The Ref Stop

2020-21 Law Changes

The Ref Stop
Had a quick 'flick' through. Has anyone noticed if the controversial scenario of goal kick (flick and head back to keeper ) is covered?
 
I was surprised by the diagram of the arm. In the US the teaching has been side versus top (like the seam on a dress shirt). Making the side permissible down to the level of the bottom of the arm pit seems much more difficult to judge, especially for those of us limited to real time.

And GKs get a warning on PKs before a caution, too.

I only did a quick look, but seemed more good than bad on first take.
 
Hmmmm . . . Law 11 now is clear that a deliberate handball is a play for purposes of the gaining an advantage part of Law 11. And the re-framing of handball offense in Law 12 makes mroe clear that deliberate handling is an offense, and that there are additional offenses that are not deliberate. So does a non-deliberate handball offense reset?
 
I'm assuming that the new HB law would now allow the Declan Rice HB v SUFC.....I can still see the look on David Moyes little face when it was ruled out!! Worth the admission alone!!!
 
Peter Grove said:
Yes it is:
View attachment 4212
Click to expand...
But this is only a mention of it in this document. The change is not going into the LOTG (at least it doesn't look like it is) which is pretty much as good/bad as not having it because we already had that in a circular. So if in say 5 years time somebody does this, all we have to go by is a law change document released 5 years ago or a circular 6 years ago.
 
one said:
But this is only a mention of it in this document. The change is not going into the LOTG (at least it doesn't look like it is) which is pretty much as good/bad as not having it because we already had that in a circular. So if in say 5 years time somebody does this, all we have to go by is a law change document released 5 years ago or a circular 6 years ago.
Click to expand...

Totally agree--and how is it is a "clarification" when it is making up a solution out of whole cloth that is wholly indefensible from the actual LOTG?

This would have been so easy to fix in any number of ways.
 
one said:
But this is only a mention of it in this document. The change is not going into the LOTG (at least it doesn't look like it is) which is pretty much as good/bad as not having it because we already had that in a circular. So if in say 5 years time somebody does this, all we have to go by is a law change document released 5 years ago or a circular 6 years ago.
Click to expand...

It also now mentions free kicks which the circular didn't?
 
one said:
But the law specifically includes free kicks as part of USB. Unless the law is changed, the clarification would directly contradict the law.
Click to expand...

Yes--but so does the general concept form the original circular--nothing in the actual laws provides a basis for a do-over after the ball is in play.

It's just strange that they didn't address this in the actual Laws.
 
socal lurker said:
Yes--but so does the general concept form the original circular--nothing in the actual laws provides a basis for a do-over after the ball is in play.

It's just strange that they didn't address this in the actual Laws.
Click to expand...
Agreed and even stranger that they are calling it a clarification. A clarification is something that is covered in law but it is not clear. The clarification is to explain that this is what the existing law intends without changing the law. If it looks like a duck....

This is is a whole new law change disguised under a clarification. A big law change which they don't want to commit to because of the precedent it would set. Retaking a restart after the ball is legally in play but you don't want punish the offence commited.

Or put in other words, done once it is not an offence but they shouldn't do it. Second time you can still not punish even if they know they shouldn't do it. But if they do it many times (persistently) then it becomes an offence. Say what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top