the pitch alright.

You're right yeah. But if the ball hits the ref and goes out of play for a throw the ref is deemed as invisible as he's not part of any team.

Time Magazine

BBC are reporting on this today here. A former ref thinks it's ridiculous that it was allowed to stand.

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

That_Guy wrote: »

You're right yeah. But if the ball hits the ref and goes out of play for a throw the ref is deemed as invisible as he's not part of any team.

Isn't that just another way of saying the ref is part of the pitch

That_Guy

Time Magazine wrote: »

BBC are reporting on this today here. A former ref thinks it's ridiculous that it was allowed to stand.

They had Dermot Gallagher in the SSN studio this morning talking about it. He was saying it shouldn't have stood.

If people don't want this kind of thing to happen then items such as balloons, beach balls etc should be banned. If these things are classed as outside interference then why are people allowed to bring them in to the stadium?

That_Guy

Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »

Isn't that just another way of saying the ref is part of the pitch

I didn't see the post above mine explaining that the ref is part of the pitch.

Guy:Incognito

Time Magazine wrote: »

BBC are reporting on this today here. A former ref thinks it's ridiculous that it was allowed to stand.

EVen though the ref in question is Jeff "Media Whore" Winter, the judgement appears to be sound.

He's the ref equivelant to Neil Warnock. If theres a camera or a mic around, he puts himself in front of it.

ROCKMAN

Just wondering ,

Case 1
Defender makes a tackle and loses his boot , (boot just left there on the ground in the box) Ball breaks to a striker he has a shot which is deflected of the boot into the net Goal or not ???

Case 2
If the balloon yesterday was a football returned by over zealous Ballboy ie two balls on the pitch And the shot hits this ball Would it be Goal or Not ??

Glico Man

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Just wondering ,

Case 1
Defender makes a tackle and loses his boot , (boot just left there on the ground in the box) Ball breaks to a striker he has a shot which is deflected of the boot into the net Goal or not ???

Case 2
If the balloon yesterday was a football returned by over zealous Ballboy ie two balls on the pitch And the shot hits this ball Would it be Goal or Not ??

Case 1: Yes the goal would stand because the boot is considered part of the player when they take to the pitch.

Case 2: No as this would be deemed outside interference.

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

aaronh007 wrote: »

Case 1: Yes the goal would stand because the boot is considered part of the player when they take to the pitch.

Case 2: No as this would be deemed outside interference.

Which brings you back to the balloon - is it that much different than a second ball ?

CR 7

Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »

Which brings you back to the balloon - is it that much different than a second ball ?

Big difference between mistaking a red beach ball for the official match ball, and mistaking a second official match ball for the one being used though.

Glico Man

Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »

Which brings you back to the balloon - is it that much different than a second ball ?

Its outside interference, and from what the rules state, the goal should have been ruled out, and the play restarted with a drop-ball

micks

Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »

Suppose it comes down to a referees individual judgement call on the day if that's the case. A good friend of mine is a referee and prior to a match last night himself and his two assistants were debating this and they couldn't say what the correct thing to do was either.

Not very good ref's or experienced if they are confused by this issue.

Only issue from yesterday is whether or when the ref/assistants seen the beachball. In fairness to them it would be a difficult decision to disallow the goal in front of Sunderland fans. If they noticed the beachball earlier than bent's shot then they should be punished.

Going back to your friend referee i presume its in Ireland? In twenty odd years playing football in Dublin I've seen countless games stopped to remove similar "objects" from a second ball on the pitch to a dog running onto pitches to people walking across pitches in public parks to water bottles being removed from pitches this is very common and if a ref/assistant doesn't know what to do he is ot capable of refereeing a match

Ref's seem to have no problem when a fan invades the pitch or if a bottle was thrown from the crowd so why is this different?

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

micks wrote: »

Not very good ref's or experienced if they are confused by this issue.

Only issue from yesterday is whether or when the ref/assistants seen the beachball. In fairness to them it would be a difficult decision to disallow the goal in front of Sunderland fans. If they noticed the beachball earlier than bent's shot then they should be punished.

Going back to your friend referee i presume its in Ireland? In twenty odd years playing football in Dublin I've seen countless games stopped to remove similar "objects" from a second ball on the pitch to a dog running onto pitches to people walking across pitches in public parks to water bottles being removed from pitches this is very common and if a ref/assistant doesn't know what to do he is ot capable of refereeing a match

Ref's seem to have no problem when a fan invades the pitch or if a bottle was thrown from the crowd so why is this different?

It's exactly as you said - it's when they have noticed it. The debate was having not noticed it until the incident should a goal have stood. They were in agreement that the balloon should have been removed in the first place but since it wasn't removed and had been sitting there for some time then had it become a part of the pitch as such.

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

Caught Andy Grays analysis of this last night. Footage shows the beach ball on the pitch. Reina picked it up and put it in the back of the net and a gust of wind caught it just before the goal incident and put it back on the field of play. Seems clear that he hadn't seen it until seconds before the shot was taken and by then it was too late. I think the goal should not have been allowed and it was a refereeing error.

Mr Alan

Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »

I think the goal should not have been allowed and it was a refereeing error.

i don't think there's any doubt about that.

GavRedKing

Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »

Caught Andy Grays analysis of this last night. Footage shows the beach ball on the pitch. Reina picked it up and put it in the back of the net and a gust of wind caught it just before the goal incident and put it back on the field of play. Seems clear that he hadn't seen it until seconds before the shot was taken and by then it was too late. I think the goal should not have been allowed and it was a refereeing error.

Thats me gripe with this situation, why didnt Reina just kick it behind the goal or towards the advertising howarding? Surely one of the officials/stewards would have taking it and not gave it back to the supporters to possibly throw it back in.

Truth be told I blame firstly the fan, yes it was innocent and he didnt know what the outcome would be , secondly I wolud blame Reina for not bursting it or kicking it behind his goal, thirdly the officials who seem to not understand the rules, as this kind of incident does not come up very frequently I cam imagine their knowlege on the relevant rule would be rusty.

All in all a commical goal that should not have stood but the circumstances that led to it could have been avoided.

Nalz

Mr Alan wrote: »

i don't think there's any doubt about that.

Yep

Should have been a drop ball, and Liverpool let Sunderland act upon it like an indirect freekick on Liverpools goal. Probably the best way to react the situation minus the beach ball.

However the game should have been stopped before the the ball even entered the box (as Reid was going down the wing).

yahoo_moe

The laws are really clear on "outside interference" so it's not a question of "where do we draw the line?":

FIFA Laws wrote:

Anyone not indicated on the team list as a player, substitute or team official is deemed to be an outside agent, as is a player who has been sent off...
If, after a goal is scored, the referee realises, before play restarts, that there was an extra person on the field of play when the goal was scored:
• the referee must disallow the goal if:
– the extra person was an outside agent and he interfered with play
– the extra person was a player, substitute, substituted player or team
official associated with the team that scored the goal
• the referee must allow the goal if:
– the extra person was an outside agent who did not interfere with play
– the extra person was a player, substitute, substituted player or team
official associated with the team that conceded the goal...

Only real question is about outside agents that aren't people as the laws don't really seem to deal with that. The referee's chief Keith Hackett was very clear on this in the Guardian's 'You Are The Ref' series earlier this year though:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/mar/27/you-are-the-ref-mark-hughes# wrote:

The plastic bag is an outside agent – the moment the ball makes contact with it, play is dead

PS The Guardian bit has Mark Hughes as guest and also contains another answer about injury time that says:

a minimum of five minutes allows you to play up to 5:59

Interesting

Spiritoftheseventies

Bruce was quoted as saying that anyone who thinks it was a drop ball is a saddo. Of course he also didnt agree on the seven minutes of injury time.
Its clear to me that the balloon interfered with play. Reina was totally distracted by it. Ref bottled the decision.

Mr Alan

ref been dropped for this weekend after his **** up according to SSN

super_furry

Not the first time something list this has happened either http://www.smh.com.au/news/football/city-deflated-after-losing-game-of-balloon-billiards/2008/01/28/1201369037109.html

elgriff

Those laws posted quite clearly only apply to players

"Anyone" not indicated ......

the referee must disallow the goal if:
– the extra person .........
- the extra person........


all this outside agent stuff relates to people, so how can we jump to including bags and beachballs in that?

heavyballs

That_Guy wrote: »

The referee is supposed to stop the game if there's any outside interference disrupting the game.

What classes as outside interference? The crowd jeering players? A pigeon flying overhead?

the crowd jeering can't alter the course of the ball,to me the Liverpool incident was easy to call,it was no different to having two proper match balls on the pitch

major bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOVPyPSrpvs

if you thinks liverpools was bad this is a clip from the brazilian second division.

sunderlad goal should have been disallowed, no way reina noticed it he was too busy watching the game as sunderland were on the attack.

Spiritoftheseventies

Ref was doing Scunthorpe Peterboro last night. Say it was a tough night for him