Okay, so it's not strictly TV but I just read the following article on "new" LOTG on the BBC website - a really amateur piece of journalism!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36256441
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36256441
BBC Website article on "new laws"
- Thread starter OIREF!
- Start date
There have been a lot of clarifications and simplification of language - that's probably all this is.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Yes we can nit pick on a few things, but its actually a decent "easy to read" summary for non referees.
Seen a lot worse "misreporting" of the new laws to be honest.
Seen a lot worse "misreporting" of the new laws to be honest.
It is fundamentally wrong in places though. For example, for law 3 it states ...
That is wrong as it implies the goal can be given if the ball hasn't entered the goal. What the actual law says that the referee can award the goal if it goes in as long as the touch has no impact on the defenders. The article also says ...
Again that is totally wrong, as the player can stay on if they were injured by a player who received a caution, it doesn't have to be a sending off.
There are probably others, but the two above are bad enough. Lazy and inaccurate journalism like this will only further add to the lack of knowledge showed by players, managers, supporters and pundits.
That is wrong as it implies the goal can be given if the ball hasn't entered the goal. What the actual law says that the referee can award the goal if it goes in as long as the touch has no impact on the defenders. The article also says ...
Again that is totally wrong, as the player can stay on if they were injured by a player who received a caution, it doesn't have to be a sending off.
There are probably others, but the two above are bad enough. Lazy and inaccurate journalism like this will only further add to the lack of knowledge showed by players, managers, supporters and pundits.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Full of things that are not actually changes in law (just changes in wording) inaccuracies and misleading statements. In several places it references parts of the law that have changed and doesn't mention the changed part but rather a part that has remained the same. It reads as if the writer has concentrated on the section detailing the changes but failed to notice that it is only the underlined bits that have changed, not everything in the section.
This is the best place describing the changes ...
http://www.theifab.com/files/4 - Presentation Law Changes_v0.3.pdf
http://www.theifab.com/files/4 - Presentation Law Changes_v0.3.pdf
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Yeah there's some bad ones around in Australia too. apparently the fact that VC doesn't require contact to be a red card is revolutionary!!
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Also in "Refereeing" magazine that RA sent out (by e mail) recently.
Charlie Jones
Work Until You Don't Have To Introduce Yourself
I suppose it does stop the *swings for opponent and misses* red card ... 'but ref, I didn't touch him'
Thanks. 2016/17 book doesn't seem to have made it yet to the FIFA site... so we have explanation without the wording it explains! Could a GK really get sent off for coming off his line at a penalty and a retake? How does that play with "spirit of the game" and referees who've got used to allowing a bit of leeway to GKs? As with 6 seconds to release the ball (no change there presumably) how far off the line is too far? Nothing, 6 inches, a yard, halfway to the penalty spot? Bad enough now for deciding whether to order a retake, but sending off a GK in a World Cup Final shoot-out when all subs have been used?
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Full book is available to download, but not sure where from - think someone posted a l
Heres link to full laws
http://www.theifab.com/files/1 - 160412_laws-of-the-game-Digital_Print.pdf
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
I think the caution for GK encroachment is absurd - I don't understand how so many experienced referees in a room can apparently have so little understanding of the game or how it is 'actually' (versus how it should be) officiated by their colleagues.
Referees are extremely reluctant to order a retake for a PK as it is. Making the sanction harsher won't mean keeper's won't come off the line - it will just mean referees will be even more reluctant to give it.
GK on a yellow card, 1-1 in the WC final - do you really think the referee is going to send the keeper off for encroachment? He could come out to the GA line and nothing will happen!
Of course that's only because universal refereeing approaches are so fundamentally broken, but I digress ;-)
It's such a random addition, completely unnecessary
Referees are extremely reluctant to order a retake for a PK as it is. Making the sanction harsher won't mean keeper's won't come off the line - it will just mean referees will be even more reluctant to give it.
GK on a yellow card, 1-1 in the WC final - do you really think the referee is going to send the keeper off for encroachment? He could come out to the GA line and nothing will happen!
Of course that's only because universal refereeing approaches are so fundamentally broken, but I digress ;-)
It's such a random addition, completely unnecessary
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
That's because FIFA is no longer responsible for publishing the Laws of the Game. The IFAB has taken over - which is why the link given by PinnerPaul is to their site (and why that is where you will find everything related to the Laws in future). As per IFAB Circular No. 1:
Based on that I would think it quite likely that the Laws will not be carried on the FIFA website any more.
I'm working my way through. Does anyone else think there's a bit of a disconnect between "...the aim of the revision is to make the Laws of the Game more accessible and more easily understood by everyone in football and increase consistency of understanding, interpretation and application" and Law 3 section 7, especially "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"?
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
I think there's a disconnect with the intent of the revision and the absolute entire revision - much of the revision is only going to increase inconsistency and subjective decision making, thus decrease understanding from players, spectators and referees - and in this culture, will no doubt increase referee abuse
The part you quoted makes sense, even if poorly written. Say a sub behind the goal throws his water bottle at a ball to stop his team conceding a goal because no defenders are anywhere near. Ball hits the bottle, continues into the goal. It's a goal.
If, however, it was somebody of the opposing team who threw the bottle...well, think of it like advantage. That would be no goal.
The part you quoted makes sense, even if poorly written. Say a sub behind the goal throws his water bottle at a ball to stop his team conceding a goal because no defenders are anywhere near. Ball hits the bottle, continues into the goal. It's a goal.
If, however, it was somebody of the opposing team who threw the bottle...well, think of it like advantage. That would be no goal.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Actually, section 3.7 refers to an extra person on the field of play rather than a thrown object but the principle is the same. As it says in the explanations section, this goes together with section 3.9 where it is stated:
It would also cover the unlikely but theoretically possible scenario of an extra person associated with a team coming on to prevent a goal against his team and who kicks the ball all the way up to the opposite end where it enters the opponent's goal.
Under direct free kick, what exactly is the reason for including "If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick"? Does it mean just the DFK offences, or does it bump up the IDFK offences? It still leaves the silliness that impeding the progress of an opponent (let's call it obstructing) can be turned into a direct free kick by the impeded player not avoiding a collision - in other words, you encourage players who are obstructed to make the most of it by making contact.
In any case, attempting to kick or attempting to strike an opponent are DFK offences that by definition do not involve contact (which would mean it wasn't just an attempt).
And in terms of the intention of a bit of leeway on DOGSO, is this a fair paraphrase?
For fouls in the penalty area that prevent a goal-scoring opportunity, the triple jeopardy problem (penalty, red card and suspension) has been addressed somewhat. If the referee thinks a defender made a genuine attempt to play the ball and had some chance to get the ball, but still gets the opponent, then it should be a yellow card. Denying an opportunity for a goal by hacking down an opponent, or by holding, pushing or pulling, or by handling the ball, will still be red. The likely outcome is that referees may be less reluctant to give penalties if they don’t also have to send off a player.
Why pulling? Pulling is surely included in holding? And they've perpetuated the rather pointless thing of a list of DFK offences
charges
jumps at
kicks or attempts to kick
pushes
strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
tackles or challenges
trips or attempts to trip
then another list...
handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
holds an opponent
impedes an opponent with contact
spits at an opponent
There's no possible reason for push and hold to be in different lists.
The changes for violent conduct could be a problem. Again, I paraphrase:
For violent conduct (off the ball incidents – anything during normal play is “serious foul play”), there’s some curious wording that will lead to inconsistency. It’s made clear that “VC” can include “excessive force or brutality” even when no contact is made (a brutal near miss), and that deliberately striking an opponent (or anyone else) on the head with an arm or hand is VC – “unless the force used was negligible”. That also implies that more than negligible force could be used on the chest or back.
It's also odd that the apparent contradiction here wasn't addressed:
If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is closer to the ball than the required
distance, the kick is retaken unless the advantage can be applied; but if a player
takes a free kick quickly and an opponent who is less than 9.15 m (10 yds) from
the ball intercepts it, the referee allows play to continue.
In any case, attempting to kick or attempting to strike an opponent are DFK offences that by definition do not involve contact (which would mean it wasn't just an attempt).
And in terms of the intention of a bit of leeway on DOGSO, is this a fair paraphrase?
For fouls in the penalty area that prevent a goal-scoring opportunity, the triple jeopardy problem (penalty, red card and suspension) has been addressed somewhat. If the referee thinks a defender made a genuine attempt to play the ball and had some chance to get the ball, but still gets the opponent, then it should be a yellow card. Denying an opportunity for a goal by hacking down an opponent, or by holding, pushing or pulling, or by handling the ball, will still be red. The likely outcome is that referees may be less reluctant to give penalties if they don’t also have to send off a player.
Why pulling? Pulling is surely included in holding? And they've perpetuated the rather pointless thing of a list of DFK offences
charges
jumps at
kicks or attempts to kick
pushes
strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
tackles or challenges
trips or attempts to trip
then another list...
handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
holds an opponent
impedes an opponent with contact
spits at an opponent
There's no possible reason for push and hold to be in different lists.
The changes for violent conduct could be a problem. Again, I paraphrase:
For violent conduct (off the ball incidents – anything during normal play is “serious foul play”), there’s some curious wording that will lead to inconsistency. It’s made clear that “VC” can include “excessive force or brutality” even when no contact is made (a brutal near miss), and that deliberately striking an opponent (or anyone else) on the head with an arm or hand is VC – “unless the force used was negligible”. That also implies that more than negligible force could be used on the chest or back.
It's also odd that the apparent contradiction here wasn't addressed:
If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is closer to the ball than the required
distance, the kick is retaken unless the advantage can be applied; but if a player
takes a free kick quickly and an opponent who is less than 9.15 m (10 yds) from
the ball intercepts it, the referee allows play to continue.
Last edited:
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Once again, that's in the explanations section:
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. It doesn't mean only offences involving contact can be DFK's, only that if there's contact, it can't be an IFK.