DO you stop for Shoelaces?

[socal lurker]

Not any more. You could argue that was true (although I still think that it was possibly against the spirit of the law) when the law said:


However the slight wording change to:

means that it no longer has to necessarily cause the opponent to pull out of a challenge, to meet the criteria for PIADM.

In my view, the "and including" language is hopeless unclear--a high school essay would get an F if it was that awkward and unclear. I don't think parsing it can tell us whether IFAB wanted to get rid of the requirement or not--so many of their language choices do a poor job of explaining what is meant (and I sometimes wonder if some of them, like this one, are ones where the committee working on it never fully agreed and the language adopted was understood differently by different people on the drafting group).

I think the better understanding is that there was no change intended, just a change in language. First, this was not listed as a substantive change to be explained in the great rewrite, which would have been expected if they were removing a mandatory criteria from being part of a foul. Second, if the "and including" language doesn't mean that is part of the criteria, than it is totally meaningless and has no reason to be there--a general interpretive concept is that you don't presume language to have no meaning. I think that means that the ambiguous "and including" means that it has to be included for there to be an offense. But I've seen no guidance anywhere one way or the other on this, so I can't say reading it the other way is necessarily wrong.

 

[Big Cat]

I don't think parsing it can tell us whether IFAB wanted to get rid of the requirement or not--so many of their language choices do a poor job of explaining what is meant

Wholeheartedly agree
First take on the LOTG led me to do some 'parsing' for a while. However, I abandoned this effort quite quickly on concluding the book is a mess
Can't see the point in analysing wording that was not intended to be dissected

 

[ladbroke8745]

Like others, I tend to take the game and the age group into consideration.

If I've been asked by a player when a ball has gone out I'd say yes if the ball is long gone and stop it if they still need extra time after saying yes if ball has returned.
If it's a quick ball in and out of play and same team mate has it, I tell them to tell them to slow down. If it's potentially going to cause a defensive issue I may stop it if I deem it not to be deliberately slowing game down, needing to get players back and trying to waste time to do so.

So basically, the situation at hand determines my decision to stop or not.

 

[Peter Grove]

I don't think parsing it can tell us whether IFAB wanted to get rid of the requirement or not

I totally disagree. You do know what the words "and includes" mean in this context, don't you? They mean (in layman's terms) "it can be this but it it's not limited to this."

By removing the full stop and adding the words "and includes" the IFAB has made it clear that preventing an opponent from challenging for fear of injury is now only one of the ways that PIADM can occur - and not the only way. It was the old wording that was unclear, the new wording is not.

 

[one]

Ah but the problem is you are interpreting this using what it used to be, "by removing the full stop...". A new referee reads this independently. Or in 5 years time very few take what it used to be into consideration.

"and includes" could be referring to any of the three sections of what comes before it:

• Meaning as inclusion to "Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that" definition is what you are interpreting it as.
• However meant as inclusion to "while trying to play the ball" or "threatens injury to someone", it means all conditions have to be satisfied at the same time.

It all has to do with use of a serial comma. See examples from wikipedia below.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

3 pages on and when I see the thread title I still see it as, shop

So no, I get them off Ebay along with my match cards

 

[Peter Grove]

Ah but the problem is you are interpreting this using what it used to be, "by removing the full stop...". A new referee reads this independently. Or in 5 years time very few take what it used to be into consideration.

"and includes" could be referring to any of the three sections of what comes before it:

• Meaning as inclusion to "Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that" definition is what you are interpreting it as.
• However meant as inclusion to "while trying to play the ball" or "threatens injury to someone", it means all conditions have to be satisfied at the same time.

It all has to do with use of a serial comma. See examples from wikipedia below.

View attachment 3088

That's a vast and fairly pointless over-analysis. Use of the comma (and what exactly it means when taken in the context of an in-depth analysis of "serial comma" use) is not a particularly significant or important part of the wording change. The main point was (and remains) that by adding "and includes" it carries the unwritten sub-text of "but is not limited to" (as it does in over 50 of the 57 times that the words "include," "includes" or "including" appear in the Laws).

Putting aside the unnecessary sophistry, I think it is clear that what the IFAB is saying here, is that PIADM is not limited to only the single scenario of "preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury" but can also include other scenarios.

 

[Kes]

Well, I'm glad we got that settled then ...

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Well, I'm glad we got that settled then ...

How does it go now......

 

[socal lurker]

Putting aside the unnecessary sophistry, I think it is clear that what the IFAB is saying here, is that PIADM is not limited to only the single scenario of "preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury" but can also include other scenarios.

It might be what they mean, but it is anything but clear. If that is what they meant, it was most easily accomplished by not saying anything about the effect on the opponent And by saying that was the change or clarification in the section dedicated to such at the end of the magic book.