A&H

2016-17

The query I have is the reference to outside agents. We are to allow a goal if the ball touches an outside agent but doesn't affect the outcome ie ball was entering the net anyway and it brushed a stray dog/twig on the way in and defenders/gk weren't going to stop it anyway.

All good so far but the it says it only applies to "opponents goal" - not sure who the opponent of a stray dog is?

I suppose they are saying that some outside agents can be attcahed to a team - spectator, official etc but its not overly clear!
 
The Referee Store
Cheshire Ref said:
What is all the moaning about?? Seriously, every referee and his dog has an opinion on the new laws and has picked out many "problems" with them, how many have come up with any kind of solution? I really don't have a problem with the re-write, I think it was long overdue and IFAB have made a good job of tidying up a lot of the wording on some laws. I like the fact that you don't have to ask a player to leave the field if he has a physio on (as long as you have carded), I like the fact that that you don't have to red card for every DOGSO offence, lets face it how many times have you almost apologetically put that red card in the air?
Click to expand...
As @Brian Hamilton would say, THIS :).

Having just read all the changes in detail, my honest opinion is that overall IFAB have done a great job at both simplifying, removing loopholes and generally making the Laws more consistent and understandable. I can think of a number of debates we've had recently on this forum (Outside Agent, Conclusion of a PK, Fouls off the FOP, Kick Off Direction etc etc) which now should be crystal clear to all concerned. Whilst I appreciate that certain Law changes (like the location of the Offside FK and the Penalty Area DOGSO change*) are not to everyone's liking, it's nigh on impossible to please all the people all the time. I'd humbly suggest that the best thing we can all do is throw our complete support behind the revised Laws, back them fully and implement them from Day 1 and just keep an eye out for anything which proves problematic in reality ...

* For what it's worth, I'm 100% comfortable with the new DOGSO wording, not least because it removes the current, over the top, 'triple jeopardy' and I'm a little disappointed with the Offside FK position change (it's workable but do think they'll need to give specific guidance to ARs as to whether they should enter the 'wrong' half to indicate offside against an attacker becoming active in his own half or whether they should just put up their flag, give the usual 'coming back from an offside position' hand gesture and leave it to the referee to decide exactly where the offence occurred.
 
I agree in part that the laws needed a re write. The problem is how all non referees and the media interpret the changes.

For example the new DOGSO was reported on the BBC text service yesterday as accidental fouls in the pen area won't be DOGSo but deliberate fouls will , as now.

Gross over simplification and not 100% accurate - that's something we have now and that will continue with the new laws/wording.
 
PinnerPaul said:
Neale barry and David Elleray are credited with being on the "Technical Sub - Committee" that did the re write
Click to expand...
I'm not quite sure what point you're intending to make (if any) but David Elleray was not just "on" the sub-committee, he was the head of it and pretty much in charge of the whole shebang.
Russell Jones said:
I'm a little disappointed with the Offside FK position change (it's workable but do think they'll need to give specific guidance to ARs as to whether they should enter the 'wrong' half to indicate offside against an attacker becoming active in his own half or whether they should just put up their flag, give the usual 'coming back from an offside position' hand gesture and leave it to the referee to decide exactly where the offence occurred
Click to expand...
That's the whole problem with this. They haven't given the specific guidance that this so clearly requires which pretty much means they haven't realised the problem even exists. If there was ever a time to issue that guidance, it was in the current revision. There isn't going to be an opportunity to issue guidance before the new laws come into effect, as far as I'm aware. We're probably going to have to wait for a few high profile incidents demonstrating the need for guidance, before they get around to doing anything about it.

Incidentally, I raised this issue in an email to the IFAB about the proposed changes, a few months ago. Unfortunately, although they provided answers to several other points I referred to, they did not reply on the question of AR/referee mechanics for this scenario so once again, it is as if they didn't even acknowledge the existence of the problem.

Russell, if as I think you are suggesting, the AR who initially judges the player to be in an offside position stays in his "normal" half and makes the "coming back from an offside position" gesture, which of the three offside location flag positions should he then use and in what direction should he point the flag, do you think?
 
Peter Grove said:
I think maybe you're misreading those two sections. I'm sure the bit about goalkeeper's caps being allowed and the section giving the guidelines for head covers are to be taken separately. The rules about head covers (colours, protruding elements etc) would not apply to goalkeeper's caps.

The amendment that I think is potentially the most troublesome is the idea of awarding the indirect free kick for an offside offence in the player's own half. This has been discussed before but I think it bears repeating.

What are the mechanics for this? Which AR indicates the position of the indirect free kick when it is in the player's own half? If it is the AR who first determined the player was in an offside position, does he follow the player back into the player's own half? If he does, what happens if the offside-positioned player does not become active but a team-mate plays the ball forward? The AR would no longer be in the correct position to judge any new offside offence.

If on the other hand it is the AR who is already in the player's own half, how does he know that the player who may potentially be retreating from an offside position, actually was in an offside position, since the other AR is not supposed to flag until the player becomes active?

I was hoping some guidance on this might have been included somewhere, such as in the section "Practical Guidelines for Match Officials" but no such luck.
Click to expand...

I was replying to Capn B's point that he found it hard to believe there were referees involved in the process
 
The rewrite is a charter for last week's refs everywhere.

Massive loopholes to enable the feeble minded and weak willed to neglect their obligations yet further and dress it up in fancy phrases.

Another nail in the coffin of RESPECT and discipline in general.

Will just create further problems for those who believe in doing the job properly.
 
Is the offside IDFK given in own half a change in law or a clarification? I'm sure I've given at least one of those this season. Was I wrong or just ahead of the time?
 
Peter Grove said:
Russell, if as I think you are suggesting, the AR who initially judges the player to be in an offside position stays in his "normal" half and makes the "coming back from an offside position" gesture, which of the three offside location flag positions should he then use and in what direction should he point the flag, do you think?
Click to expand...
If ever there was a use for the English "Penalty" flag from the AR, this is it. Flag up to indicate offside. Whistle goes. Move flag in to the "old, but never official" penalty position, holding the flag in your right hand pointing to the opposite half.
 
Peter Grove said:
Russell, if as I think you are suggesting, the AR who initially judges the player to be in an offside position stays in his "normal" half and makes the "coming back from an offside position" gesture, which of the three offside location flag positions should he then use and in what direction should he point the flag, do you think?
Click to expand...
Peter, like you, I'm disappointed that they haven't already given guidance on what is a relatively common occurrence (and that they changed this Law at all). In that context, I really don't mind what they suggest as long as it is clear and consistent! However, if ARs are to stay in their own half then I'd suggest the signal is given in the normal way .. flag straight up first and then whichever of the three positions most closely equates to the 'near or far' location of the offending player
 
J-K said:
Is the offside IDFK given in own half a change in law or a clarification? I'm sure I've given at least one of those this season. Was I wrong or just ahead of the time?
Click to expand...
The change is that historically, even if a player became active in his own half, the location of the FK should have been where he was located in the opposition half when the ball was played. Now the location of the FK will be wherever he becomes active
 
Ross said:
Before this escalates further

@Cheshire Ref - Your comment was not needed and has been removed. Tread carefully gents! Very carefully
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I sense a little bit of double standards here @Ross. @Cheshire Ref and myself had given clear, calm and coherent arguments largely supporting the rewrite ... only for @Padfoot to swiftly describe it as a 'charter for last week's refs everywhere' and a 'way for the feeble minded and weak willed to neglect their obligations'. Frankly, I'm not in the least surprised that Cheshire got the hump!!
 
No double standards at all.
I wondered how long it would take for you to emerge from your cave @Padfoot. Here we go again with LWR rubbish!!
Click to expand...
hardly call that a clear, calm and coherant argument.

Anyway, back on topic please
 
I think Padfoot skims it but from the wrong angle.

I think LWR will occur but not because of why Padfoot says. I think that for the first season we will see several interpretations of each law, and obviously hence so several wrong interpretations. This will lead to "But ref, last week the ref sent him off for that."

I think the DOGSO law is messy. Laws need to be black and white. DOGSO previously was simple. We now have to decide whether the player made a genuine attempt to play the ball from what I read of a quick scan of it. My argument is that when inside the box what player would attempt to tackle and not attempt to get the ball. Every tackle inside the box is going to be going for the ball. In my eyes, they may as well have removed the dismissal for DOGSO when it comes to tackling completely as that's what it feels like they have done.

Player's won't bother tugging on shirts in DOGSO situations, they'll just hack the player down. They'll know that if they tug the player down they're walking, but if they slide in there's a chance the referee me, correctly or wrongly, interpret it as a caution.
 
SM said:
You are of course all wrong.

Last weeks ref won't be reading the new laws book. He read a law book back when he qualified, been winging it or just plain making it up ever since.

:D
Click to expand...

That's no way to speak about our Padders @SM. :eek:

I'll have you know he reads his (1978) copy every Friday night. He's all over it. After all - it was good enough in his day..... anything else is more than likely just "weak refereeing!!" :cool:
 
Last edited:
PinnerPaul said:
I was replying to Capn B's point that he found it hard to believe there were referees involved in the process
Click to expand...
OK - well in that case it's perhaps worth pointing out that unless I'm mistaken, everyone on this sub-committee was a former referee and/or current head of refereeing for their respective national association or confederation.

PinnerPaul said:
All good so far but the it says it only applies to "opponents goal" - not sure who the opponent of a stray dog is?
Click to expand...
As I read this section, it refers to a defending player not being prevented from playing the ball by the interference and the ball entering the (defender's) goal. In which case, the opponent's goal would refer to the goal at the opposite end of the field from where the interference occurred and covers the unlikely (but theoretically possible) scenario of the outside agent propelling the ball the entire length of the field.
 
Padfoot said:
The main principle of football is to score more goals than your opponents i.e. Win......
Click to expand...
I would beg to differ, that's the main aim of an individual team in an individual match. Also, the phrase was "the main/essential principles/ethos" so it was clearly meant as "principles" (plural) as in "ethos" rather than principle (singular) as in "aim." Furthermore, the passage in question talks specifically about referees (not teams or players) acting within the spirit of the game and I'm pretty sure the essential ethos of the game when it comes to referees applying it, is neither to score goals nor to win.
 
Peter Grove said:
I would beg to differ, that's the main aim of an individual team in an individual match. Also, the phrase was "the main/essential principles/ethos" so it was clearly meant as "principles" (plural) as in "ethos" rather than principle (singular) as in "aim." Furthermore, the passage in question talks specifically about referees (not teams or players) acting within the spirit of the game and I'm pretty sure the essential ethos of the game when it comes to referees applying it, is neither to score goals nor to win.
Click to expand...

So you don't know what they mean by 'spirit of the game' either.
 
Dissent now a DFK. Goalkeeper / player inside their own penalty area gets cautioned while the ball is in play is now a penalty kick
 
  • Like
Reactions: SM
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top