A&H

IFAB 133rd ABM

The Referee Store
Any feelings on the substitution ideas?

I can see the attraction in speeding the game up but would still prefer to control player on/off at the same place.
 
OIREF! said:
Any feelings on the substitution ideas?

I can see the attraction in speeding the game up but would still prefer to control player on/off at the same place.
Click to expand...


I wonder if this has been considered? Using an extreme example as ever, because I find it easier to picture it , but feel free to replace the players and/or grounds in question to something more relevant.
Celtic v Rangers at Parkhead and a Rangers player has to go off at half way, but on the opposite side to the tech areas. He now has a proverbial gauntlet to run, different to being close to the crowd in open play, as often this is per chance, but, this will now be an (unaccompanied?) journey directly past what can only be described as a war zone and an open invitation for reactions
In Scotland recently we have had a spate of missile incidents which are spur of the moment, pessimistic granted but are we now asking (in another extreme example) say, Scott Brown, Celtic captain, to go off at far side half way at Ibrox having already been the pantomine villain and possibly hacked his way through 80 mins, and possibly scored the only goal so far
Safety first would be main stand, to the relative security of the tech area.

Do we really at grass roots want to send wind up merchant of one team right into the sideline of the team he has taken the urine out of for 80 mins??


,
 
Ciley Myrus said:
I wonder if this has been considered? Using an extreme example as ever, because I find it easier to picture it , but feel free to replace the players and/or grounds in question to something more relevant.
Celtic v Rangers at Parkhead and a Rangers player has to go off at half way, but on the opposite side to the tech areas. He now has a proverbial gauntlet to run, different to being close to the crowd in open play, as often this is per chance, but, this will now be an (unaccompanied?) journey directly past what can only be described as a war zone and an open invitation for reactions
In Scotland recently we have had a spate of missile incidents which are spur of the moment, pessimistic granted but are we now asking (in another extreme example) say, Scott Brown, Celtic captain, to go off at far side half way at Ibrox having already been the pantomine villain and possibly hacked his way through 80 mins, and possibly scored the only goal so far
Safety first would be main stand, to the relative security of the tech area.

Do we really at grass roots want to send wind up merchant of one team right into the sideline of the team he has taken the urine out of for 80 mins??
Click to expand...
That's one scenario I have concerns about. At the lower levels where I officiate it is normal practice for teams to set up on opposite touchlines - I wouldn't feel comfortable with players leaving the field at their own side.
 
Taking a wild guess, it could still be at referee discretion? but as ever then it leaves us, as the referees, the ones who appear inconsistent if one referee does something different to last weeks
 
I can see it now...80th min at Ibrox, Brown to go off, as the board comes up he walks to the opposite side of Ibrox, is roundly well, shown what Ibrox thinks of him, Brown reacts in some kind of way, AR spots reaction,alerts referee, bang, 2nd yellow=red for Brown and suddenly the sub cannot come on

yes Brown would be the one responsible for his actions however as referee we have been the catalyst for instructing him to go off there

Never going to happen I know but still
 
There is nothing in LOTG now to stop the substituted player leaving the FOP at a different place. All the new change will do is to make the nearest boundary the default so the current wording

"the player being replaced is not obliged to leave at the halfway line and takes no further part in the match, ... "

it will be something like

"the player being replaced must leave at the nearest boundary unless directed otherwise by the referee and takes no further part in the match, ... "
 
one said:
There is nothing in LOTG now to stop the substituted player leaving the FOP at a different place. All the new change will do is to make the nearest boundary the default so the current wording

"the player being replaced is not obliged to leave at the halfway line and takes no further part in the match, ... "

it will be something like

"the player being replaced must leave at the nearest boundary unless directed otherwise by the referee and takes no further part in the match, ... "
Click to expand...



I think 99% of refs, well, I hope so, are aware of the 1st part of that
My concern is that we are looking at taking a current instruction which is unambiguous and making it discretionary though, which only leads to inconsistencies, surely one thing we as a collective strive to eradicate
 
I think it's a potentially good change at professional level, or where there's a team working together.

At grassroots, on your own I'm not so sure. I'd prefer to go to the halfway line and go through the procedure.
 
where there is an unfair ‘outcome/benefit’ due to the ball making contact with a player’s hand/arm (e.g. a goal should not be allowed if the ball goes directly into the goal from a player’s hand/arm or if a player gains control/possession of the ball from contact with hand/arm and then scores or creates a goal-scoring opportunity
It's quite likely that none of those in attendance will ever have refereed a game before. I'm in favour of outlawing any goal scored with the hand or arm because that's easy for us to police, but the above statement creates more problems than it solves. It infers that we need to see the outcome of a handball before determining if it's an offence, like some inverted reversed advantage/disadvantage nonsense Law :confused:
 
It’s still better though. It “solves” the accidental handball goal and the striker-controls-via-thigh-and-hand scenario.
 
santa sangria said:
It’s still better though. It “solves” the accidental handball goal and the striker-controls-via-thigh-and-hand scenario.
Click to expand...
Don't agree on this occasion Santa. I'm with the Old Skool (certain elder forumites) on this subject. The Law is not broken, it's just overly complicated with unhelpful clarifications and appalling application in televised games. My personal tweak would be 'avoidable' rather than 'deliberate' and I can see the sense in disallowing any goal scored with the hand. The rest is a can of worms
 
There's plenty of grounds where it's not possible to walk around the boundary of the pitch without going over the barriers.

Interesting how they call a complete change in the law in regards to handball a 'clarification'.
 
Last edited:
bester said:
Interesting how they call a complete change in the law in regards to handball a 'clarification'.
Click to expand...
That's because they're (trying to) aligning the Law with the practice that has been instructed top-down for the last 8-10 years.

And yes, I know that England's lower levels never got this teaching, it's evident because we've gone over it a multitude of times before. But the FIFA referees are getting it, and in most other countries that instruction is being properly and appropriately passed down to the lower levels.
 
AlexF said:
That's because they're (trying to) aligning the Law with the practice that has been instructed top-down for the last 8-10 years.

And yes, I know that England's lower levels never got this teaching, it's evident because we've gone over it a multitude of times before. But the FIFA referees are getting it, and in most other countries that instruction is being properly and appropriately passed down to the lower levels.
Click to expand...

Is penalising any non deliberate handling leading to a promising attack really been standard instruction?
 
It is nothing short of stupid that referees from different Confederations (and promotion level) are given inconsistent guidance on the LOTG, some of which is fictional extrapolation of relatively simple concepts in the book. In what other sport, do officials appear to be making the rules up, based on unnecessary elaboration of the Law. Improve the book (it badly needs this imo); more importantly apply the Law as it is in the book and stop making it up between revisions of the LOTG (FFS!)
 
Big Cat said:
It is nothing short of stupid that referees from different Confederations (and promotion level) are given inconsistent guidance on the LOTG, some of which is fictional extrapolation of relatively simple concepts in the book. In what other sport, do officials appear to be making the rules up, based on unnecessary elaboration of the Law. Improve the book (it badly needs this imo); more importantly apply the Law as it is in the book and stop making it up between revisions of the LOTG (FFS!)
Click to expand...

Further evidence of trying to manage situations as opposed to just applying the laws as they are written. We are there to facilitate the game, not bend it to suit us or either of the teams
 
The IFAB collective will be 1 min drive from me, 3 mins walk , on Tues
If anyone wants any messages passed on, I might be up for storming the meeting

a long time colleague of mine is the designated taxi man too, so, am sure one way or other our voice can be heard!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top