Two balls in play on tuesday!

[Filo]

Tuesday at Pride Park showed the inconsistency in refereeing today! Cast your mind back to the game on Saturday against Watford, we take a throw in and another ball appears in the pitch, so we end up with a drop ball! Tuesday night the exact same thing happened in a simalar area of the pitch when Derby had a throw in, this time though the ref let the game play on, no retake, no drop ball, where's the consistency? Is it any wonder refs get slagged off?

[jmt]

Did you know , there is no rule saying that on a drop ball only one man per team can challenge.
Image how funny it would be to see the ref throw the ball and run as 20 players get stuck in.

[Al4475]

I knew that, and did something similar reffing a Sunday League match out Derby way once, the players got ready for the drop ball, and I threw it about 5 yards behind me, the players were gobsmacked, but had a laugh and carried on the atmosphere on the pitch immediately at that moment was brought back down to calmness and giggles! I didn't really know what kind of reaction it would get - but it calmed things down! Ha! Can't imagine how it would be perceived in a Professional League game tho!

Quite funny it was!

[inSODwetrust]

I said the exact same thing to my mate!

[Gibbo123]

The referee should have allowed play to continue against watford. Simple as that.

[keyser_soze]

The letter of the law is that the game should have been stopped.

In reality, if a player not involved in play can lump it out or a ball boy can run on and get it without distracting/interrupting play, then there's no harm done, but its not the rules.

[inSODwetrust]

Also against Watford, their RB (forget his number) went down through a fair tackle Euell made on him, stayed down for about a minute or so, recieved treatment, then stood up and took the resulting throw-in from the challenge made by Euell!

I thought the rules were something along the lines of, if a player recieves treatment, they must leave the field of play and may only return when the referee says so. So why did he take the throw-in?! Again, inconsistency!

[keyser_soze]

I've no idea about the law of returning to play. At one point a local-league referee told me that if a player required treatment he must leave and wait to be ushered back on. However, if injury was a result of a foul, and the fouling player was booked for the challenge, then the injured player could be treated on the pitch, and does not need to leave the field and wait to be ushered back on. This doesn't apply to the goalie, who never needs to leave the field.

I couldn't tell if he was winding me up or not, but if that is/was true, there's no surprise its confusing for everyone involved.

Crazy laws though. What if two centre-backs clash heads challenging for a ball, and concede a corner in the process. Do the two centre-backs both have to leave the field until the corner is cleared?

[A9]

The laws (not rules!) of the game come with guidance for referees to help them understand them.

As such : two balls on the field should not mean that play is stopped automatically as we have seen in recent weeks. The refs got that wrong. If play can continue without interference from the second ball it should. Therefore this allows a player to boot it off the field.

Injured players: If a player receives treatment he must leave the field. HOWEVER, if the injury occurs to a goalkeeper or due to a collision between two players of the same team, they do not have to leave the field. Therefore, Hird and Thomas collide and both need treatment. Both can stay on.
This is what I think the ref at the Watford game thought he saw. From the West Stand it looked like Euell collided with the Watford players resulting in injury but I think the ref thought the right back for Watford collided with the Watford player who was subbed as a result. Therefore, he allowed him to take the throw in.

Finally, a player can only come back on in an area where the action isn't taking place. This annoys me when fans scream at the ref to allow a player back on for ages, when in fact the player can't come on as all the play is in front of him.

[keyser_soze]

Thanks A9, good post! So was this yellow card thing a complete fallacy that has never been in the laws?

The ball 'not interfering' is a tough one though. Similar to the beach ball incident with Liverpool a few years ago. At what point should the ref have stopped play, upon noticing the beach ball bouncing into the six yard  box, or when the ball struck it and went in the net?