IFAB 131st ABM - Decisions

[Peter Grove]

I just had a quick look and I can't see that this had been mentioned yet - certainly not here in the Laws of the Game forum.

I'll just mention a couple of things as I believe they've been subject to discussion on here - the IFAB has reiterated that the restart after a verbal/gesture offence against a match official is an indirect free kick. A direct free kick (or penalty) can only be awarded for for "direct physical offences (pushing, holding, striking etc.)" against a match official.

A player does not have to be heading directly towards goal when fouled, for the offence to constitute a potential DOGSO, as long as "the overall/general movement of the player was towards the opponent’s goal."

There are a bunch more interesting items in the full document:
http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/200/Circular 7_2016_v0.3_EN.pdf

 

[lincs22]

The dogso is a good clarification, given the discussion it provokes on this forum.

 

[Paul March]

I like the proposed change to defenders deliberately stepping into the penalty area to receive the ball creating a retake. Having it as a specific offence will help on the odd occasion it's tried

 

[SLI39]

I am still trying to get my head around the logic of the penalty kick amendment. I suppose that, if both kicker and goalkeeper commit offences, the more serious is determined by whether the penalty is scored or not. I know that the attempt to deceive/feint earns the kicker a booking, but if the goalkeeper is also guilty of something, I am struggling to see why a retake isn't the reasonable outcome.

 

[Peter Grove]

I like the proposed change to defenders deliberately stepping into the penalty area to receive the ball creating a retake. Having it as a specific offence will help on the odd occasion it's tried

I'm not sure it makes it a specific offence - it just says that referees should be vigilant and should caution if they believe it is being used as a time-wasting mechanism.

Incidentally, I'm not sure I would agree with their contention that this is an area where unsporting behaviour is increasing. I watch an awful lot of football every week and personally, I haven't noticed any increase in such incidents.

 

[Paul March]

But by clarifying it it removes the wriggle room about delaying the restart.

 

[bloovee]

I've never seen it done as time wasting (which I would penalise now as USB). It's done to prevent opponents having a chance to play the ball (which may be on the increase if playing it out from the back catches on more).

Re "clarifications" like dogso while rounding an opponent, do they apply now or when the law changes for 2017/18 come in?

 

[Peter Grove]

Re "clarifications" like dogso while rounding an opponent, do they apply now or when the law changes for 2017/18 come in?

I'm not absolutely sure but my take on it is that since they're a) in an officially-issued IFAB circular and b) are not actually changes but more like statements explaining how the IFAB thinks the Laws should have been interpreted in the first place anyway, they would be applicable now.

 

[bester]

Is this a change? I thought a player who reenters illegally would've had to foul someone or handle it, but "just" stopping the ball going in to the goal seems to suffice

Denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by entering the field of play • Any player, substitute or team official who enters the field of play without the required referee’s permission and prevents a goal or denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity must be sent off, even if no other offence is committed.

 

[McTavish]

Interesting clarification by default that a throw-in that doesn't enter the field should be re-taken. I expect that most on here were already doing this but it seems to me that the law states:

Procedure
At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower must:
• face the field of play

It would follow that if the ball did not enter the FOP then (unless it was VERY windy) the thrower could not have been facing the FOP and therefore the throw could be awarded to the opposition.

 

[AlexF]

Facing the field doesn't mean being perpendicular to it. You can be facing the field, but looking down the line... and then throw it right down the touchline.

That's a case where it might not come in, and yet still facing the field of play.

 

[bloovee]

How far back from the line would a player have to be for the ball at a throw-in not to enter the FOP? When most throw-ins are taken the ball is already in the FOP! If the player has both heels on the line then the whole of the ball is probably within the FOP when it's thrown.

 

[Peter Grove]

Is this a change? I thought a player who reenters illegally would've had to foul someone or handle it, but "just" stopping the ball going in to the goal seems to suffice

Denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by entering the field of play • Any player, substitute or team official who enters the field of play without the required referee’s permission and prevents a goal or denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity must be sent off, even if no other offence is committed.

I think it's supposed to be more of a clarification. It's something that you could argue was implied by combining various parts of the law in a particular way but since it wasn't explicitly stated, it could be argued that it wasn't necessarily a sending-off. As far as I can tell, they're making it clear that the intent of the law - as it is already written - is that if someone associated with a team who is not authorised or supposed to be on the pitch prevents a goal, they must be sent off.

 

[AlexF]

How far back from the line would a player have to be for the ball at a throw-in not to enter the FOP? When most throw-ins are taken the ball is already in the FOP! If the player has both heels on the line then the whole of the ball is probably within the FOP when it's thrown.

How do players in games you do take throw-ins?

Most of the ones I see, they're entirely behind the line. Rarely do they have just their heels on the line.

If the ball is essentially "on the FOP" to start the throw-in, then it obviously can't "not come into play".

 

[McTavish]

Facing the field doesn't mean being perpendicular to it.

How far back from the line would a player have to be for the ball at a throw-in not to enter the FOP?

How do players in games you do take throw-ins?

This illustrates my point perfectly - there used to be a grey area around the ball not coming in to play from a throw-in - was it a retake or should the throw be awarded to the other team. This has now been clarified (albeit indirectly): it is a retake.