2016-17

[Speedbrid]

Use your own judgement is the best answer...

... I guess that's the beauty of 'in the opinion of the referee'

I think that when a ball is in play at a restart should not be open to this kind of ambiguity.

Without a decent framework for consistency, we are all doomed! <TM>

 

[HertsFinest]

I think that when a ball is in play at a restart should not be open to this kind of ambiguity.

Without a decent framework for consistency, we are all doomed! <TM>

It's a hard one unless they put something like 'the ball must be kicked and move 2 or more yards' in there

 

[Speedbrid]

It's a hard one unless they put something like 'the ball must be kicked and move 2 or more yards' in there

Or "must exit the corner area" or "must be positioned with the hands" or something else that does the job! How hard can it be?

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

It's a hard one unless they put something like 'the ball must be kicked and move 2 or more yards' in there

Kicked and rolls would be better. Any set distance raises as many problems as it fixes.

 

[HertsFinest]

Kicked and rolls would be better. Any set distance raises as many problems as it fixes.

An 1/8th of a roll included or a full rotation?

 

[Peter Grove]

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.

I don't understand your point, they always could anyway and what a player does with the ball after it is dropped, so long as they don't score a goal was never a matter of concern and was never meant to be dealt with either under the old or the new wording.

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?

"Directly" was never clear in the context of the dropped ball wording modification, that's why there was so much debate about it and why the IFAB made several comments about it being changed as part of the new laws overhaul. A player dribbling the ball all the way down the field and then scoring from a dropped ball is a relatively rare occurrence but it has happened several times and is precisely one of the reasons why this amendment was seen to be necessary.

 

[SM]

Am I the only one resisting the urge to read the new laws yet? Not finished using the old laws yet!

 

[Russell Jones]

. What on earth does 'clearly moves' mean as opposed to 'moves'???

Given that it's 'in the opinion of the referee', I'd suggest that it means 'moves in a way that's noticeable to the referee' from 30 odd yards away. In reality, I'd imagine that the law change will end up doing exactly what it's designed to do .. act as a deterrent to the current snide cheeky corners and give the ref the opportunity to pull back play in those situations if he so chooses

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Well, isn't that identical to what moves means? I mean, if you can see it move, then it 'clearly moves' doesn't it?

 

[Peter Grove]

Am I the only one resisting the urge to read the new laws yet? Not finished using the old laws yet!

Probably not the only one - but since they come into effect in just over 4 weeks, you might want to think about looking at them before too much longer. There are a number of fairly significant changes that you might find it useful to be aware of, before June 1st rolls around.

 

[Peter Grove]

Well, isn't that identical to what moves means? I mean, if you can see it move, then it 'clearly moves' doesn't it?

As per the explanation, this seems to have been intended to preclude the "tap on the top of the ball that makes it wobble slightly" style of restart that some referees were allowing. In fact I saw a post on another refereeing website just yesterday, saying that under the current Laws, merely touching the ball so that it wobbles, met the definition of "kicked and moves". You can't really make that argument with the new wording.

 

[Russell Jones]

Well, isn't that identical to what moves means? I mean, if you can see it move, then it 'clearly moves' doesn't it?

If you, the referee, can see it move then it's 'clearly moved'. If you can't see it move, then it hasn't 'clearly moved' even though in reality it might well have moved . That's the difference.

That said, with NARs, it might have 'clearly moved' for the NAR but not for the players and referee

 

[SM]

Probably not the only one - but since they come into effect in just over 4 weeks, you might want to think about looking at them before too much longer. There are a number of fairly significant changes that you might find it useful to be aware of, before June 1st rolls around.

You say 4 weeks... I won't have another game for 3 months by that point. Plenty of time to get the new laws to bed in.

 

[PinnerPaul]

You say 4 weeks... I won't have another game for 3 months by that point. Plenty of time to get the new laws to bed in.

Better hope you don't get called up as a late replacement on the Euros then SM

 

[SM]

Lol forgot about that....

 

[Peter Grove]

You say 4 weeks... I won't have another game for 3 months by that point. Plenty of time to get the new laws to bed in.

So, no pre-season friendlies, then? Anyway, I was also thinking about the fact that, this being a refereeing forum and all, it won't be long before there will be incidents to be considered (almost surely in the Euros, for example) where the discussions will centre on the new laws.

 

[SM]

While I certainly appreciate your quite intense concern mate, you are giving me many Smiles with just how long you think it will take to actually read and absorb the new laws. I'm guessing:

1 sitting= about an hour.

Then it's going over them from time to time. To get them to bed in.

Let me reassure your worried head. I'll be up to (new law) speed by the time wales whup England at the euros!

 

[Kes]

While I certainly appreciate your quite intense concern mate, you are giving me many Smiles with just how long you think it will take to actually read and absorb the new laws. I'm guessing:

1 sitting= about an hour.

Then it's going over them from time to time. To get them to bed in.

Let me reassure your worried head. I'll be up to (new law) speed by the time wales whup England at the euros!

And therein lies folly Sir.
England will have to play REALLY badly for Wales to even get a draw.

I'm afaid a "whupping" is simply out of the question.

* You have not been charged for this advice.

 

[xPositor]

I'll be up to (new law) speed by the time wales whup England at the euros!

So that will give you at least another 4 years or so then...

 

[Peter Grove]

While I certainly appreciate your quite intense concern mate, you are giving me many Smiles with just how long you think it will take to actually read and absorb the new laws. I'm guessing:

1 sitting= about an hour.

Then it's going over them from time to time. To get them to bed in.

Let me reassure your worried head. I'll be up to (new law) speed by the time wales whup England at the euros!

Hmm, not quite sure I would characterise my feelings on whether you have read the new laws or not as "intense concern." But thanks for attributing such apparently caring emotions to me anyway.