Discussion of Law Changes

[one]

Just Re reading this law and have to say its poorly written (surprise surprise)

If an opponent who is in the penalty area when the goal kick is taken, or enters the
penalty area before the ball is in play, touches or challenges for the ball before
it is in play, the goal kick is retaken.

This basically says that they can challenge for the ball as soon as its in play ie kicked and moved.

It doesn't say what happens if they were in the penalty area at the point it became in play and they challenge for it, nor at what point any restriction on challenging for the ball is lifted.

Guesses are it is referring to the old in play OR it means that the kick should be retaken but it still doesnt answer at what point any restriction is lifted.

Any1 shed any light on this one?

It's nothing new. Change is made without thinking it through and it's impact to other wording in law.

"opponent touching the ball before it is in play" was only relevant when there was a gap between ball being kicked and being in play in a goal kick. Now that that gap is not there the concept becomes non-nonsensical. It's like saying if an opponent touches the ball before a free kick, the free kick is retaken. That whole concept of opponent touching the ball (or challenging) before play should be taken out because a goal kick is now just like of a free kick.

 

[JH]

It's nothing new. Change is made without thinking it through and it's impact to other wording in law.

"opponent touching the ball before it is in play" was only relevant when there was a gap between ball being kicked and being in play in a goal kick. Now that that gap is not there the concept becomes non-nonsensical. It's like saying if an opponent touches the ball before a free kick, the free kick is retaken. That whole concept of opponent touching the ball (or challenging) before play should be taken out because a goal kick is now just like of a free kick.

Haven't studied the new laws yet, but how can they have a year to come up with updated wording and still leave old text in that becomes confusing?

 

[one]

Haven't studied the new laws yet, but how can they have a year to come up with updated wording and still leave old text in that becomes confusing?

As I said its nothing new. There are a few every year depending on the number of changes. The 2016 changes had a lot which had to be either clarified immediately after release or the following years. Remember the change that made offences against match officials being a direct free kick?

 

[one]

This is from an email to IFAB on March 12. The law quotes and the red text is mine. The Blue text is the response from DE.




And yes, it is also irrelevant for FK in the penalty area. For goal kicks now, just like any other restart getting too close to the ball before the restart is covered under “failing to respect the required distance at a restart”. An opponent touching or kicking the ball before the restart is covered under “delaying the restart”. Application of it (as PG pointed out) is a different matter.

 

[QuaverRef]

This law change is designed to help teams play out from the back. It's the Pep law. Surely all teams facing City will have players lurk and slowly leave the box. I think it will be hard to manage.

Is it just me that thinks this rule actually hinders teams playing out from the back? Currently, if a keeper plays a pass to the left/right of his area, the attacker on the edge of the box has to sprint around the box to close him down. Now that attacker is able to sprint through the box and can close them down quicker

 

[socal lurker]

Is it just me that thinks this rule actually hinders teams playing out from the back? Currently, if a keeper plays a pass to the left/right of his area, the attacker on the edge of the box has to sprint around the box to close him down. Now that attacker is able to sprint through the box and can close them down quicker

Except that the ball can be passed short to a teammate still inside the PA while the opponent is outside the PA. (And nothing ever prevented an opponent from going over to where that defender was waiting to receive the pass.)

 

[RustyRef]

I said this last season before the law changes came out, the fact that teams now play out from the back more regularly and are increasingly closed down to the extent that if in trouble they step into the penalty area so that it is retaken. Someone questioned whether this was a problem as it never happens, but it then happened in a few games in the coming weeks, including three times in the same game.

I'm all for teams playing out from the back, but they shouldn't then receive a get out clause when it goes wrong.

 

[Ryan Woods]

I cant't believe how much debate this is causing, it's very simple, think of a goal kick as a free kick, think of 10 yards as being the penalty area. Now if a opposition player tries to stop a quick free kick or goal kick it gets retaken! Now if an opposition player purposely stands over a goal kick to stop a quick one effectively caution them for delaying the re-start.

Now if a team take a quick goal kick and the opposition player hasn't had time to get out the area and they then go and intercept the goal kick then play on.

 

[AlexF]

I've been watching the U20 WC. Almost every team is playing it out of the back, and they seem to be revelling in the fact that they can take quick goal kicks and the ball does NOT have to leave the penalty area.

 

[one]

I cant't believe how much debate this is causing, it's very simple, think of a goal kick as a free kick, think of 10 yards as being the penalty area. Now if a opposition player tries to stop a quick free kick or goal kick it gets retaken! Now if an opposition player purposely stands over a goal kick to stop a quick one effectively caution them for delaying the re-start.

Now if a team take a quick goal kick and the opposition player hasn't had time to get out the area and they then go and intercept the goal kick then play on.

Some of the debate is because while the laws have effectively changed it to a free kick, they have left some the wording in that treats it like a old goal kick and created a confusion.

 

[Ryan Woods]

Some of the debate is because while the laws have effectively changed it to a free kick, they have left some the wording in that treats it like a old goal kick and created a confusion.

Just don’t get too hung up on it. You know the rule so referee it.

 

[JamesL]

Just don’t get too hung up on it. You know the rule so referee it.

It's a poorly written law/rule.

Question
At a goal kick, an attacker is inside the penalty area having had plenty of time allowed to leave. The ball is played to a defender also inside the penalty area. The attacker does not challenge the player for the ball, immediately.
At what point is the restriction on the attacker challenging for the ball lifted?

 

[Ryan Woods]

It's a poorly written law/rule.

Question
At a goal kick, an attacker is inside the penalty area having had plenty of time allowed to leave. The ball is played to a defender also inside the penalty area. The attacker does not challenge the player for the ball, immediately.
At what point is the restriction on the attacker challenging for the ball lifted?

When the ball is played, simple. Your forgetting your role as a referee to tell the attacker to retreat as you would at a free kick.

 

[spuddy1878]

Im starting to get confused reading all this, it seems a very simple and obvious change to me.

 

[one]

Im starting to get confused reading all this, it seems a very simple and obvious change to me.

Untill different referees start giving different decisions on the same scenario because the law is not clear.

Just don’t get too hung up on it. You know the rule so referee it.

Absolutely, I am not disputing that. It's the same with many other poorly written laws. What I am disputing is the assertion that the change is simple and 'clear'. The intent of the change is simple and clear though.

 

[Ryan Woods]

Untill different referees start giving different decisions on the same scenario because the law is not clear.

Absolutely, I am not disputing that. It's the same with many other poorly written laws. What I am disputing is the assertion that the change is simple and 'clear'. The intent of the change is simple and clear though.

Out of curiosity then how would you have wrote the rule? I genuinely think they’ve wrote it well, easy to implement and understand but...........as with any rule players will manipulate it! I’m pretty sure we will get players trying to stop a quick goal kick, caution them! You’ll get players retreating really slow, ell them to get back, just manage it.
I just can’t see how this could be wrote in a way that doesn’t open up another area for misinterpretation

 

[one]

Out of curiosity then how would you have wrote the rule? I genuinely think they’ve wrote it well, easy to implement and understand but...........as with any rule players will manipulate it! I’m pretty sure we will get players trying to stop a quick goal kick, caution them! You’ll get players retreating really slow, ell them to get back, just manage it.
I just can’t see how this could be wrote in a way that doesn’t open up another area for misinterpretation

See my post #24. Section of the text that are already covered by "delaying the restart" and "not respecting required distance" should be removed.

 

[JamesL]

Out of curiosity then how would you have wrote the rule? I genuinely think they’ve wrote it well, easy to implement and understand but...........as with any rule players will manipulate it! I’m pretty sure we will get players trying to stop a quick goal kick, caution them! You’ll get players retreating really slow, ell them to get back, just manage it.
I just can’t see how this could be wrote in a way that doesn’t open up another area for misinterpretation

The wording literally doesn't make sense.
It talks about if a player challenges for a ball before it is in play.
Think about it. Challenging for a "dead ball."What?
It then goes on to say the goal kick is retaken.
Well if the ball was challenged for before it was in play it was never taken in the first place.
If as you say once it's taken its fair game irrespective of where any players were stood then the whole section makes zero sense and could have been written in less words and a lot more clearly.

 

[Ryan Woods]

The wording literally doesn't make sense.
It talks about if a player challenges for a ball before it is in play.
Think about it. Challenging for a "dead ball."What?
It then goes on to say the goal kick is retaken.
Well if the ball was challenged for before it was in play it was never taken in the first place.
If as you say once it's taken its fair game irrespective of where any players were stood then the whole section makes zero sense and could have been written in less words and a lot more clearly.

You’ve never seen a player stick a leg out to stop a quick free kick? That my friend is challenging for a “dead ball”

 

[JamesL]

You’ve never seen a player stick a leg out to stop a quick free kick? That my friend is challenging for a “dead ball”

Not quite. That is "deliberately prevents a free kick being taken quickly"
Which sort of hammers home the point. It might mean what you suggest but is written in gobbledegook in comparison with equivalent laws and therefore is open to alternative interpretations.
If it's the same as preventing a quick free kick why not use the same language?
And on top of that, why does it carry a mandatory caution in law 13 and not law 16? Again, inconsistency brought about by poor drafting.