The Ref Stop

Corner kick

one

one

RefChat Addict
Is a team allowed to take a corner kick from the opposite side corner where the ball went out from?
 
The Ref Stop
No, but I think I might know what you're getting at. If you download the complete 2016/17 Laws document, in Law 17 it just says:
The ball must be placed inside the corner area
Click to expand...

The same exact wording is there if you go to the online version of Law 17 on the IFAB's main Laws page.

http://www.theifab.com/#!/laws/the-corner-kick/chapters/the-corner-kick-procedure

So if that were the correct wording, it would mean that the laws do not specify on which side the kick should be taken. However, I suspect it must be some kind of editing error because if you download the separate pdf file of Law 17 you find the following:
The ball must be placed in the corner area nearest to the point where the ball passed over the goal line.
Click to expand...

http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/88/LAW_17-The_Corner_Kick.pdf
 
So it's become a corner "area" rather than "arc" (except in one instance). But still no definition of what "in" means...
 
Humour me: does it mean entirely in, base of the ball in, or any part of the ball in? Any difference implied between "in the corner area" and "inside the goal area" (for a goal kick)?
 
The law doesn't say that, except for ball in and out of play (and consequentially for throw-in, goal kick, corner kick and scoring a goal.).
 
bloovee said:
The law doesn't say that, except for ball in and out of play (and consequentially for throw-in, goal kick, corner kick and scoring a goal.).
Click to expand...
Surely in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we work off one consistent definition of 'in' across all facets of the game. So 'in' means the tiniest sliver of the ball overhanging the line in question.
 
(a) The evidence is that until a few years ago, in meant in, and some EPL refs still do think that, i.e. part of the ball must be touching the area. (The diagram in the laws seemed almost deliberately to avoid the issue.)

(b) There's no "surely" about it. I work off the principle that words mean what they usually mean, and the only specific exception to that in the laws is for when the ball is in or out of play. Does "on" mean "on" with regard to the centre spot and penalty spot?
 
bloovee said:
The law doesn't say that, except for ball in and out of play (and consequentially for throw-in, goal kick, corner kick and scoring a goal.).
Click to expand...
Not quite right. The LOTG states that lines form part of the boundary area they enclose (for instance, PA is also included). Thus, the corner arc line forms part of the corner arc.

And given that everywhere else in the law, any sliver 'in' means the entire ball is in, it would seem illogical to assume the LOTG are randomly applying a different definition here without saying so.
 
bloovee said:
Does "on" mean "on" with regard to the centre spot and penalty spot?
Click to expand...
That's a much more interesting question, especially with regard to the penalty mark :). I've always enforced that the ball must be physically touching the relevant mark but I'd be interested in others views ....
 
For me, depends how big the penalty spot is. If it's a nice comfortable 8" spot (what seems to be standard), then I treat it like any other line.

If it's like the one I saw this past weekend (about 18" across... yes... a foot and a bloody half!), I made them put it in the middle.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Not quite right. The LOTG states that lines form part of the boundary area they enclose (for instance, PA is also included). Thus, the corner arc line forms part of the corner arc.

And given that everywhere else in the law, any sliver 'in' means the entire ball is in, it would seem illogical to assume the LOTG are randomly applying a different definition here without saying so.
Click to expand...
But that is the fallacy because it doesn't say that everywhere else. It's an argument from silence and (older refs please concur) it's a recent interpretation.
 
Well, that's why I complained that there's no definition of what "in" means... 30 years ago the argument would have been whether the whole of the ball had to be in the area, or base on the line was OK. Unless someone of similar vintage can remember otherwise....
 
bloovee said:
But that is the fallacy because it doesn't say that everywhere else. It's an argument from silence and (older refs please concur) it's a recent interpretation.
Click to expand...
au contrare. It actually doesn't only specifically mention it to boundary lines.
p19 of the new LOTG:
The field of play must be rectangular and marked with continuous lines which must not be dangerous. These lines belong to the areas of which they are boundaries.
Click to expand...
So, 'everywhere' is actually the only context in which this is mentioned.
 
Cap'n, I'm not sure if you're deliberately missing the point but you are missing the point. 30 years ago no ref would have allowed a corner unless at least the base of the ball was in the arc.

I can't find my old copies of LOAF since a move, and whether it was clearer that "in" means "in" but the diagram in last year's laws only shows that the ball on the line is definitely in and one wholly outside the line is out. I think that the purpose was to make clear that the ball did not have to be wholly within the area.
 
So, did you just argue with me only to then agree that the ball doesn't have to wholly be within the line?

Show me one line in the LOTG that states that the corner arc is the exception to every other boundary line or some other interpretation that clearly states that the base of the ball must be in the line (an idea that doesn't exist ANYWHERE in the law) before you accuse me of 'deliberately missing the point'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top