The Ref Stop

IFAB AGM 133

"Goalkeepers cannot handle the ball in their penalty area from a deliberate pass or throw-in from a team-mate, or having released the ball from their hands. If they do, it is an IDFK but this and any other ‘illegal’ handling does not incur any disciplinary sanction even if it stops a promising attack or denies a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity."

Why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
The Ref Stop
A team official is sent off for holding onto the ball if it delays the opposition, interesting.
 
Some really good concept changes. Some awful wording (with not well thought through changes).

  • The debate about where a player leaves FOP in substitution is resolved
  • I like that the winner of the toss has a better choice now
  • Lets hope a 'wall' will be defined in the glossary
  • Would be an interesting attacking dropped ball on the edge of the penalty area but it's a good overall change I think.
  • I feel that the problem for the big ticket item, handball has only been shifted (with new and different considerations) and not fixed. Time will tell. This forum will tell more.
  • YC or RC can wait if a QFK, sensible. Why not for any quick restart in a very promising attack or OGSO?
 
It does ask questions like, who decided it was a good idea to remove an injury treated/assessed penalty taker in the first place.
I also think attackers should be allwed in the wall though, the free kick should be to penalise the opponents for their foul, and if the team then wish to make that wall tricky, yes I understand it means extra work for us, but I feel they are entitled to it..we dont award a corner then tell the attackers to stay out of the six yard box!

Toss could be so much simplier though, away team to start, global, end of.
 
JH said:
"Goalkeepers cannot handle the ball in their penalty area from a deliberate pass or throw-in from a team-mate, or having released the ball from their hands. If they do, it is an IDFK but this and any other ‘illegal’ handling does not incur any disciplinary sanction even if it stops a promising attack or denies a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity."

Why?
Click to expand...
I never liked this in it's old wording nor like it in it's future wording. If memory serves me right from one of my communications with DE, he didn't like it either.

I think the answer to your question lies with the 5 monkeys social experiment I posted in a different thread. Because everyone expects it this way as it has always been done that way but no one knows the real reason.

Imagine a keeper taking a free kick across his goal (previously from outside the PA but now from anywhere), miss-kicks it and an attacker rushes in to tap it in. The keeper touches it again with his foot to deny the attacker an OGSO, it's a send off, but if the keeper touches it again with his hand to deny the attacker an OGSO, its no sanction (not even yellow). So much for consistency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JH
JH said:
That's a strange one for me. Can see it now, keepers deliberately slicing the kick then handling...
Click to expand...

Seems an unlikely risk to take if the GK is able to clear it. (Two risks really: the risk the ref won't buy it and the risk that the pretend fluff doesn't behave as expected.) I dislike this one from a "let's legislate every little detail" perspective that is becoming more pervasive from IFAB, but don't mind it as an actual idea. The "back pass" rule wasn't designed to create scoring opportunities, but to prevent taking the ball out of play. Preventing GKs from using their hands after a ball is fluffed doesn't really accomplish that. (But maybe I'm biased as a former keeper....)

I do support keeping the no cards for the IFK handling offenses, regardless of possible SPA/DOGSO. Yes, there could be cynical plays, but in IMHO the chance of a GK getting sent off for a non-cynical play is far greater than the extremely rare scenarios that could be cynical.
 
one said:
Some really good concept changes. Some awful wording (with not well thought through changes).

  • The debate about where a player leaves FOP in substitution is resolved
  • I like that the winner of the toss has a better choice now
  • Lets hope a 'wall' will be defined in the glossary
  • Would be an interesting attacking dropped ball on the edge of the penalty area but it's a good overall change I think.
  • I feel that the problem for the big ticket item, handball has only been shifted (with new and different considerations) and not fixed. Time will tell. This forum will tell more.
  • YC or RC can wait if a QFK, sensible. Why not for any quick restart in a very promising attack or OGSO?
Click to expand...
I don't think anything is resolved in the sub scenario--this language gives players multiple reasons to argue about where they should get to leave the field, creating a discussion which creates delay. I still see this as a solution in search of a problem.

The coin flip is going back to what it once was. I don't see why it was worth changing then or why it is worth changing back. Kinda "who cares?"

I would think that if wall was going to be defined it would be in the changes, which it is not.

I loathe the DB changes. They will be just fine for the professionals where DBs hardly ever happen and no one wants a contested DB. But in youth games where DBs are much more common, this is going to be a headache--who touched the ball last in active play? And then we get to manage a DB, potentially in the attacking zone, in which we have to drop the ball to a player while keeping all other players (from both teams) 4 meters away, while knowing we are likely out of position as soon as the ball is kicked. GK's are likely to give us time to get up field, but otherwise the ball is just live and they are going into full active mode. (Technical gripe: by choosing 4 meters/ 4.5 yards, we now have conversions in both directions in the laws instead of keeping round in one measuring set.)

Agree that handling is different, but just shifting the issues. Perhaps more honest as the word "deliberate" had been tortured badly in interpretations. (I don't know how many years it is going to take me to break myself from calling "not deliberate" on non-calls when the ball hits the arm. OR maybe I'll keep with it as the most common issue.)

I don't know what I think about the delayed cards. On one hand, I think there is logic to it--albeit on very rare occasions. I wonder if the potential for abuse is greater than the value, where it becomes an excuse for a weak referee to change a call and go back and give a card. (Conceptually I agree that it makes sense for any restart, but the most common case it would occur would be the FKs--I suppose on a TI/CK it could be holding back a dissent card but it seems much likely to actually happen. But I also think it is an example of micro rather than macro thinking by IFAB--instead of addressing the broad concept with a broad idea ("except where the offended team would benefit from a quick restart of play, in which case the caution/send off may take place at the next stoppage"), they are legislating a specific scenario--probably inspired by a team that felt robbed of a quick restart by the referee giving a caution following a foul.)
 
What's interesting with the handball is that is now sound like players can safely 'cover up' in the wall and get hit on the arm without it being handball. We are taught to instruct players to keep hands out of the way, but the clarity is now as long as they're not making themselves bigger (which I take to mean in terms of width) then it's all ok?
 
Monotone Whistle said:
What's interesting with the handball is that is now sound like players can safely 'cover up' in the wall and get hit on the arm without it being handball. We are taught to instruct players to keep hands out of the way, but the clarity is now as long as they're not making themselves bigger (which I take to mean in terms of width) then it's all ok?
Click to expand...

On the contrary, bringing your hand up above your face surely makes it bigger?
 
My question on the handball wording:
It is an offence if a player
  • deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  • gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
    • scores in the opponents’ goal
    • creates a goal-scoring opportunity
Click to expand...

For those two final points, how long are we supposed to wait before deciding that the handball gave them a goal-scoring opportunity? If there's a shot on goal consider whether the opening phase of play had a potential handball, and then disallow it?
 
xPositor said:
My question on the handball wording:


For those two final points, how long are we supposed to wait before deciding that the handball gave them a goal-scoring opportunity? If there's a shot on goal consider whether the opening phase of play had a potential handball, and then disallow it?
Click to expand...
I thought the same, so you have to see a handball and think, I'll punish that if something comes of this possession. Ridiculous.
"Back to the handball 10 seconds ago lads" - *Anarchy*
 
xPositor said:
My question on the handball wording:


For those two final points, how long are we supposed to wait before deciding that the handball gave them a goal-scoring opportunity? If there's a shot on goal consider whether the opening phase of play had a potential handball, and then disallow it?
Click to expand...

I raised that ages ago.

Say a defender accidentally handles it in the penalty area, boots it down the park and they end up scoring, are we going all the way back and giving a penalty?
 
RobOda said:
I raised that ages ago.

Say a defender accidentally handles it in the penalty area, boots it down the park and they end up scoring, are we going all the way back and giving a penalty?
Click to expand...

Yeah this is torture.., it’s all very well VAR and teams of 6-7 officials being able to work with the phase of play but can we do that lower down the pyramid??

Like the 4m/1m laws, this is a third new concept that we will have to apply. It’s three things making refereeing more complex... and that, we do not need.
 
I think what they mean is some sort of immediate opportunity. Absent guidance, I see it primarily applying in/close to the GA, only very rarely outside the PA, and never outside the attacking third. But clear drafting has never been an IFAB strong suit--which was less of an issue when we were more idea focused and is becoming a bigger issue as the laws focus on more minutia.
 
RobOda said:
I raised that ages ago.

Say a defender accidentally handles it in the penalty area, boots it down the park and they end up scoring, are we going all the way back and giving a penalty?
Click to expand...

I agree, I think perhaps a good way to look at it is like we do for advantage. If they commit a handball offence, but haven’t created a goal scoring change in 5ish seconds, is it really an advantage? I think this could be what the law is getting at?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top