Are we having an issue with a player who just 'grabs the ball' and doesn't attempt to take the throw in? Grabs it off the floor to underarm throw to a teammate. That's more what I think GraemeS is getting at.
West Ham v Manchester City
- Thread starter bloovee
- Start date
Are we having an issue with a player who just 'grabs the ball' and doesn't attempt to take the throw in? Grabs it off the floor to underarm throw to a teammate. That's more what I think GraemeS is getting at.
I was just responding to someone who said the debate was "fandom".
A huge amount of money is coming into football from fans watching on TV.
No fans = no Premier League = no PGMOL.
Anyway, it's a byline to the issue in hand, but why would anyone want paying customers to wonder why the referee is running 30 yards to stop a corner being taken?
If the law is changed / clarified to say there has to be a designated corner taker who alone can leave the FoP to take the corner I'd still ask "does it matter?" (in the grand scheme of a megabucks entertainment industry) or is it just referees finding something else to get fussy about?
What next? Enforce six seconds for the GK to release the ball?
one
RefChat Addict
I've had the debate about "I'm paying your wages" before. Fans don't pay the referees. They pay the clubs and the broadcast service providers. If you want to track that all the way down to the referees, then you should also track it up. It's not the fans who pay the referees, it's those who pay the fans (employers etc)
No employer = no fans = no PL....
And who pays the employers? You can keep tracking upwards and end up around circles that's It's the referees who pay the referees
. It's a pointless argument. The people who pay the referees at any level are those who transfer the money into their account. And let's not forget that the money is not given as a favour, it's for a service referees provide. And it's never enough if you ask me
No employer = no fans = no PL....
And who pays the employers? You can keep tracking upwards and end up around circles that's It's the referees who pay the referees
. It's a pointless argument. The people who pay the referees at any level are those who transfer the money into their account. And let's not forget that the money is not given as a favour, it's for a service referees provide. And it's never enough if you ask me 
I work in local authority and we get told "I pay your wages" a lot and I often think to myself by that same vane, I am self-employed then, as I pay the same taxes they claim to pay my wages with...I've had the debate about "I'm paying your wages" before. Fans don't pay the referees. They pay the clubs and the broadcast service providers. If you want to track that all the way down to the referees, then you should also track it up. It's not the fans who pay the referees, it's those who pay the fans (employers etc)
No employer = no fans = no PL....
And who pays the employers? You can keep tracking upwards and end up around circles that's It's the referees who pay the referees
R
Runner-Ref
Guest
I still don’t understand what your argument is for who is paying who. As people above have stated, it’s a circle that you could go round and round in forever. Anyway, that’s not the point here.
Yes it does seem like a pointless bit of refereeing, but something will have likely triggered this. Whether it’s a specific incident or someone has had a read of the laws and realised something, I don’t know. I’d also imagine that law will clarify it to either say X amount of players can go off the pitch to take a corner (whether that be 1,2 or all 11)
The referees are just trying to be proactive as far as I can see. Similarly to how you’ll tell a player who is stood in front of the goalkeeper on a free kick that if there’s a shot on goal, you’ll be giving offside.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
I'd keep the thinking on this simple. Football is contested within a defined playing area (the field of play). Players are allowed to temporarily leave that area as part of a normal playing motion. Also, one player needs to briefly leave that area in order to complete certain restarts (throw in, corner and some GKs / FKs). Otherwise, players are not allowed to leave the FOP in order to gain an advantage. So, using corners as a specific, no one other than the kick taker is allowed to be off the FOP, whether that be near the corner flag, in the goal or even running around the back of the goal in order to appear unmarked at the other post 
Which is fine up until the point you realise that we regularly see 2 or more players leave the FOP to go through the motions of deciding who takes a throw. And delaying the restart concerns aside, it's never a problem - the first player isn't penalised for "faking" a quick throw. This is so pointless, what problem does this actually cause?I'd keep the thinking on this simple. Football is contested within a defined playing area (the field of play). Players are allowed to temporarily leave that area as part of a normal playing motion. Also, one player needs to briefly leave that area in order to complete certain restarts (throw in, corner and some GKs / FKs). Otherwise, players are not allowed to leave the FOP in order to gain an advantage. So, using corners as a specific, no one other than the kick taker is allowed to be off the FOP, whether that be near the corner flag, in the goal or even running around the back of the goal in order to appear unmarked at the other post
Here's another conundrum then.
For a short corner the ref/AR insist teammates of the taker are on the FoP. But if the corner is played toward the goal line or touch line and is nearly all over the line but not entirely over the line, the teammate could legitimately step off the FoP to play the ball. Is there a good reason for saying that's OK once the ball is in play but not while waiting for it to be put into play?
Another:
You can have multiple players lining up for a FK, to give uncertainty to defenders (legitimate deception). If the FK is on the touchline (or goal line) and could be an inswinger or outswinger, does this new "rule" mean that tactic is not allowed - creating different rules for taking a FK depending on where it's taken? (It's not that long since the time when if a foul was committed outside the FoP, it wasn't a FK, so the strictness about in/off the FoP was relaxed.)
For a short corner the ref/AR insist teammates of the taker are on the FoP. But if the corner is played toward the goal line or touch line and is nearly all over the line but not entirely over the line, the teammate could legitimately step off the FoP to play the ball. Is there a good reason for saying that's OK once the ball is in play but not while waiting for it to be put into play?
Another:
You can have multiple players lining up for a FK, to give uncertainty to defenders (legitimate deception). If the FK is on the touchline (or goal line) and could be an inswinger or outswinger, does this new "rule" mean that tactic is not allowed - creating different rules for taking a FK depending on where it's taken? (It's not that long since the time when if a foul was committed outside the FoP, it wasn't a FK, so the strictness about in/off the FoP was relaxed.)
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
Re your first point, Law 3 includes:
A player who crosses a boundary line as part of a playing movement does not commit an offence.
Re your second point, Russell Jones has already explained the relevant law.
As far as I read his post, Russell Isn't even attempting to explain the law as written. He's explaining his interpretation of the law and maybe even how he'd choose to run it, but that's just an interpretation which includes a number of assumptions (because gaps in the law do mean those have to be made), not confirmed fact.
This issue at CKs is trivial, but I suppose two or more players off the FOP at the taking of a CK, usually equates to delaying the restart
I guess it's an easy fix and if players know it's not allowed it will stop happening with immediate effect and the trivial issue become a none issue
That said, consistent with my views on VAR and forensics and sanitising the 'beautiful game', it's no longer the 'simple game' that IFAB brags about. So with that in mind, I'll swing towards saying, 'leave it and concentrate on simple, important stuff'
FWIW, TV subs are the primary source of football's prosperity... indirectly paying for much of everything... but that's a largely irrelevant consideration, except that spectators are increasingly ignored (albeit particularly those who attend, because they don't contribute much revenue)
I guess it's an easy fix and if players know it's not allowed it will stop happening with immediate effect and the trivial issue become a none issue
That said, consistent with my views on VAR and forensics and sanitising the 'beautiful game', it's no longer the 'simple game' that IFAB brags about. So with that in mind, I'll swing towards saying, 'leave it and concentrate on simple, important stuff'
FWIW, TV subs are the primary source of football's prosperity... indirectly paying for much of everything... but that's a largely irrelevant consideration, except that spectators are increasingly ignored (albeit particularly those who attend, because they don't contribute much revenue)
Last edited:
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
Russell has quoted law, ASM has quoted FA advice and law, I've quoted law - the whole issue is trivial, but as with many threads on here, this has gone off at various tangents and encompassed a lot of non-relevant stuff and opinions for the sake of opinions.
Manchester City have another game this evening so let's hope tomorrow's thread is an interesting one
I think the thread is of interest because football's governors don't seem to know what they want the game to be
The 'Philosophy and Spirit of the Laws' (all of page 11 in essence) is being aggressively eroded. To the extent that the cryptic pamphlet needs a proper rule book written by an outside organisation who are able to structure it properly. Or we just carry on with the status quo of accepting amateurish dabbling with detail
The 'Philosophy and Spirit of the Laws' (all of page 11 in essence) is being aggressively eroded. To the extent that the cryptic pamphlet needs a proper rule book written by an outside organisation who are able to structure it properly. Or we just carry on with the status quo of accepting amateurish dabbling with detail
Last edited:
If it equates to DTR, then book for DTR. No issues with that at all.
But if it doesn't, don't slow the game down to be fussy about something that makes no functional difference and that is routinely ignored elsewhere on the pitch.
You can "quote law" all you like. If the law can't explain how people are allowed to legally leave the pitch to take throw ins etc, it's not up to scratch and can't then be rigidly applied to other situations. There is a gap, and referees randomly deciding to apply it in situation X but not situation Y may as well be making it up as they go along.Russell has quoted law, ASM has quoted FA advice and law, I've quoted law - the whole issue is trivial, but as with many threads on here, this has gone off at various tangents and encompassed a lot of non-relevant stuff and opinions for the sake of opinions.
Manchester City have another game this evening so let's hope tomorrow's thread is an interesting one
I remember being told that L4 and up makes up only 1% of active referees in England. If only a fraction of that 1% is being told about ASMs FA advice, it might as well not exist. That's not an effective way of communicating law.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
As long as the restart isn't delayed and the other player is back on the FOP when the throw in is taken then all is ok.
I'd liken the 'new' proactive approach at corner kicks to other situations where referees already proactively warn players that, if they stay where they are they might / will commit an offence. This could be standing too close to a defensive wall (not technically an offence until the kick is taken) or standing in an offside position at a free kick with the possibility of blocking a retreating defender. Rather than simply waiting and playing 'gotcha' with players, it's routine to alert them to the fact that their actions are being watched because there is a specific possibility that they might commit an offence.
Consciously leaving the FOP (outside of a normal playing motion and in order to gain an advantage) is overall not allowed. The only new thing that's happening here is that higher level teams are trying their luck with a new corner kick tactic and are simply being warned that it's not acceptable.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I recall being taught long ago that as a function of the concept of not leaving the field, only one player was supposed to be off the pitch for a CK. (And it seems to me to be a waste of a player, but that’s a coaching decision.) That said, I’ve seen it many times at the professional level (more in women’s, I think), and never seen a referee care. I think it has been typically viewed as a trifling issue. And in the games I do, I’m going to consider it trifling, too, as I have far more bigger fish to fry unless the league decides they want it enforced and publicize it. But not permitting it is pretty easy to justify under the Laws—the only question to me is if it is worth caring about.
one
RefChat Addict
Comparing this corner kick tactic with two players going off the field but only one taking the throw in a 'normal way' is comparing apples and oranges. One is a deception tactic, the other isn't. Here is a comparable throw in.
In a game where multiball is allowed, two (or even more) players go off the field, each grab a ball and run towards where the ball went out. One of them pretends to throw it in a certain direction to attract defenders but doesn't throw. The other player throws it in another direction. I won't allow this to happen. Would anyone else? Multiple times in a game?
Not everything is directly spelled out in law. Player constantly look for way to gain an advantage over their opponents that are not clear in law. Some are within the spirit of law, some are not. With the ones that are not, if we referees don't take care of it, law clarifications will follow. Pretending to set the ball for a team mate but counting it as the restart at a corner click is a good example. Another is the feint at the end of a runup to a penalty kick. Both used to be within the wording of the lotg but not the spirit of it. Clarification outlawed them after they became widespread.
In a game where multiball is allowed, two (or even more) players go off the field, each grab a ball and run towards where the ball went out. One of them pretends to throw it in a certain direction to attract defenders but doesn't throw. The other player throws it in another direction. I won't allow this to happen. Would anyone else? Multiple times in a game?
Not everything is directly spelled out in law. Player constantly look for way to gain an advantage over their opponents that are not clear in law. Some are within the spirit of law, some are not. With the ones that are not, if we referees don't take care of it, law clarifications will follow. Pretending to set the ball for a team mate but counting it as the restart at a corner click is a good example. Another is the feint at the end of a runup to a penalty kick. Both used to be within the wording of the lotg but not the spirit of it. Clarification outlawed them after they became widespread.
It's not a badly argued post, but it kind of makes my point. If it's not defined in law, you have to make a judgement call on what you consider fair - this is not defined, and the arguments for why only one player may leave the FOP for a restart fall down immediately as soon as you watch any throw in.
And trying to act like "deception" isn't allowed in the game is also not a strong argument. You cite the stutter at the end of a penalty run-up being outlawed, but there's plenty of stuttering and deception that still goes on during run-ups. No one has attempted to outlaw the deception of two or more players standing over a FK, or the weird penalty quirk where the ball can be rolled forward for another player. Anyone doing step-overs is trying to deceive the opponent into thinking they're going somewhere they're not. Deception is more part of the game than it is not.
one
RefChat Addict
Either I misrepresented my argument or you misinterpreted it. This is not what I said or implied. Just because I say 'that' deception shouldn't happen in a corner kick or my scenario of the TI, it doesn't mean I don't want it to happen "in the game". In fact me saying "Some are within the spirit of law, some are not." pretty much covers this.