Drop ball yesterday

[BillyStubbsTears]

Is that a new ruling then? Giving an uncontested drop ball and allowing a free cross into the box is a correct decision is it? Even though their lad was chasing the ball to the sideline and had his back to goal when the ref stopped play.

[Superspy]

Yup that's the new rule. Contested drop balls have been scrapped completely. If play had been stopped in the box it would have been given to the keeper.

[drfchound]

It was the right decision. Portsmouth were attacking, the ball went out to the wing and our player was down with a head injury.
Under the old rule we would have hoofed the ball to halfway and they would have had to start their attack again.

Had we been in the same situation, our supporters would have gone beserk if the same thing hadn’t happened.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hound.

Their player was chasing the ball towards the sideline with a Rovers player following him. He would not have been able to get the ball, turn and put in a free cross. Portsmouth gained a ridiculous advantage from that decision.

Have an uncontested drop ball by all means, but have their player facing the touchline.

[drfchound]

Hound.

Their player was chasing the ball towards the sideline with a Rovers player following him. He would not have been able to get the ball, turn and put in a free cross. Portsmouth gained a ridiculous advantage from that decision.

Have an uncontested drop ball by all means, but have their player facing the touchline.

I know, I saw it.
You asked what is the rule.
It was quick thinking by their player.
Most would have controlled the ball and either run towards our box or played it back down the line to a colleague.
The ref can’t tell the player not to cross the ball.

To be fair, their player who was running after the original ball had a head start on our players who had stopped and were concerned about our injured player (Halliday?).
I think it was Whiteman who realised that the game might have continued and shouted for someone to get over towards the ball.
That was when the ref stopped the game.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hound.

If the new rule is uncontested drop balls, I'm fine with that. But the decision yesterday was stupid. As you say, the reason their player had a few yards on our nearest one was that our players had stopped after Halliday was hit. That's a natural and correct instinct. You don't penalise a side for the fact that the players respond to a threat to a colleague faster than the ref does.

And then, as I said, their player was facing away from goal when play stopped. So dropping the ball at his feet facing goal, having insisted that all Rovers players drop 4-5 yards off him just compounds the stupidity.

[drfchound]

.......and as I said BST, the ref can’t tell the player what he can or can’t do.
Once he drops the ball it is in play, the player was very quick in his thinking.
As I also said, their player had a good start on ours, quite a lot more than four or five yards, probably more like ten or fifteen yards.
He would have had plenty of time to get to the ball then turn towards our goal had play not been stopped.

What did you want the ref to do?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yes, I know that their player had a good few yards on the nearest player when the ref blew up. You and I agree on why and it's ridiculous to penalise the Rovers for that.

As for what the ref could have done, he could have had the player face the touchline when he dropped the ball. Easy.