Corner kick

[Ganajin]

Actually, looking back through the Laws Mr Grove, I think you are half right. Certainly in 1993 there is mention of team with most goals being the winner. However there is nothing about a dismissed player being unable to return. And looking back to the Laws in 1904 it is not there either (nor is anything about the team scoring the most goals winning). And going back to the original posting, it does say in 93 that for a corner the WHOLE ball must be in corner "quarter circle". It's easy to forget just how much the Laws are in a constant state of flux. Over the years many changes must have seemed so enormous....I myself remember in 1992 the "back-pass" rule coming in, and it really seemed to me that the IFAB had 'broken" football. Now it is clear it was a brilliant idea. And going back through history, the rethinks on major Laws: the great rewrite of 97; the even more radical rewrite in 1938 (renumbering Laws that had existed for 75 years! - Offside Law 6 anyone?); the phenomenal change in the offside Law in 1925 (just one word - "three" opponents changed to "two" - but altered the game incredibly); and going further back, the changing of six yards at free kicks to ten; keepers allowed to handle anywhere in their own half; the huge change to modern pitch markings in 1902; and going WAAAY back, referees introduced in 1891 (along with adding the penalty kick); settling the length of a game at 90 mins in 1877 and outlawing making a fair catch for a free kick in 1866!

So, Bloovee might realise, that if the interpretation has changed (even if it is only by common consent rather than official mandate) it is hardly a surprise.The Laws have altered, been re-interpreted and constantly upgraded for a very long time. Yet, weirdly, the heart of game still feels pretty much the same as it always did. And it beats stronger now than ever.

 

[Peter Grove]

Actually, looking back through the Laws Mr Grove, I think you are half right. Certainly in 1993 there is mention of team with most goals being the winner. However there is nothing about a dismissed player being unable to return. And looking back to the Laws in 1904 it is not there either (nor is anything about the team scoring the most goals winning)

Ganajin, one thing you need to know about me is that I will never post anything about the history of the Laws if I have not got documentary evidence to back it up. The provision that the team scoring most goals is the winner dates from 1923.

In the minutes of the IFAB Annual Meeting held on 9th June 1923, we find the following:

Insert as the second sentence - "A game shall be won by the team scoring the greater number of goals..."

This provision remained in the Laws (albeit with slightly different wording) till 1997 when it was removed as part of "the great re-write" of that year.

And the Laws did say, for quite some time, that a sent-off player could not be replaced. Up until 1997
(though I can't find exactly when it was added) IFAB Decision 3 to Law 3 stated:

A player who has been ordered off after play has started, may not be replaced.

See screen shots of the relevant documents below.

 

[bloovee]

Actually, looking back through the Laws Mr Grove, I think you are half right. Certainly in 1993 there is mention of team with most goals being the winner. However there is nothing about a dismissed player being unable to return. And looking back to the Laws in 1904 it is not there either (nor is anything about the team scoring the most goals winning). And going back to the original posting, it does say in 93 that for a corner the WHOLE ball must be in corner "quarter circle". It's easy to forget just how much the Laws are in a constant state of flux. Over the years many changes must have seemed so enormous....I myself remember in 1992 the "back-pass" rule coming in, and it really seemed to me that the IFAB had 'broken" football. Now it is clear it was a brilliant idea. And going back through history, the rethinks on major Laws: the great rewrite of 97; the even more radical rewrite in 1938 (renumbering Laws that had existed for 75 years! - Offside Law 6 anyone?); the phenomenal change in the offside Law in 1925 (just one word - "three" opponents changed to "two" - but altered the game incredibly); and going further back, the changing of six yards at free kicks to ten; keepers allowed to handle anywhere in their own half; the huge change to

So, Bloovee might realise, that if the interpretation has changed (even if it is only by common consent rather than official mandate) it is hardly a surprise.

What common consent? I follow what it says in the law that the keeper can only use his hands within the penalty area.

 

[Ganajin]

Bloovee, as I have tried to show, in a vast number of cases over the last century and a half, the wording of the laws has often not expressed exactly what the law makers intended. It is not a legal document, and we are given guidance by both approved Interpretations and common practise. For ten years or more the offside law's exact wording stated that a player had to be in active play (by playing the ball or challenging an opponent) at the SAME MOMENT that a team-mate played the ball to him or her. This was of course a nonsense, and not the intention at all - it is now re-written, but for ten years, everyone went by the intention, not the exact words. Reading the laws too literally is a waste of time...and it seems to me that the truth of the matter is that you prefer your interpretation over the one now commonly followed, and are willing to cling to the straw of your "what the laws say" to justify this position.

 

[bloovee]

The offside wording might have been nonsense but everyone understood it. The interpretation has not changed.

Show me where this "commonly followed" understanding of "in the penalty area" is an "approved interpretation"; show me who decided that the interpretation should be changed and when. It certainly wasn't IFAB. I hesitate to keep pushing the point but if it is being taught, what authority do the teachers have for teaching a new interpretation that hasn't been authorised by anyone?

If someone can arbitrarily come along and say "we've had a think about this and want to change what it's always meant" you can't say I can't campaign to say the law should be understood as it always used to be understood (by everyone). And I maintain, given the introduction by IFAB of the diagram (following my email to FIFA), that my interpretation is the official one.