2016-17

[quizeye]

As an outsider, my first impression is that a lot of this is really badly written. Just as an example:

...."until after the match has ended"?? Does that reinforce the original wording? Does it reinforce paragraph 5.4 above it which refers to "leaving the field of play"?

And the "spirit of the game" thing is barking. Write some rules down and enforce them.

 

[RegalRef]

Bit left-field here...please bear with me.....

I kinda get the 'spirit of the game' business. I understand the point they are trying to make, although imho they have made a massive hash of the way it is written.

But what they are trying to say is in fairness incredibly difficult to write without completely undermining the rest of what is written in the laws, and the wording would take some time to get right.

*AWAITS BERATING FROM COLLEAGUES*

 

[santa sangria]

Bit left-field here...please bear with me.....

I kinda get the 'spirit of the game' business. I understand the point they are trying to make, although imho they have made a massive hash of the way it is written.

But what they are trying to say is in fairness incredibly difficult to write without completely undermining the rest of what is written in the laws, and the wording would take some time to get right.

*AWAITS BERATING FROM COLLEAGUES*

IMHO it's not the wording, it's the concept. However you word it, it is a license to not apply the laws.

 

[santa sangria]

You're a little behind the times - that particular wording was removed a year ago. Also, see IFAB circular no. 3 for further clarification. As for stationing players near the keeper, there was guidance issued by the IFAB after a similar scenario in a recent match between Shrewsbury and Man Utd that stationing players in an offside position for tactical purposes such as you describe, is expected to be punished as an offside offence. The full document explaining this is on the second page of the following discussion:

http://refchat.co.uk/threads/juan-mata-fk-offside.7172/page-2

Thanks Peter, I hadn't seen this and it is very useful.

 

[DanCohen17]

I get what they mean, but they didn't need to word it as they have.

Something about corner flags not being in place shouldn't prevent a game going ahead, which I agree with

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

As an outsider, my first impression is that a lot of this is really badly written. Just as an example:

...."until after the match has ended"?? Does that reinforce the original wording? Does it reinforce paragraph 5.4 above it which refers to "leaving the field of play"?

And the "spirit of the game" thing is barking. Write some rules down and enforce them.

So, abuse the referee in the tunnel, or while he's warming up, and the worst that can happen is you might get suspended next game, still play in that one?
EDIT: No, read the right chapter. They're banned from the game just not shown the card.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

- A player whose shin guard or boot is lost accidentaly must replace it as soon as possible and no later than when the ball next goes out of play.
But they can still score a goal, I think we decided you'd award a IDFK for dangerous play?

.

No we didn't In fact, the old Q&A specifically stated the player could score a goal, IIRC. You'd only consider PIADM if he puts himself into a position where he could be challenged for the ball or challenges for the ball. What does 'as soon as possible' mean? Can the player keep running up the field in a 2-on-1 against the keeper?

So using the spirit of the game that does not benefit lower league football, can I finally ignore the fact the a player has blue tape on his yellow sock???

That's....actually a really good point.
Oh dear, we're just going to see a lot of 'Last Week's Ref' from this, aren't we? This 'spirit of the game' clause could be applied to ANYTHING.
How is it possible for one organisation to be so utterly incompetent at writing the laws? I mean, it's their job - how can they be so bad at it?
No surprise, they've always been appalling at writing the laws. Don't know why we thought they wouldn't completely screw up a rewrite.

Thanks a lot IFAB for making our lives a lot harder when it comes to DOGSO

Yep, it blows my mind what an absolute joke of a law that is. You'd think these clowns had never actually seen a match before. I find it difficult to believe that there are referees who work with IFAB.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

If the competition rules state that all players and substitutes must be named
before kick-off and a team starts a match with fewer than eleven players, only
the players and substitutes named in the starting line-up may take part in the
match upon their arrival.

Hmm...where I've refereed, full teamsheets must be provided but competition rules would permit players to be added to the teamsheet after kickoff if the team starts short. This recognises the fact that in these cases, the coach may desperately be pulling in players from other teams. I find it very strange that they've tried to make a statement on competition rules in the LOTG, seems messy. While the competition rules state that all players must be named, the rules also provide an exception. So are the LOTG saying the exception isn't valid? What business is that of IFAB if they don't otherwise care if players are named before the match?

Substitutes can take any restart provided they first enter the field of play.

I wonder how many referees think this is a change?

Glad to see they've finally decided that a player cannot come back onto the field after being sent off...lol

Umm, hang on a minute, anybody seen this?

Extra persons on the field of play
The coach and other officials named on the team list (with the exception of
players or substitutes) are team officials. Anyone not named on the team list as
a player, substitute or team official is an outside agent.
If a team official, substitute, substituted or sent off player or outside agent
enters the field of play the referee must:
• only stop play if there is interference with play
• have the person removed when play stops
• take appropriate disciplinary action

If play is stopped and the interference was by:
• a team official, substitute, substituted or sent off player, play restarts with a
direct free kick or penalty kick
• an outside agent, play restarts with a dropped ball

If a ball is going into the goal and the interference does not prevent a defending
player playing the ball, the goal is awarded if the ball enters the goal (even if
contact was made with the ball) unless the ball enters the opponents’ goal.

So, if a substitute - or even a team official - comes onto the field and kicks the ball - or even just gets in an opponent's way - the restart is a DFK?? THAT is interesting.
That last paragraph is interesting as well...I guess that makes it clear that if a keeper's water bottle on the goal line is hit by the ball and goes into the goal, it's still a goal!

Other equipment

Non-dangerous protective equipment, for example headgear, facemasks


and knee and arm protectors made of soft, lightweight padded material is

permitted as are goalkeepers’ caps and sports spectacles.

Where head covers are worn, they must:
• be black or the same main colour as the shirt (provided that the players of
the same team wear the same colour)
• be in keeping with the professional appearance of the player’s equipment
• not be attached to the shirt
• not be dangerous to the player wearing it or any other player (e.g. opening/
closing mechanism around neck)
• not have any part(s) extending out from the surface (protruding elements)

Another example of how badly written it is - the last clause could be interpreted as a peaked cap isn't allowed. But it's concerning that in their continued complete ignorance of the sport, they've now decided that caps or headgear must be black or the same colour as the shirt...what is wrong with this mob????
I'm surprised they didn't make the same ruling on gloves. Only a matter of time I guess. By 2020 I'm sure all players will have to fully paint themselves to match their jersey colour...

So, did anybody notice that GK encroachment at a PK is apparently now a mandatory caution?

EDIT: Sorry for the triplicate, thread wasn't displaying properly and I didn't think I was posting duplicate, let alone triplicate...

 

[Peter Grove]

Another example of how badly written it is - the last clause could be interpreted as a peaked cap isn't allowed. But it's concerning that in their continued complete ignorance of the sport, they've now decided that caps or headgear must be black or the same colour as the shirt...what is wrong with this mob???

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.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I agree with you about how I think they should be read Threw me at first!
The only problem with the IFK for offside is how the AR is supposed to signal that location. It just feels 'wrong', and most non-referees I've seen discussing it think it's absurd. It's a poor answer to a slightly problematic situation that doesn't really cause nearly as many problems as it could.

 

[Peter Grove]

It's a poor answer to a slightly problematic situation that doesn't really cause nearly as many problems as it could.

I couldn't agree more. I think it's a case of the cure being worse than the affliction.

 

[Cheshire Ref]

Ok I am going to start by putting a tin hat on as I am about to get pelters but hey ho im used to that so here goes...........

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? and I like the spirit of the game thing. Don't start going on about "Last weeks ref" because to be quite honest I am bored of LWR, its absolute tosh. The spirit of the game allows a referee to use common sense and initiative and actually allow games to be played the right way without being labelled with this ridiculous tag of LWR.

We don't make the laws we just enforce them, they are what they are. Maybe if any of us manage to get a £500,000 per year job at FIFA then we can help make them but until then just get on with it!!!

Feel free to slate the living daylights out of me.

 

[xPositor]

Ok I am going to start by putting a tin hat on as I am about to get pelters but hey ho im used to that so here goes...........

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? and I like the spirit of the game thing. Don't start going on about "Last weeks ref" because to be quite honest I am bored of LWR, its absolute tosh. The spirit of the game allows a referee to use common sense and initiative and actually allow games to be played the right way without being labelled with this ridiculous tag of LWR.

We don't make the laws we just enforce them, they are what they are. Maybe if any of us manage to get a £500,000 per year job at FIFA then we can help make them but until then just get on with it!!!

Feel free to slate the living daylights out of me.

What would be the point of this forum if something like the new LotG came out and we all just said "Fantastic". We're here to pick holes! My major concern over them isn't what they contain, as much as how this will get communicated down to grassroots. As you say, the laws are the laws and we are here to enforce them - but with so few non-referees really understanding the laws as they stood, the FA is going to have to initiate a major enablement exercise to get these updates across.

FWIW the club where I am secretary I am already planning manager/coaches updates on this - which this year I will do face to face (previous years I have only ever issued email updates on the law changes).

 

[McTavish]

Cricket has long had "The Spirit of the Game" as a concept. It is actually in the preamble to the laws and reads as follows:

Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself. The major responsibility for ensuring the spirit of fair play rests with the captains.

1. There are two Laws which place responsibility for the team's conduct firmly on the captain.
Responsibility of captains
The captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the Spirit of the Game as well as within the Laws.

Player's conduct
In the event of a player failing to comply with instructions by an umpire, or criticising by word or action the decision of an umpire, or showing dissent, or generally behaving in a manner which might bring the game into disrepute, the umpire concerned shall in the first place report the matter to the other umpire and to the player's captain, and instruct the latter to take action.

2. Fair and unfair play
According to the Laws the umpires are the sole judges of fair and unfair play.
The umpires may intervene at any time and it is the responsibility of the captain to take action where required.

3. The umpires are authorised to intervene in cases of:
Time wasting
Damaging the pitch
Dangerous or unfair bowling
Tampering with the ball
Any other action that they consider to be unfair

4. The Spirit of the Game involves RESPECT for:
Your opponents
Your own captain
The roles of the umpires
The game's traditional values

5. It is against the Spirit of the Game:
To dispute an umpire's decision by word, action or gesture
To direct abusive language towards an opponent or umpire
To indulge in cheating or any sharp practice, for instance:
(a) to appeal knowing that the batsman is not out
(b) to advance towards an umpire in an aggressive manner when appealing
(c) to seek to distract an opponent either verbally or by harassment with persistent clapping or unnecessary noise under the guise of enthusiasm and motivation of one's own side

6. Violence
There is no place for any act of violence on the field of play.

7. Players
Captains and umpires together set the tone for the conduct of a cricket match. Every player is expected to make an important contribution towards this.

Interestingly it is more about the responsibilities of the players than the action of the umpire.

 

[Cheshire Ref]

What would be the point of this forum if something like the new LotG came out and we all just said "Fantastic". We're here to pick holes! My major concern over them isn't what they contain, as much as how this will get communicated down to grassroots. As you say, the laws are the laws and we are here to enforce them - but with so few non-referees really understanding the laws as they stood, the FA is going to have to initiate a major enablement exercise to get these updates across.

FWIW the club where I am secretary I am already planning manager/coaches updates on this - which this year I will do face to face (previous years I have only ever issued email updates on the law changes).

Well firstly I don't think the point of the forum is to pick holes however it is here to help and sometimes provoke debate.

Secondly players and coaches don't know the laws, never have and probably never will. As far as they are concerned they know the laws, that's why they know that you cant shout leave it and the ball only has to leave the penalty area on goal kicks not free kicks.

 

[Kes]

I get what they mean, but they didn't need to word it as they have.

Something about corner flags not being in place shouldn't prevent a game going ahead, which I agree with

Me too, but at grass roots Sunday League - type level that can now easily morph into "okay, so we've only got 2 corner flags - but the ref still has to let the match go ahead" thinking. What we needed was clear, unambiguous direction in writing. All Elleray and Co have done in this instance is muddy the waters a bit more....

 

[J-K]

Cricket has long had "The Spirit of the Game" as a concept. It is actually in the preamble to the laws and reads as follows:

Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself. The major responsibility for ensuring the spirit of fair play rests with the captains.

1. There are two Laws which place responsibility for the team's conduct firmly on the captain.
Responsibility of captains
The captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the Spirit of the Game as well as within the Laws.

Player's conduct
In the event of a player failing to comply with instructions by an umpire, or criticising by word or action the decision of an umpire, or showing dissent, or generally behaving in a manner which might bring the game into disrepute, the umpire concerned shall in the first place report the matter to the other umpire and to the player's captain, and instruct the latter to take action.

2. Fair and unfair play
According to the Laws the umpires are the sole judges of fair and unfair play.
The umpires may intervene at any time and it is the responsibility of the captain to take action where required.

3. The umpires are authorised to intervene in cases of:
Time wasting
Damaging the pitch
Dangerous or unfair bowling
Tampering with the ball
Any other action that they consider to be unfair

4. The Spirit of the Game involves RESPECT for:
Your opponents
Your own captain
The roles of the umpires
The game's traditional values

5. It is against the Spirit of the Game:
To dispute an umpire's decision by word, action or gesture
To direct abusive language towards an opponent or umpire
To indulge in cheating or any sharp practice, for instance:
(a) to appeal knowing that the batsman is not out
(b) to advance towards an umpire in an aggressive manner when appealing
(c) to seek to distract an opponent either verbally or by harassment with persistent clapping or unnecessary noise under the guise of enthusiasm and motivation of one's own side

6. Violence
There is no place for any act of violence on the field of play.

7. Players
Captains and umpires together set the tone for the conduct of a cricket match. Every player is expected to make an important contribution towards this.

Interestingly it is more about the responsibilities of the players than the action of the umpire.

That might explain where this comes from...

http://www.amateurfootballcombination.com/spirit-football/spirit-football-statement/

I was on the League Exec (in my pre-ref days) when this came about, it came a few years before the FA's RESPECT campaign started.

 

[McTavish]

That might explain where this comes from...

http://www.amateurfootballcombination.com/spirit-football/spirit-football-statement/

I was on the League Exec (in my pre-ref days) when this came about, it came a few years before the FA's RESPECT campaign started.

That's interesting - certainly one came from the other. The Spirit of Cricket was formulated in the late 90s and added as a preamble to the laws in 2000. Does the AFC statement predate that?

 

[PinnerPaul]

No we didn't In fact, the old Q&A specifically stated the player could score a goal, IIRC. You'd only consider PIADM if he puts himself into a position where he could be challenged for the ball or challenges for the ball. What does 'as soon as possible' mean? Can the player keep running up the field in a 2-on-1 against the keeper?

That's....actually a really good point.
Oh dear, we're just going to see a lot of 'Last Week's Ref' from this, aren't we? This 'spirit of the game' clause could be applied to ANYTHING.
How is it possible for one organisation to be so utterly incompetent at writing the laws? I mean, it's their job - how can they be so bad at it?
No surprise, they've always been appalling at writing the laws. Don't know why we thought they wouldn't completely screw up a rewrite.

Yep, it blows my mind what an absolute joke of a law that is. You'd think these clowns had never actually seen a match before. I find it difficult to believe that there are referees who work with IFAB.

 

[PinnerPaul]

Neale barry and David Elleray are credited with being on the "Technical Sub - Committee" that did the re write