A&H

Dutch Referee Blog - Laws of the Game changes for 2020-2021

  • Thread starter Jan ter Harmsel
  • Start date
Laws of the Game changes for 2020-2021. Some highlights first, then the summary. You can also download the full text pdf. Summary of Laws of the Game changes for 2020-2021 Law 1 – The Field of Play Goalposts and the crossbar may be a combination of the four basic shapes Law 10 – Determining the […]

Continue reading...
 
The Referee Store
@Big Cat you might want to look away now 🙈

"if the offence interfered with or stopped a promising attack, the player is not
cautioned [if the referee delays the caution for a quick free kick]"

This suggests that a reckless challenge which ALSO interferes with or stops a promising attack is not cautionable.

Edits in green
Not according to David Elleray. I sent a query to the IFAB and got the following response (complete with typo):
IMG_20200411_102908.png
 
The Referee Store
Well, it wasn't always hand and arm - for one thing, under the early laws in the 1860's, players were allowed to use their hands (and presumably their arms) to stop or catch the ball - for instance in the technique known as a "fair catch." The only uses of the hands that were specifically forbidden, were to carry the ball, knock it on, throw it, pass it (with the hands) or to pick it up off the ground.

Handling the ball in any way wasn't outlawed until 1870 but again, it didn't specify hands and arms, it simply said:


I can't find exactly when the phrase "hand or arm" was first introduced but it seems to have been with Sir Stanley Rous's great rewrite of 1938 when the laws were first arranged into the 17 Laws we have today.

Prior to this date I can only find references to "handling", "handles" etc. but after that date we can see the phrasing that was used until 1997:


The use of the shoulder seam on the shirt is something that seems to have been a fairly widespread rule of thumb and that I have quite often seen referred to in refereeing discussions but it has never been part of the laws. This is the first time the laws have ever carried a specific definition of where the arm starts.
I apologise for my loose use of "always", Peter - I should have said since 1862 when the Sheffield Rules were changed to include the following: Holding the ball (except in the case of a free kick) or knocking or pushing it on with the hand or arm is altogether disallowed.
Trust Sheffield to be involved!
 
We gave it to you and everything was fine till those southern softies got hold of it and messed with it! 👍👏👏👏 cheers boyz!
 
Not according to David Elleray. I sent a query to the IFAB and got the following response (complete with typo):
View attachment 4222
Not enough referees will see this email. It should be clearly worded in the book which should be a point of reference for all referees. We shouldn't have to rely on "what does football expect?", "What did the IFAB intend?" ect when interpreting the laws.

Now we have a case where referee A does not show a caution and is correct in law, and referee B does show a caution and is correct according to this private email. I hope there's enough time to correct the wording in the LotG.
 
If the referee plays advantage or allows a ‘quick’ free kick for an offence which ‘interfered with or stopped a promising attack’, the YC is not issued

So, if you play an advantage during a promising attack, you can no longer go back and caution a player for the offence?

I disagree with this change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
So, if you play an advantage during a promising attack, you can no longer go back and caution a player for the offence?

I disagree with this change.
Maybe missing the philosophy. If the advantage is there, they didn't stop a promising attack, so what is there to caution for?
 
Maybe missing the philosophy. If the advantage is there, they didn't stop a promising attack, so what is there to caution for?
Not necessarily. We have discussed this before. The advantage means playing on is better for them than a free kick. But in some cases it does not mean it is better for them than what they had without the foul. Hence in some cases, not even a lesser promising attack left.

This will play well into the hands of referees who bottle sanctions.
 
I have been thinking about this and I thought of making it clear with an example

In a counter the ball is put through down the flank. The winger just past the half way line is held by the shirt by the 'last defender'. The winger is highly likely to end up with a one on one with the keeper if he is not held back and if it was not for the distance, it would be a DOGSO, however a nailed on SPA. A little wait and a second attacker runs in from 10 yard back, collects the ball and on his way to goal. He still has keeper to beat but also another defender on his goal side. This is not as good as an opportunity but certainly better than a FK from half way. I play advantage which results in a narrow miss.

Now I'd be coming back and cautioning the defender (even with the new law in place). Not just because it is what football expects, but also because IFAB are poor at wording the laws to deliver a fair outcome.
 
Last edited:
Now I'd be coming back and cautioning the defender (even with the new law in place). Not just because it is what football expects, but also because IFAB are poor at wording the laws to deliver a fair outcome.

Not if being observed, though 😉
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
While I appreciate the sentiment, I have trouble with giving cautions that IFAB, rightly or wrongly, has said shouldn't be given.

And it seems to me that there was an easy line to draw here: the same one we use for DOGSO in the PA.
 
Not enough referees will see this email. It should be clearly worded in the book which should be a point of reference for all referees. We shouldn't have to rely on "what does football expect?", "What did the IFAB intend?" ect when interpreting the laws.

Now we have a case where referee A does not show a caution and is correct in law, and referee B does show a caution and is correct according to this private email. I hope there's enough time to correct the wording in the LotG.
Correct. I shouldn’t have to enforce a law because of an email to IFAB, that goes against what it appears to say “in the book”. For what it’s worth, before joining here I didn’t even know emailing them was an option, and I’m sure most referees aren’t aware of it either.
 
Correct. I shouldn’t have to enforce a law because of an email to IFAB, that goes against what it appears to say “in the book”. For what it’s worth, before joining here I didn’t even know emailing them was an option, and I’m sure most referees aren’t aware of it either.

Yes, it's a pity they can't draft better. Personally, I thought it was clear from context and the explanation that the "no caution" was only applicable to what would have been a caution for SPA, not reckless (and that is really the only thing that makes sense). But it wouldn't have been hard to have language that was clear and obvious to all readers.
 
Correct. I shouldn’t have to enforce a law because of an email to IFAB, that goes against what it appears to say “in the book”. For what it’s worth, before joining here I didn’t even know emailing them was an option, and I’m sure most referees aren’t aware of it either.
Completely this. There is one book and IFAB make a declaration of there being 'one common set of Laws used internationally'
I think it is totally at odds with the spirit of everything to have pockets of additional information sporadically seeded amongst the community. Either put it in the book or don't have it. This isn't a game of Mornington Crescent (RIP Tim Brooke-Taylor)
 
Maybe missing the philosophy. If the advantage is there, they didn't stop a promising attack, so what is there to caution for?

True, but it is also ruling out the caution for interfering with a promising attack.

@one has an example posted, but I think some interferences will never meet the criteria of a reckless challenge, and it's going to be a headache if I play advantage and a player feels hard done by because I can't go back and caution a player for the offence.

I'm thinking, we're probably going to have to look at other ways to caution - Reckless challenge, Unsporting behaviour etc, or alternatively play it safe and not give an advantage on anything you think might deserve a caution?
 
True, but it is also ruling out the caution for interfering with a promising attack.

@one has an example posted, but I think some interferences will never meet the criteria of a reckless challenge, and it's going to be a headache if I play advantage and a player feels hard done by because I can't go back and caution a player for the offence.

I'm thinking, we're probably going to have to look at other ways to caution - Reckless challenge, Unsporting behaviour etc, or alternatively play it safe and not give an advantage on anything you think might deserve a caution?
”Might deserve a caution” is not a valid reason to caution thought is it?

I don’t like it but this is a clear law change. After advantage for a stopping/interfering with a promising attack, you no longer caution,

After advantage for a reckless foul you still caution.

I think this will be an easy sell on the field. What will be harder is if you start an advantage but then don’t give it and go back for the SPA foul. That will make players more sensitive to the advantage-waiting-time. If you wait ”too long” and go back you (we) will get accused of favouring the attackers and not cautioning fairly.

Thinking aloud, it actually makes advantage SPA far less valuable for attackers. Especially at grassroots (where Becks and Cole ate not about to engineer a box to box goal) playets want to see yellow cards for cautionable offences!

This is a change for TV and tournaments to keep players on the field. At grassroots it just means we have to stop the game!
 
”Might deserve a caution” is not a valid reason to caution thought is it?
True but "deserve a caution” IS a valid reason for a caution. In my example a foul has reduced an extremely good promising attack and a high chance of a goal (almost an OGSO) to your everyday no-frills promising attack with a low chance of goal and an eventual miss with no punishment coming for it. That to me deserves a caution. Now if a goal was scored, I don't see a caution necessary.

this is a clear law change.
If I may use another analogy. Last year's accidental handball offence law was also a clear law change. It was an offence if the player handling gains possession... It was not an offence if a team mate gained possession. IFAB uses wording that covers a generic scenario and often misses the edge cases.

And it seems to me that there was an easy line to draw here: the same one we use for DOGSO in the PA.
Yep. The reasoning IFAB gives for this change is comparing SPA to DOGSO. Without making it complicated, this does not compare well because there is no sanction for interfering with a GSO but there is one for interfering with PA. Its comparing apples and oranges. There is a minute chance of anyone playing advantage from a DOGSO unless its a given goal (at least as good or better GSO). But playing advantage from a SPA is far far more common even if it is a lesser PA.
 
alternatively play it safe and not give an advantage on anything you think might deserve a caution?

I wouldn't go that far, but I would say it is a good incentive to referees to re-calibrate what "advantage" means. Advantage means the team that was offended is better off if the play is not stopped for the offense; in other words, the run of play available is better than the free kick would be. Too often, I think, advantage gets applied because there is possession only (really bad) or possession plus some possible opportunity--without weighing in how valuable a free kick is form the point of the offense. (With weak referees, I think it is sometimes a way to not have to call the foul and be responsible for the decision and potential goal coming from the decision.)
 
Commentators love a 'good refereeing' quote when the ref comes back to issue a YC
Said commentators will now be lamenting referees for this scenario
Do IFAB expect us not to caution when a player escapes an opponent's attentions wearing half a shirt? More nonsense for us to work with
 
Some things are best left alone, you can tinker with stuff too much and end up with a right dogs dinner....

IMHO, IFAB took a wrong turn some years back and there may be no going back. Once upon a time, the Laws were relatively elegant with basic concepts that relied upon the judgment of the referee to implement. For example, in my 70's LOTG, there were 4 reasons for cautions (enter/reenter, PI, dissent, ungentlemanly conduct) and three for send offs (2C, SFP/VC, foul and abusive language). Referees were trusted to apply those with common sense as the game demanded--the key language of the Laws, which was explcit in the Laws was "in the opinion of the referee." With time, the general descriptions became more directives, which required more specifics, which required more exceptions, and so on. Perhaps aided by TV replay, the Game's desire for consistency became extreme, and the elegance of simple Laws has been gradually being replaced by a set of endless specific rules like we see in other sports. I see it as a shame, but I also don't think there is any going back at this stage of evolution.
 
Back
Top