The Ref Stop

New IFAB website for Football Rules (sic)

P

Peter Grove

RefChat Addict
Couldn't see anything else about this anywhere so, the IFAB has come up with what it claims is a version of the LOTG using:

simpler language and a different structure, to make the Laws easier to understand for everyone.
Click to expand...

It has some interesting takes on things, including some explanations of terms and concepts that are perhaps less fully fleshed out in the "official" laws document.

Football Rules

For instance, it gives a definition of what is and isn't a foul that comports with what I've always held to be true, as follows:

A foul is an unfair physical offence committed against an opponent ...
Click to expand...
Offences that are not committed against an opponent are not fouls, e.g. handball, offside, etc.
Click to expand...

(Emphasis mine).
 
Last edited:
The Ref Stop
Thanks for bringing this up Peter - it passed me by.

Whilst I'm slightly uncomfortable about having two different websites, having been through it briefly it makes a lot of sense breaking it down as they have - eg Game Events and Offences & Sanctions - rather than under Law numbers.

The next step for IFAB/FIFA/FA is to get players and coaches to do mandatory CPD on the Laws/Rules...
 
This will be good to have a nosey through. The first bit I have stumbled upon has made me laugh though...

I had a good chat/debate with @one here about whether playing in a dangerous manner was judged with CRUEF. @one disagreed with me with a fairly coherent and persuasive viewpoint and the IFAB email responder agreed with them.

And then published materials state:

The following fouls are also punished with a direct free kick, but no judgement of carelessness, recklessness or excessive force is necessary; they may be offences that stop a promising attack (SPA) or deny an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO):
  • holding an opponent
  • playing dangerously* e.g. high foot (with contact)
*Playing dangerously is when a player attempts to play the ball and could injure someone (including the player themself) and/or prevents a nearby opponent from trying to play the ball for the fear of getting injured. An overhead, bicycle or scissors kick is allowed if there is no danger to a player from the other team.
 
I'm not going there again. Unless you really want to @JamesL 😊

But strongly disagree with having multiple sources of truth. At the moment we have the lotg, ifab social media, ifab emails and now this new website. It may make it easier to understand simpler concepts but it would only add to the confusion of the more complex ones. If they can make it easier to understand, just put the easier version in the lotg.

Edit: thinking out loud, is ifab doing this as a precursor to restructuring the lotg? A different way of putting the good book together?
 
Last edited:
one said:
I'm not going there again. Unless you really want to @JamesL 😊

But strongly disagree with having multiple sources of truth. At the moment we have the lotg, ifab social media, ifab emails and now this new website. It may make it easier to understand simpler concepts but it would only add to the confusion of the more complex ones. If they can make it easier to understand, just put the easier version in the lotg.

Edit: thinking out loud, is ifab doing this as a precursor to restructuring the lotg? A different way of putting the good book together?
Click to expand...
No. I don't. I'm just saying, that it's now written into the rules what was my understanding. I'm not debating it again, I had already come around to agree with you.
But alas we now have contradiction.
Yes, this is very clear move from ifab to introduce footballing terms into law. We're seeing it softly with law this year.
We are going to have back pass written into law a and we can call them rules..might as well close the forum now. 🤣
 
JamesL said:
This will be good to have a nosey through. The first bit I have stumbled upon has made me laugh though...

I had a good chat/debate with @one here about whether playing in a dangerous manner was judged with CRUEF. @one disagreed with me with a fairly coherent and persuasive viewpoint and the IFAB email responder agreed with them.

And then published materials state:

The following fouls are also punished with a direct free kick, but no judgement of carelessness, recklessness or excessive force is necessary; they may be offences that stop a promising attack (SPA) or deny an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO):
  • holding an opponent
  • playing dangerously* e.g. high foot (with contact)
*Playing dangerously is when a player attempts to play the ball and could injure someone (including the player themself) and/or prevents a nearby opponent from trying to play the ball for the fear of getting injured. An overhead, bicycle or scissors kick is allowed if there is no danger to a player from the other team.
Click to expand...
Have I misread this, but is this not saying High Foot, with contact boot to head, isn’t a dismissal, even if it endangers safety of an opponent.

That surely isn’t right.
 
george.g said:
Have I misread this, but is this not saying High Foot, with contact boot to head, isn’t a dismissal, even if it endangers safety of an opponent.

That surely isn’t right.
Click to expand...
You've misread it.

It's specifically talking about the offence of "playing in a dangerous manner" as we know it now but calling it playing dangerously.

Playing dangerously is when a player attempts to play the ball and could injure someone (including the player themself) and/or prevents a nearby opponent from trying to play the ball for the fear of getting injured. An overhead, bicycle or scissors kick is allowed if there is no danger to a player from the other team.

I really don't want to go down this road again...

But if it's safety endangerment we have gone beyond playing dangerously (I know this stand alone statement makes no sense but you need to take that up with ifab) and we probably need to be looking at one of the direct FK offences that are CRUEF.

@socal lurker made a really good point how the changes over time have sort of Mish mashed these offences.
 
Those that play golf will be familiar with this approach, R&A have the traditional “Official Rules of Golf” which lists them numerically but now a “Players Rule Finder” which puts the rules in a more user friendly format based around scenarios. They are cross referenced between each other and complement very well.
 
JamesL said:
might as well close the forum now
Click to expand...
No way.

We can easily spin out a discussion on the contradictions between the two sites for 18 months, and that will surely be enough time to see us back where we started?

(In case anyone is remotely interested, I like the new site.)
 
So starting to have a read through some of these. Really welcome the language BUT....
It still has real consistencies and contradiction in the language used...

For example:

"Offences that are not committed against an opponent are not fouls, e.g. handball, offside, etc"

Followed by:
"two fouls occur at the same time?
The more serious foul is punished, e.g. a physical foul is more serious than handball."

So handball is not a foul, but it is. 🤷
 
socal lurker said:
I haven't looked at the site yet, so this may be a dumb question--are the "rules" in other languages, or just English?
Click to expand...
I can’t see any indication of this.

On a side note, I’d love to see the laws translated into Welsh, Irish and Scottish Gaelic considering those are the national FAs who make up IFAB’s branding.
 
JamesL said:
So starting to have a read through some of these. Really welcome the language BUT....
It still has real consistencies and contradiction in the language used...

For example:

"Offences that are not committed against an opponent are not fouls, e.g. handball, offside, etc"

Followed by:
"two fouls occur at the same time?
The more serious foul is punished, e.g. a physical foul is more serious than handball."

So handball is not a foul, but it is. 🤷
Click to expand...
I think that's just a piece of bad drafting. It obviously should read, "two offences occur at the same time."

IMHO it's just someone going a bit overboard with the "using plain language" paradigm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top