RateTheRef

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/57595937

Nestor Pitana in the Copa America. Brazil on a promising attack ball hits him and goes to a Brazilian player. Should a drop ball have been awarded?

If the ball touches the referee or another match official and goes into the goal, or results in a change of possession or a promising attack, a dropped ball will be awarded.

Looking at the above wording. Goal bit not applicable. No change of possession. So that leaves the promising attack element. Brazil were on a promising attack which imo would have probably stopped until ball hit the referee. Then definitely a promising attack continued. I think should have been a drop ball. Thought?

This is from Copa America Brazil vs Colombia game just minutes ago .

Brazil scores a goal after two passes earlier the ball hit the referee (Nestor Pitana no less!). Play goes on, Brazil keeps possession and scores. Colombian players are furious why there was no ball drop. VAR check. Goal stands. Colombians argue with Pitana for like three minutes around mid-field (including keeper Ospina). No cards are given for dissent. Play resumes four minutes after the goal was scored.

That was crazy even for South American standards. And it's disappointing to see Pitana being involved in such a controversy.

Funnily enough this was discussed as part of a topic I raised in the Euro 2020 chat.
Personally I believe it ticks the promising attack box.

A drop-ball is the safe refereeing option here and whilst Brazil may complain for a few minutes it'd soon be forgotten about.
The reporters/commentators should have been talking about the fantastic Columbian bicycle kick but instead an avoidable controversial moment like this takes the limelight

Don't think that created a promising attack as the law change was intended.  It has hit him and gone back pretty much to where it came from, I think they really intended to be used if it hit the referee and bounced to someone who immediately scored.  I saw one when I was on the line when a player tried to play the ball into the area, hit the referee on the edge of the box, rebounded to the attacker's right foot and he hammered it straight in the top corner.  That's the sort of thing it was intended for in my opinion.

Sadly as it's not explicitly defined in the LOTG this leaves it open to interpretation here on what constitutes a "promising attack".

The ball immediately after striking the referee is played out to the left wing(3 seconds after), which is subsequently crossed in and resulting in the goal (6 seconds after).
If the rules stated it had to be a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity I'd say playing on was correct however for me this satisfies my criteria for a promising attack and as such safe refereeing would prevail i.e. drop-ball awarded.

Don't think putting the whistle to his lips helped the situation either but as the old saying goes... "play to the whistle"

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]