A&H

22/23 changes

bloovee

RefChat Addict
Nothing of great importance - but I understand Ross's offer to order hard copies still stands. I am a bit confused by the Law 14 amendment:



1. Procedure
Amended text
(…) When the ball is kicked, the defending goalkeeper must have at least part of
one foot touching, in line with, or behind, the goal line.
Explanation
Previously, the goalkeeper was required to have part of at least one foot on/
above the goal line at the moment when a penalty kick (or kick from the penalty
mark) was taken. Consequently, if the goalkeeper had one foot in front of the
goal line and one behind it, this was technically an offence even though no unfair
advantage is gained. The text has been amended to avoid such a position being
penalised.

Explanation of this amendment should emphasise that the ‘spirit’ of the Law
requires the goalkeeper to have both feet on/above the line until the moment
when the kick is taken, i.e. the goalkeeper may not stand behind (or in front of)
the goal line.


So the law says the GK must have part (or all) of one foot on, above, or behind the goal line (but doesn't specify where the other foot must be), but the GK "may not stand behind the goal line" (but all of one foot could be).
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
Think the Goalkeepers can now stand in the goal, behind the goal line. I've seen it in a few penalty shootouts. One foot behind the line and one just on it.

Not sure what is meant by the spirit of the law, telling Goalkeepers not to stand behind the goal line?
 
Read this part again. It is instructive.
I'll need more than that, as I'm struggling with this.

Explanation of this amendment should emphasise that the ‘spirit’ of the Law
requires the goalkeeper to have both feet on/above the line until the moment
when the kick is taken.


Is that even true? The letter of the law is that part of one foot must be on or above the line, not both. Why does the spirit of the law even come into it?

Until this change, the GK has not been allowed to stand behind the line. The law will still say the GK must remain on the goal line. If the "spirit of the law" is that the GK could be behind the line, it's taken over a century to come up with a contradiction within the letter of the law!
 
I'll need more than that, as I'm struggling with this.

Explanation of this amendment should emphasise that the ‘spirit’ of the Law
requires the goalkeeper to have both feet on/above the line until the moment
when the kick is taken.


Is that even true? The letter of the law is that part of one foot must be on or above the line, not both. Why does the spirit of the law even come into it?

Until this change, the GK has not been allowed to stand behind the line. The law will still say the GK must remain on the goal line. If the "spirit of the law" is that the GK could be behind the line, it's taken over a century to come up with a contradiction within the letter of the law!

The new law allows him to straddle the line.
 
But says he must remain on the line. OK, so "on the line" now doesn't mean what it used to mean, but the explanation is still wrong.
Well, you can argue it with IFAB if you want, but the interpretation is definitely that the keeper is allowed to straddle the line.
 
I'll need more than that, as I'm struggling with this.

Explanation of this amendment should emphasise that the ‘spirit’ of the Law
requires the goalkeeper to have both feet on/above the line until the moment
when the kick is taken.


Is that even true? The letter of the law is that part of one foot must be on or above the line, not both. Why does the spirit of the law even come into it?

Until this change, the GK has not been allowed to stand behind the line. The law will still say the GK must remain on the goal line. If the "spirit of the law" is that the GK could be behind the line, it's taken over a century to come up with a contradiction within the letter of the law!
The current law requires one foot on or above the line. The spirit of of it to stop them from encroaching forward. The current law however stops them from standing further back which still complies with spirit of the law. The new change basically takes that restriction of being further back away (which was fine with spirit law).
 
If I wrote to IFAB with every way to improve the wording, they might as well give me a full-time job.

Explanation of this amendment should emphasise that the ‘letter’ of the Law has required the goalkeeper to have part of one foot on or above the line until the moment when the kick is taken, and has never allowed the goalkeeper to stand behind the line. IFAB has decided that the spirit of the law should allow the goalkeeper to have part or all of one foot behind the line, so one foot can be wholly in front of the line and the other foot wholly behind the line, and, after 117 years, this is now how we interpret "remain on the goal line".

Or of course, just delete all that. If you have to explain the explanation, make it make sense and at the very least don't say spirit when you mean letter.
 
Last edited:
If I wrote to IFAB with every way to improve the wording, they might as well give me a full-time job.

Explanation of this amendment should emphasise that the ‘letter’ of the Law has required the goalkeeper to have part of one foot on or above the line until the moment when the kick is taken, and has never allowed the goalkeeper to stand behind the line. IFAB has decided that the spirit of the law should allow the goalkeeper to have part or all of one foot behind the line, so one foot can be wholly in front of the line and the other foot wholly behind the line, and, after 117 years, this is now how we interpret "remain on the goal line".

Or of course, just delete all that. If you have to explain the explanation, make it make sense and at the very least don't say spirit when you mean letter.
Literally everything is meant to be explained; that's why there are observers, coaches, and instructors. I don't see why you have this massive chip on your shoulder, but it really does impact on how people view your contributions.
 
Literally everything is meant to be explained; that's why there are observers, coaches, and instructors. I don't see why you have this massive chip on your shoulder, but it really does impact on how people view your contributions.
Jobs for the boys.

Maybe TV coverage has done it but the laws were far simpler, anyone could pick up a copy and you didn't need much explanation to understand them, just an occasional IFAB decision on any clarification needed.

But in this case they say "spirit of the law" for neither what the spirit nor the letter of the law says. If wanting mere accuracy, let alone perspicacity, is a bee in the bonnet, well excuse me.

Or enlighten me as to why what it says is right. Both feet?
 


I've got the feeling that too many people don't care about bad, confusing and contradictory wording in the laws.

The question is how many feet an angel keeper must have on the goal line.

"the Law requires the goalkeeper to have both feet on/above the line until the moment
when the kick is taken"


Is that true? (Either letter or spirit of the law)
 


I've got the feeling that too many people don't care about bad, confusing and contradictory wording in the laws.
It's not that - it's that it is literally almost impossible to write regulations, laws or policies that both allow for interpretation (ie. they have to apply to a range of real-life situations) and are clear, concise and entirely understandable by everyone.

Even our actual laws have to be interpreted by the courts, and when situations push the boundaries, case law affects how they are interpreted in the future. And they only have to apply to England and Wales in the main, let alone the rest of the UK or the rest of the world!

The laws may have been simpler in the past, but the amount of controversy regarding interpretation was (to my recollection at least) exactly the same.
 



It's not that - it's that it is literally almost impossible to write regulations, laws or policies that both allow for interpretation (ie. they have to apply to a range of real-life situations) and are clear, concise and entirely understandable by everyone.

Even our actual laws have to be interpreted by the courts, and when situations push the boundaries, case law affects how they are interpreted in the future. And they only have to apply to England and Wales in the main, let alone the rest of the UK or the rest of the world!

The laws may have been simpler in the past, but the amount of controversy regarding interpretation was (to my recollection at least) exactly the same.
It certainly wasn't exactly the same amount of contoversy. No instant replays - nothing to gainsay ITOOTR.

I'd think the only real controversy about the law was the Leeds - West Brom match where the referee applied the law as it was written rather than how it had been interpreted by most (not interfering is not offside).
 




It certainly wasn't exactly the same amount of contoversy. No instant replays - nothing to gainsay ITOOTR.

I'd think the only real controversy about the law was the Leeds - West Brom match where the referee applied the law as it was written rather than how it had been interpreted by most (not interfering is not offside).
I'm massively with you and always have been. Our LOTG pamphlet is pants, simple as that. It is one of the root causes of why the game is so badly officiated across the board
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mac
Nothing of great importance - but I understand Ross's offer to order hard copies still stands. I am a bit confused by the Law 14 amendment:



1. Procedure
Amended text
(…) When the ball is kicked, the defending goalkeeper must have at least part of
one foot touching, in line with, or behind, the goal line.
Explanation
Previously, the goalkeeper was required to have part of at least one foot on/
above the goal line at the moment when a penalty kick (or kick from the penalty
mark) was taken. Consequently, if the goalkeeper had one foot in front of the
goal line and one behind it, this was technically an offence even though no unfair
advantage is gained. The text has been amended to avoid such a position being
penalised.

Explanation of this amendment should emphasise that the ‘spirit’ of the Law
requires the goalkeeper to have both feet on/above the line until the moment
when the kick is taken, i.e. the goalkeeper may not stand behind (or in front of)
the goal line.


So the law says the GK must have part (or all) of one foot on, above, or behind the goal line (but doesn't specify where the other foot must be), but the GK "may not stand behind the goal line" (but all of one foot could b

has the order already been placed. Would love a hard copy!
 
Back
Top