2017/18 Law changes

[Tino Best]

I can get hold of a chocolate teapot if needed. We sell them at work. I was devastated when I found out!

 

[AaronAvery]

I can get hold of a chocolate teapot if needed. We sell them at work. I was devastated when I found out!

I love chocolate....imagine I ironicness of a referee eating a chocolate tea pot every time some screams for a penalty after a dive...or instead of booking said player for simulation you make THEM eat the chocolate teapot!!

 

[GraemeS]

FIFA doesn't go around approving EPTS devices nor does it intend to do so. What it is concerned about is how they are worn and how the data is used. It also has the existing concerns about player safety as described in Law 4.
Therefore a Fitbit may be used as long as it isn't worn with a wrist strap or an insecure clip-on device but, is securely, appropriately and safely strapped to the player.
Besides in terms of EPTS devices, a Fitbit is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Read the expanded part of that instruction on page 5 of the document and it's pretty clear that actually FIFA have already made a decision on what safety standards are required. If they don't have that IMS mark on them, you shouldn't be allowing the players to use them.

 

[GraemeS]

FIFA doesn't go around approving EPTS devices nor does it intend to do so. What it is concerned about is how they are worn and how the data is used. It also has the existing concerns about player safety as described in Law 4.
Therefore a Fitbit may be used as long as it isn't worn with a wrist strap or an insecure clip-on device but, is securely, appropriately and safely strapped to the player.
Besides in terms of EPTS devices, a Fitbit is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Read the expanded part of that instruction on page 9 of the document and it's pretty clear that actually FIFA have already made a decision on what safety standards are required. If they don't have that IMS mark on them, you shouldn't be allowing the players to use them.

 

[A Freethinker]

I like the sin bin idea, although giving the lad holding the flag with a fag and a bottle of harp a third job of timing it might be too much.

Telling the time or counting to ten would be too much in most cases

 

[PinnerPaul]

Telling the time or counting to ten would be too much in most cases

Can't wait for the "Do you allow CARs to manage the sin bin?" thread!

 

[A Freethinker]

Can't wait for the "Do you allow CARs to manage the sin bin?" thread!

Where where where.....I wanna comment, I wanna comment!!!

 

[Yampy]

But it isn't

the specific FIFA-approved safety mark

.
Technology moves so quickly in this area they don't have the resources to approve these devices and put their own safety mark on it. They rely on the industry to do it for them.

 

[lincs22]

Disciplinary action
Additional text
The referee (…) • has the power to show yellow or red cards and, where competition rules permit, temporarily dismiss a player, from entering the field at the start of the match until after the match (…)
Explanation
National FAs may now allow temporary dismissals in youth, veterans, disability and grassroots football.

Interestingly, the the SCOR for 17/18 makes no mention of sin-bins so we do not appear to have this problem for next season.

 

[GraemeS]

But it isn't .
Technology moves so quickly in this area they don't have the resources to approve these devices and put their own safety mark on it. They rely on the industry to do it for them.

I don't think that invalidates my point though? It's incumbent on the manufacturers to get that safety accreditation and it's incumbent on players to ensure anything they buy has that safety mark on it if they want to wear it.

And if your fitbit doesn't have that mark, you don't get to wear it on the pitch.

 

[Alberola Rojas Spain]

Just double checking I've got this one right

Attacker in offside position commits a foul challenging opponent it is offside, but if he gets fouled before ball gets to him, its a foul?

You are right but it depends if there's a chance to play the ball, that is if the attacker can interfere with play. Interference is when there's a possibility to play the ball.

 

[Claydon]

All seems pretty decent to me with the exception of sin bin in grassroots (but we'll see what guidance they issue as to how that works). Mostly sensible changes, good updated guidance for offsides - nice introduction of 'everything the ref says, goes' too.

The guidance was for the duration of the sin bin 10-15% of the match. It is just being left up to the organizers of a particular league or tournament to make up the guidelines under Rules of Competition.
They can choose some or all caution able offences, they can leave the whole thing to the referees discretion.
I do a lot of youth games, and started coming up with a list of favorites. My Top 5.

1) Persistent Infringement when any foul leading to it was almost worthy of a caution on its own. You had that quiet word and they are still not listening infact, it got worse,

2) Any cautionable offence that is followed by dissent.
I.E you give the kid a yellow and they are determined to get another before the restart, a timeout may be preferable to second caution and ejection.

3) Those Deliberate Tactical fouls, that rob the other team of an equalizer or game winning goal in the last mins of the game. There was no way you could call it a DOGSO, but you know a caution was already calculated for by the offending player. In those instances a temporary suspension would be nice.

4) Delaying the Restart of play. In the dying mins of a cup game one team leading 1 - 0 and persistently take every opportunity to waste time, send someone to the sin bin for delay and let the leaders finish out the match with 10 players. It would certainly act as a deterrent.

5) Game disrepute. Ok, so we are not are not throwing punches and no one is being ejected, but we can do better that just a caution.

Thoughts.

 

[AlexF]

A couple of things to note here, it seems to go by the specific caution types in the Laws (ie, Unsporting Behaviour, Delaying the Restart, etc) rather than sub-types of cautions.

My reading also indicates that the national association must be the one that dictates which methods (if any) shall be used, not the referee.

 

[Peter Grove]

They can choose some or all caution able offences, they can leave the whole thing to the referees discretion.

The document giving full details on sin bins says:

The 131st AGM of The IFAB held in London on 3rd March 2017 approved the use of temporary dismissals (sin bins) for all or some cautions/yellow cards (YCs) in youth, veterans, disability and grassroots football, subject to the approval of the competition’s national FA, confederation or FIFA, whichever is appropriate.
[...]
The national FA, confederation or FIFA, should approve (for publication in the competition rules) a temporary dismissal protocol ...
[...]
Competitions may use temporary dismissals for all YCs or just some (usually those relating to unfair behaviour) ...

I don't see any indication there (or anywhere else in the document) that suggests this can be left to the referee to decide.

There are two main systems specified for sin bins, System A (for all YC offences) or System B (for only some YC offences) but even within System B there are options to choose different sets or categories of YC offences that would be included.

Imagine the chaos if this were just left up to referees to decide - some might choose System A, some might choose System B with one set of offences, some might choose System B with a different set of offences. Teams wouldn't know where they were.

The only way this can work is if (as the IFAB document states) a clear protocol is published by the competition organisers.