The Ref Stop

Discussion of Law Changes

Ryan Woods said:
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.
Click to expand...
Except that right now, with free kicks that almost never happens. Take a look at a recording of any recent Premier League game. Opponents stand right on top of the kicker almost every time it's not made into a ceremonial kick. They are virtually never cautioned and the kick is virtually never retaken. 9 times out of 10 the referee just ignores it and the player decides to kick it sideways or backwards to avoid the opponent.
Ryan Woods said:
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”
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter, you can't retake a goal kick that was never taken in the first place because an opponent touched it first.
 
The Ref Stop
JamesL said:
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.
Click to expand...
Really? I think it’s wrote really clear and understandable.
I think it’s an improvement

Time to move on to a law that really is grey...........handball
 
Is it just me that is very happy with the new accidental handball clause? The amount of times I've thought: "well that hit his hand, wasn't deliberate, but it's created a chance, hope they don't score...", it makes that decision very easy and aligns it with what the professionals have been doing for a while.
 
JH said:
Is it just me that is very happy with the new accidental handball clause? The amount of times I've thought: "well that hit his hand, wasn't deliberate, but it's created a chance, hope they don't score...", it makes that decision very easy and aligns it with what the professionals have been doing for a while.
Click to expand...

I'm not troubled by that, per se, but I thin it is going to be messy. Ninty-nine percent of the time handling still has to be deliberate. I think the change is going to increase the expectation that referees will whistle inadvertent handling on other parts of the field, and I think we will have colleagues who don't understand the changes and whistle all ball to arm contact as fouls.

I'd also argue this is again not well thought out drafting. If my inadvertent handling falls at my feet for a scoring opportunity, it is a handling offense. But, as written, if my handling offense deflects a clearance to a teammate who scores it is not--the law as written requires me to gain possession or control as a result of the handling. But I don't think that is really what they mean.
 
socal lurker said:
I'm not troubled by that, per se, but I thin it is going to be messy. Ninty-nine percent of the time handling still has to be deliberate. I think the change is going to increase the expectation that referees will whistle inadvertent handling on other parts of the field, and I think we will have colleagues who don't understand the changes and whistle all ball to arm contact as fouls.

I'd also argue this is again not well thought out drafting. If my inadvertent handling falls at my feet for a scoring opportunity, it is a handling offense. But, as written, if my handling offense deflects a clearance to a teammate who scores it is not--the law as written requires me to gain possession or control as a result of the handling. But I don't think that is really what they mean.
Click to expand...
I think you're right on both counts and I think you're right that it isn't what they mean. The intent of the law is 'don't allow a goal or goal-scoring opportunity to come from handling', they have muddied waters by saying the same player needs to gain possession/control the ball.

However, I can easily interpret 'gaining possession' as, your team didn't have possession, it hit your hand, now your team does have possession and your team has a goal-scoring opportunity, I'm going to award a free-kick. Despite this being technically wrong, it is the best outcome for match control.
 
What everyone wanted was the laws for handling to change to be made more clear so decisions are more consistent.

What we got was a fair attempt to get it closer to "what football expects". But it is not any clearer than what it was before nor IMO will we get any closer to consistent decisions across the globe.
 
Following on from this discussion I emailed IFAB for some clarity. Whilst it is provided and make sense I am left wondering why they didn't just lift and shift and adapt quick free kick wording... Screenshot_20190609_144702.png
 
JamesL said:
Following on from this discussion I emailed IFAB for some clarity. Whilst it is provided and make sense I am left wondering why they didn't just lift and shift and adapt quick free kick wording... View attachment 3518
Click to expand...
Agreed. He has explained it well. But that is not what the law says. I don't know/think if he realises what the ambiguity is with the current wording.

Goes the same for many other law changes. The explanations at the end of the book are usually clearer than the law itself and make you wonder why not use the wording (or part/most of it) from the explanation.
 
one said:
The explanations at the end of the book are usually clearer than the law itself and make you wonder why not use the wording (or part/most of it) from the explanation.
Click to expand...
Translation purposes.

It used to be that the other languages suffered because of the "official" language... now the reverse is happening a bit.

It's better for other languages, as there are a large number of translations now (as opposed to just French, Spanish, and German), but there is that detrimental effect.
 
AlexF said:
Translation purposes.

It used to be that the other languages suffered because of the "official" language... now the reverse is happening a bit.

It's better for other languages, as there are a large number of translations now (as opposed to just French, Spanish, and German), but there is that detrimental effect.
Click to expand...
If you think that is the reason IFAB are thinking of you are giving them too much insight credit :) :D
 
one said:
If you think that is the reason IFAB are thinking of you are giving them too much insight credit :):D
Click to expand...
It was one of the principles they strove towards when doing the rewrite.

Are they always successful at rewriting or simplifying? No.
 
Commentators on the WC already getting on my nerves as Mrs PP will testify!

Two, just from yesterday - 'I can see players trying to hit the ball against defenders as new law seems to mean its a penalty everytime its hits the hand'

'I much prefer to see a referee make the decision rather than VAR'

So many more. Oh go on then one more 'If the referee had seen the whole incident and the Norway player jumping in, she wouldn't have given the penalty'
 
PinnerPaul said:
Commentators on the WC already getting on my nerves as Mrs PP will testify!

Two, just from yesterday - 'I can see players trying to hit the ball against defenders as new law seems to mean its a penalty everytime its hits the hand'

'I much prefer to see a referee make the decision rather than VAR'

So many more. Oh go on then one more 'If the referee had seen the whole incident and the Norway player jumping in, she wouldn't have given the penalty'
Click to expand...
Aren’t you doing the ironing @PinnerPaul Surely MrsP needs to put her feet up!
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Minty was never wrong, he was the perfect peripheral referee!!!
Click to expand...
You know what dem laws used to say....the referee is always right ( that may not be a completely accurate quote for those traffic wardens among us). Now
Its 'the referee is always right unless dat VAR interferes.....then its the referee was probably wrong whilst being right........
Am I making sense?........that's without the benefit of this rather large glass of Merlot I'm about to quaff.
 
Mintyref said:
You know what dem laws used to say....the referee is always right ( that may not be a completely accurate quote for those traffic wardens among us). Now
Its 'the referee is always right unless dat VAR interferes.....then its the referee was probably wrong whilst being right........
Am I making sense?........that's without the benefit of this rather large glass of Merlot I'm about to quaff.
Click to expand...
Im currently residing in a small village near Penrith called Greystoke, A story of a boy (Tarzan) washed up on a beach..... I wonder what that boy would think if he was introduced to his first game with VAR at work, he'd be looking for that boat i'd think!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top