At the Linlithgow Rose v Tayport match on Saturday the ref stopped play for a head knock to a Tayport player. Fair enough.

I felt the ball was in open play when he blew so it should be a contested ball but the ref told the Rose player to pass back to the keeper, which he did, except a Tayport player intervened, knocked it onto the ref and into the path of a Rose player who rounded the keeper and scored. Tayport protested to no avail.

Now I have a problem with this, even although my side benefitted. If the ball is in open play when he blows, it should be a contested ball. You don't make one team give up possession because the other team's player is injured and before I'm pulled up on the other incident in this game, the Rose were "given" a free drop because the Rose keeper had the ball in his hands when he had to be taken off injured. It wasn't a foul but the game had to be stopped for the injury so possession was retained by the Rose.

This new idea of the uncontested drop-ball is causing problems. What if a team insists on contesting when ref says no? Is there a law which allows refs to say "back off" and to book a player if he doesn't. What if, on Saturday, the ref had said "That didn't go to the goalkeeper, take it again"? What if a Rose player was the one who intercepted the ball? The whole thing is a mess.

What do you think?

The decision over what to do with a drop ball should rest solely with the players. It is not the job of the referee to tell the players what to do, as there is nothing in the Laws of the Game which mentions contesting/not contesting drop ball restarts.

If a team has possession of the ball when play is stopped, I have no problem with the ball being given back to that team as a matter of sportsmanship. However teams now take advantage of that and play it for a throw-in in the corner and then press the team in. This often leads to flashpoints - see last season's Champions' League final for example. For that reason, I think it would be worth just contesting every one.

I am a referee, and when I stop the play for an injury I allow the players to make the decision for themselves. It is not my job to decide what they do with it. I only referee youth football, and the coaches tend to shout from the side telling their player to give it back. I always find it best for both players, and myself, to know what is happening before I drop the ball.

The one incident where the referee can intervene is if a player says he is going to kick it back, and then decides not to. I would consider that to be unsporting behaviour, and I would have the authority to stop the game in order to caution him for that. However, the chances are that would be the least of my problems, because I am quite sure that opposing players would get to him before I did . Fortunately this hasn't happened to me...yet .

I always consider common sense to be the best way to deal with these situations. I try to only stop the game for an injury if it is completely necessary. For example, if the goalkeeper is in possession of the ball and a player is down, I would ask him to keep a hold of it for a second and give the player the chance to recover. Then if the player gets back up, there's no need to stop the game, and the situation you described wouldn't arise. If the player stayed down, I would wait until the keeper kicked it out, so that the ball was in the middle of the park when I stopped play, rather than near one of the goalmouths.

Thanks for that. I was pretty sure the Laws of the Game didn't cover this aspect of play. Do you remember the Arsenal v Sheffield Wednesday incident, where one Arsenal player tried to throw the ball back to the keeper but another (Kanu?) collected the ball and scored? Are you saying you would have stopped the game and booked Kanu? He might not have been party to the agreement.

I also know what you're talking about regarding the sportsmanship. I hate the game being stopped when my team is attacking only to to have the ball booted back to our keeper. I don't know what the solution to all this is. A short-play indirect free-kick so that the team in possession before the interruption retains it without any tactical gain, maybe?

If Kanu wasn't aware of what was happening in that incident - and as far as I remember he wasn't - then there aren't really any grounds to caution him, and therefore it wouldn't be possible to stop the game.

That particular game reached a satisfactory outcome anyway, when Wenger offered to replay the match, and Arsenal won again.


It is definitely one of the areas of the Laws of the Game which needs to be looked at, but I can't think of a satisfactory outcome. Your idea of an indirect free-kick sounds good in theory, but in practice I think teams would take advantage by bringing their big guys forward and putting the ball in the box.

Another solution would be awarding a throw in to the team who were in possession, but the defending team would have an advantage in that case, because they could press the ball. And if the attacking team had someone like Rory Delap, they would get an advantage.

As I said, I don't know the solution to this. When I suggested an indirect free-kick, I also said short-range, meaning that the ball has to be passed to someone nearby rather than allowing a long free-kick to be played into the box. The net result would be someone on your side with the ball in open play just as before the play was stopped. I don't write the rules though.

You could specify an indirect free kick, but that the ball must go backwards and over the half-way line before it comes forward. That way, you can't hoof it into the box... nor are you under pressure.

I stopped a game(under 19's) on Sunday for a head knock. The ball was in the centre circle, both teams going full pelt for it.

After treatment the players asked me what they should do! I said it was upto them, one of them could knock it to the other or they could go at it with each other in a good old fashioned drop ball.

The team 3-0 down decided to kick it back to the other keeper.

Kids today.......

Thats only cos you didnt know what to do either ya banger

anno, but I still got it right

Surely you could still book Kanu even if he wasn't party to the agreement to throw the ball back to the keeper. Everyone player knows that usually in these circumstances the team who were not in possession give the ball back to the other team. Plus, it should have been clear from what his team-mate did that he meant for the ball to be returned to Sheffield Wednesday. That's a clear case of unsporting conduct IMO.

I don't know what the rules say, but I think either: the referee instructs the players what to do, and if they don't comply play is stopped and the player(s) involved get booked, or there should be no specific rules regarding a team deliberately putting the ball out of play (either for their own player or the opposition) - play would re-start with normal competition for the ball. If the referee stops play, there would be a contested drop ball.

In one of the earlier posts CraigKillie, who is a referee, told us the Laws of the Game don't cover the situation and the ref leaves the players to decide what to do. My original post was to highlight the confusion that this "etiquette" is causing. I was wrong in assuming that the official tells the players what to do, but what happened on Saturday seemed to be that a player who wasn't in on the decision misinterpreted the pass to the opposition keeper as a shot and tried to clear it, leading to confusion and the goal. We probably need a new sign from the referees to indicate that a team has elected to give the ball back to the opposition to ensure that everyone knows what's happening.

Exactly, it's upto the players. Personally, they should just compete for it like they used to. It's becoming to namby pamby and this is another example.

Was there not a game in England a couple of years ago where the players agreed to kick the drop-ball back to the goalkeeper. Unfortunately, the keeper slipped and the ball rolled into the net for a goal. They then re-started the game and allowed the other side to run up the park to tap the ball into the net.

I saw the solution last night in the Everton game. Instead of the ref dropping for one team to hump down the other end to give possession back, he simply dropped for the team who had been in possession to retain it unopposed. The game just continued from where it had stopped with the same team in possession. OK, the defending team could have reorganised in the interim but it seemed the fairest so far.

I'd heard of this one as well but don't know where or when it happened. I think it's unlikely it would happen in a match where the result mattered.

It was 4 seasons ago in the Carling Cup match between Yeovil and Plymouth.

Link


That incident was slightly different because Plymouth kicked the ball out for an injury. Yeovil then threw it in, and Johnson tried to give it back to the keeper, but he wasn't paying attention (I think he was in his goals getting a drink or something) and the ball went in.



As for the Tim Howard drop ball, that is something I have done in the past - but it would only work if the other team were away up the park and weren't near the incident. The referee can't tell players not to challenge for a drop ball.