Shifting gears, NFHS/USSF

[bainsey]

GV pre-season yesterday (NFHS of course), two-man crew.

On my end of the field, an attacker, defender, and keeper all make a play on the ball in the penalty area. Keeper gets control of the ball, while the attacker goes down hurt (incidental, no foul).

Doing only USSF games since last November, my immediate reaction is to yell, "Keeper! Get rid of the ball!" She throws it to the touchline, but it stays a yard in bounds. Great. Tweet.

After the injured player was replaced, the only option I had was a drop ball. Before dropping, I reminded the offensive player that the keeper gave up this ball willingly, hoping she'd take the hint. She didn't, and immediately played the ball to a teammate, who got off a shot. (Easy save.)

Lesson learned: In NFHS, if someone is hurt, just blow the damn whistle (taking advantage into consideration, of course), especially if a keeper has possession. I have to admit, that's one NFHS rule I prefer over FIFA.

[Nevadaref]

Are you aware that for a drop ball in an NFHS game you must have one player from each team participate?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Are you aware that for a drop ball in an NFHS game you must have one player from each team participate?

Of course. Why?

[DadofTwins]

If I remember right, in NFHS if you stop for an injury the team with possession when the whistle blows gets an indirect kick.

Is that still the rule?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by DadofTwins

If I remember right, in NFHS if you stop for an injury the team with possession when the whistle blows gets an indirect kick.

Is that still the rule?

Correct, if someone has possession. If no-one does -- as was the case when I blew the play dead -- it's a drop ball.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Are you aware that for a drop ball in an NFHS game you must have one player from each team participate?

Not what the rule says. It says the ball must be "between two opposing players." It doesn't say equidistant or that opposing players must participate. As long as an opponent is behind the ball, the rule is satisfied.

Which is to say, I'm not going to order a team who doesn't want to participate in a drop ball to do so.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Not what the rule says. It says the ball must be "between two opposing players." It doesn't say equidistant or that opposing players must participate. As long as an opponent is behind the ball, the rule is satisfied.

Which is to say, I'm not going to order a team who doesn't want to participate in a drop ball to do so.

Great point, Eastshire!!!

Of course, interestingly, this precise situation is why FIFA changed the law concerning scoring directly off of a drop ball....

I very much DISLIKE the NFHS rule on the "two opposing players" drop ball.

At the same time, I also HATE the indirect free kick rule when a team has possession. GV game on Tuesday, we had a defender injured in the PA. The play was killed after the ball was cleared out of the penalty area. My partner insisted that the attacking team got a touch on the ball BEFORE the play was killed (I could not disagree, but the defender was right there to challenge). Therefore, we started with an indirect free kick -- a HUGE advantage over the "live run of play" situation when the play was killed. The resulting free kick generated a goal.

A drop ball would have been a much more appropriate call, in my opinion.

[Eastshire]

It's important to remember that a touch isn't sufficient to generate an IFK restart. It takes "clear possession."

This past Saturday, I had to take away one of about three chances the losing team had because one of their players was face down in the penalty arc. The attackers had played the ball last but touched it heavy and it was 5 yards from anyone when I stopped play. That's not clear possession, so we restarted with a drop ball. (For some reason, the attackers didn't participate.)

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

I also HATE the indirect free kick rule when a team has possession.

Overall, I believe the NFHS has this one right.

CMH, the situation you cite makes for a good discussion as to what is "possession." You'd have to use your best judgment there.

However, a keeper holding the ball is unquestionably possession, and I believe it's far more just to start with an IFK here, rather than a drop ball. In fact, I'd like to see FIFA adopt this rule, when the keeper has possession.

[DadofTwins]

So in the OP, instead of telling the keeper to get rid of the ball, the referee had the option of blowing the play dead right there and after the injury was resolved letting the keeper restart with what amounted to a goal kick.

Is this correct?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by DadofTwins

So in the OP, instead of telling the keeper to get rid of the ball, the referee had the option of blowing the play dead right there and after the injury was resolved letting the keeper restart with what amounted to a goal kick.

Is this correct?

Yes, with two major exceptions: offside will apply and a goal cannot be scored directly.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Overall, I believe the NFHS has this one right.

CMH, the situation you cite makes for a good discussion as to what is "possession." You'd have to use your best judgment there.

However, a keeper holding the ball is unquestionably possession, and I believe it's far more just to start with an IFK here, rather than a drop ball. In fact, I'd like to see FIFA adopt this rule, when the keeper has possession.

While possession has to be clear, I still MUCH prefer the FIFA/USSF option of a ONE PLAYER drop ball in lieu of an indirect free kick. In the PA, a drop ball that can be picked up by the keeper and PUNTED is much closer to that "same situation" than a kick from the ground. I think it is RIDICULOUS to MOVE defenders 10 yards from the attacking team when stopping for something other than a foul, period.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Not what the rule says. It says the ball must be "between two opposing players." It doesn't say equidistant or that opposing players must participate. As long as an opponent is behind the ball, the rule is satisfied.

Which is to say, I'm not going to order a team who doesn't want to participate in a drop ball to do so.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Great point, Eastshire!!!

Of course, interestingly, this precise situation is why FIFA changed the law concerning scoring directly off of a drop ball....

I very much DISLIKE the NFHS rule on the "two opposing players" drop ball.

At the same time, I also HATE the indirect free kick rule when a team has possession. GV game on Tuesday, we had a defender injured in the PA. The play was killed after the ball was cleared out of the penalty area. My partner insisted that the attacking team got a touch on the ball BEFORE the play was killed (I could not disagree, but the defender was right there to challenge). Therefore, we started with an indirect free kick -- a HUGE advantage over the "live run of play" situation when the play was killed. The resulting free kick generated a goal.

A drop ball would have been a much more appropriate call, in my opinion.

Nah, he's just reading into it what he wants. The intent of the NFHS rule is obvious. They want the drop ball to be contested by two and only two players. We may or may not like the rule, but the intent is clear.

For your situation, your partner wasn't very wise and probably caused a situation that placed the game out of the balance of fairness to the teams by his insistence. Not good.

Now I will express my opinion that since sporting behavior is so highly stressed in HS games and the rules even require it to be mentioned at the pregame meeting with the head coach and the captain, that the referee has much more basis under NFHS rules than the USSF LOTG to instruct a team to either return the ball to the opponents or to play it backward and not create a scoring opportunity from an IFK which results from an injury situation.

That could have been your way out of what your partner created.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Overall, I believe the NFHS has this one right.

CMH, the situation you cite makes for a good discussion as to what is "possession." You'd have to use your best judgment there.

However, a keeper holding the ball is unquestionably possession, and I believe it's far more just to start with an IFK here, rather than a drop ball. In fact, I'd like to see FIFA adopt this rule, when the keeper has possession.

What you prefer is actually the NCAA rule.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Nah, he's just reading into it what he wants. The intent of the NFHS rule is obvious. They want the drop ball to be contested by two and only two players. We may or may not like the rule, but the intent is clear.

I would say I'm reading it in a way that allows us to play the game in the traditional manner.

As a practical matter, I'm not going to order either team to participate or conversely not to participate in a drop ball. If they want to contest it, that's fine; it's their right. If they don't, I'm not going to force them to even though I agree the rule appears to require two opponents.