The Ref Stop

2016-17

Peter Grove said:
Yeah, you missed it. Actually, I was thinking of posting about this, that it is one change where they have made things clearer and easier to understand. The new wording about this aspect of the dropped ball is:
Click to expand...

But doesn't that change the meaning? If you've already discussed it then I'd like executive summary please. But for me this is a material change, not just a clarification, in that what was a goal yesterday, will not be a goal tomorrow (or come June 1st, or whenever your competition authority adopts these.) It's all dependent upon the interpretation one had of "directly."
 
The Ref Stop
Speedbrid said:
But doesn't that change the meaning? If you've already discussed it then I'd like executive summary please. But for me this is a material change, not just a clarification, in that what was a goal yesterday, will not be a goal tomorrow (or come June 1st, or whenever your competition authority adopts these.) It's all dependent upon the interpretation one had of "directly."
Click to expand...
i think its now very clear tbh the ball must be touched again by someone other than the first person to touch it after the ball has touched the ground, for any subsequent goal to stand( be it own or otherwise ) clears up those silly situations where you've dropped for a player to 'give it back' and it accidentally rolls in
 
Indeed, but now we have the situation where the player that first touches the ball after it has been dropped and hits the ground, can dribble it down to the other end of the field to the opponents goal, but not be able to score. That's the big change I see - nothing to do with accidental anything.
 
Speedbrid said:
Indeed, but now we have the situation where the player that first touches the ball after it has been dropped and hits the ground, can dribble it down to the other end of the field to the opponents goal, but not be able to score. That's the big change I see - nothing to do with accidental anything.
Click to expand...
think you rarely see players dribble for extended periods from a drop ball, so its irrelevant really, just need to bear it in mind
 
richard ramjane said:
think you rarely see players dribble for extended periods from a drop ball, so its irrelevant really, just need to bear it in mind
Click to expand...

It's going to happen to some ref at some stage.

But it's still a material change, and that's my point. And the explanation talks about clarity and consistent wording, not a material change.

Perhaps they should have introduced the doubly touch rule for dropped balls, and then we wouldn't have this change and it would be exactly like every other restart. (Not really!)
 
Speedbrid said:
It's going to happen to some ref at some stage.

But it's still a material change, and that's my point. And the explanation talks about clarity and consistent wording, not a material change.

Perhaps they should have introduced the doubly touch rule for dropped balls, and then we wouldn't have this change and it would be exactly like every other restart. (Not really!)
Click to expand...
yup, i suppose it will happen, probably more likely when its close to goal... and yes i see your point that its a material change, but in some ways it actually has clarified what we're doing from this type of restart. i dont think its a huge issue (if its an issue at all) and am very happy to implement it.... its not changing my life massively
 
Speedbrid said:
But doesn't that change the meaning? If you've already discussed it then I'd like executive summary please. But for me this is a material change, not just a clarification, in that what was a goal yesterday, will not be a goal tomorrow (or come June 1st, or whenever your competition authority adopts these.) It's all dependent upon the interpretation one had of "directly."
Click to expand...
Sorry, I thought you meant had you missed it in the new laws document, not as the subject of a discussion on here (it was not discussed). As for changing the meaning, that was the whole idea of coming up with new wording - there was some confusion over what was intended by the use of the word "directly" in relation to a dropped ball. The IFAB said the technical sub-committee would come up with new wording that would clarify the intent of the law, which is precisely what this new wording does.
 
From accounts I've heard, the old writer of the Laws (who also wrote Beach Soccer and Futsal Laws) wrote them in Spanish. Those were translated to English for the IFAB panel to discuss (for soccer, Beach Soccer and Futsal merely go through committee).

The original intent (by the accounts I heard) was for a dropped ball to require two touches (number of players irrelevant), and this was carried into the Futsal Laws with the following text:
If, after the ball has made contact with the ground, a player kicks it once directly towards one of the goals and the ball goes directly
• into the opponent’s goal, a goal clearance is awarded
• into the team’s own goal, a corner kick is awarded to the opposing team
If, after the ball has made contact with the ground, a player kicks the ball with more than one touch towards one of the goals and:
• the ball enters one of the goals, a goal is awarded
Click to expand...

However, the translator into English of the soccer/football Laws for IFAB misinterpreted it and it was presented as "directly", meaning multiple players to the board, but not being made clear in the language of the text.

Some associations (including the FA to my understanding) have been interpreting this as "multiple players must touch the ball" and others as "there must be multiple touches on the ball" (ie, number of players irrelevant). So, this change for the 16-17 Laws is, thus, a clarification so that now it meets where IFAB felt they were going previously.
 
AlexF said:
From accounts I've heard, the old writer of the Laws (who also wrote Beach Soccer and Futsal Laws) wrote them in Spanish. Those were translated to English for the IFAB panel to discuss (for soccer, Beach Soccer and Futsal merely go through committee).
Click to expand...
I'm at a loss to know where you're getting this from. The Laws have always been written in English. The last major rewrite that can be attributed mainly to the efforts of one person was in 1938 and was the work of Sir Stanley Rous (an Englishman). Since then - as, indeed since the first set of Laws were written (in English) in 1863, all amendments have been drafted, proposed and finalised in English which is and always has been, the working language of all IFAB meetings. All agendas, minutes, circulars etc coming from the IFAB are always in English. All other language versions of the Laws are translations from the original English text, which is why it is definitive, in case of any divergence between the different language versions.
 
Padfoot said:
Restart of play after fouls and misconduct
•  If the ball is out of play, play is restarted according to the previous decision
•  If the ball is in play and a player commits an offence inside the field of play against:
>an opponent – indirect or direct free kick or penalty kick
> a team-mate, substitute, substituted player, team official or a match official – a direct free kick or penalty kick
> any other person – a dropped ball

Think it's quite clear that restarts are dealt with as above, so the IDFK would only apply in circumstances other than the above.
Click to expand...

The substitute/team official clause always struck me as highly unlikely, given that play would be stopped 99% of the time. Apologies if this has already been dealt with, but if a substitute/team official comes onto the field of play to commit an offence against a player/match official, is the restart an IDF? I am confused because, as far as I'm aware, the laws only mention objects thrown in this regard.
 
I get what people are saying about the dropped ball change, and if this is really what they meant originally - this modification being just a clarification - then they aren't very good at writing clear, concise, complete laws in the first place. "Directly" was obvious to me before (one touch no score, two touch score) - but if this new wording was their real intent with the old wording I'm questioning my understanding and their sanity.

The dropped ball has always been a bit of an odd restart (in that it is the referee that puts the ball into play, not a player) but now we have a restart where there can be a lot of time and a lot of touches from the restart, and yet a legal goal cannot be scored. I know everyone is going to say this is really unlikely etc etc etc, but it WILL happen. So (1) does it actually makes sense? And (2) will that referee do the right thing when it happens in their game?
 
This may have been mentioned above - did they miss the opportunity to define when a corner kick has been taken very clear? For every other restart, it is really clear when the ball has been put into play (even though for quick free kicks it's not really codified, but it is clear) but for the corner kick, what is the difference between re-positioning the ball with one's foot and taking the kick? There are videos of the ball being positioned with the foot and then another attacker coming in and re-positioning it with their hands. Sometimes that is called as handling and sometimes not. There are videos of the ball being positioned with the foot and then another attacker coming in and dribbling away with it. Sometimes that is called as a double touch and sometimes not. And the impreciseness of when the ball is in play is to blame. Does the IFAB not have access to YouTube?

Or am I just a whiny old referee and I should hang up my cards and whistle? ;)
 
Speedbrid said:
I get what people are saying about the dropped ball change, and if this is really what they meant originally - this modification being just a clarification - then they aren't very good at writing clear, concise, complete laws in the first place. "Directly" was obvious to me before (one touch no score, two touch score) - but if this new wording was their real intent with the old wording I'm questioning my understanding and their sanity.

The dropped ball has always been a bit of an odd restart (in that it is the referee that puts the ball into play, not a player) but now we have a restart where there can be a lot of time and a lot of touches from the restart, and yet a legal goal cannot be scored. I know everyone is going to say this is really unlikely etc etc etc, but it WILL happen. So (1) does it actually makes sense? And (2) will that referee do the right thing when it happens in their game?
Click to expand...

Perhaps it will happen once or twice, but if in any doubt, referees should warn players before dropped balls that it must touch another player before it is active, so to speak. As for the terminology, I agree 'directly' is open to interpretation, but we understand it clearly enough with respect to free kicks, so no major problem. I can't believe the previous amendment would have been particularly useful in preventing unintentional goals given the tendency of players to take a touch out of their feet before passing. Overall, I think the rewrite will work by deterrence if applied correctly: crafty players will eventually get the message that there is no loophole to exploit anymore.
 
Speedbrid said:
Have you not seen the YouTube videos? Did you not read my complete post? The word "clearly" doesn't really change a thing.
Click to expand...

Yes it does as it means it has to be clear to see, not a slight touch and a second player runs.

'In the referees opinion' so you can stop play if there's a cheeky one
 
One more try... my point is, how do you distinguish between a positioning kick (that clearly moves the ball) and putting the ball into play?
 
Speedbrid said:
One more try... my point is, how do you distinguish between a positioning kick (that clearly moves the ball) and putting the ball into play?
Click to expand...
Use your own judgement is the best answer.

McTavish said:
No - has been reworded as: The ball is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves.


Couldn't possibly comment...:D
Click to expand...
Example #428 of why this document is an absolute joke. What on earth does 'clearly moves' mean as opposed to 'moves'???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top