Same as many of the other changes they have made over the years, they have to justify their existence.
IFAB changes for 26-27
- Thread starter socal lurker
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
Archer
🟨 C1 (BE)
Regarding the change to Law 14: if the penalty kick is taken, rebounds of the crossbar and is then accidentally touched by the penalty taker not with their "non-kicking" foot/leg, the law now seems to mean that play continues (and a goal is awarded if the ball enters the goal)?
This is a huge change in the law but I suspect it is just an unintended consequence from the IFAB.
This is a huge change in the law but I suspect it is just an unintended consequence from the IFAB.
one
RefChat Addict
As per usual, IFAB has not thought through some of these changes, their wider impact and consequences
Law4.
Accessories/jewellery - I think giving the referees the discretion is good. There will be some pain short term to set the benchmark for what is acceptable and what is not. After that I think the change is for the better.
Law 5,
Advantage on incorrectly taken restart - This is opening a can of worms as the restart laws are not 'properly' defined to accommodate it. There will be many more changes to come. What is an "incorrectly taken restart" for each restart? They are open to a variety of conflicting interpretations. The criteria for ball being in play is independent of the rest of the procedures. For example, on kick off which of these can we play advantage on (there are many other scenarios just on kick off)
- Ball is kicked and clearly moves but team mates are on the wrong half of the field
- Ball is kicked and clearly moves but the ball was not stationary at the time of the kick
- Ball is kicked and clearly moves but the ball was placed 10m away from the centre mark
- Ball is kicked and clearly moves but referee had not signalled yet.
Some other restarts will become even more complex.
Law 8,
.."unless it hit a match official or outside agent"... being pedantic but I would have much preferred using the word "touched" to make it consistent throughout the laws. IFAB can really benefit from having a copy writer / technical writer. I can picture a player telling me but it only barely touched you ref, It didn't hit you.
Law 10,
The use of the word "deliberately" is unnecessary and would have unwanted consequences. Scenario, taker kicks the ball into the bar and it pops up. Kicker turns back and the ball accidentally hits the taker on the back of the head and goes into goal. This is now a legal goal using the new wording.
Law 12,
Removing "cheating" forms of disciplinary actions is fine if it is replaced by other forms of punishment. But in the cases of when advantage is played, both for DOGSO and when a defibrate handball attempt to stop a goal, there is no actual punishment, the natural flow of the game produces negative outcome for the offender which would have happened anyway even without the cheating. That natural outcome is not a punishment. As mentioned by others (and I in other threads) this encourages cheating. Basically cheating is now almost always a risk worth taking.
Law 14,
"deliberate" is unnecessary. Same as law 10.
Laws 15, and 16
I like it
General note: A lot of cross-referencing creeping into the LOTG which I don't like. Cross-references add a level of complexity to the comprehension of a law or a point being made. There is also the risk of future 'broken links'.
Law4.
Accessories/jewellery - I think giving the referees the discretion is good. There will be some pain short term to set the benchmark for what is acceptable and what is not. After that I think the change is for the better.
Law 5,
Advantage on incorrectly taken restart - This is opening a can of worms as the restart laws are not 'properly' defined to accommodate it. There will be many more changes to come. What is an "incorrectly taken restart" for each restart? They are open to a variety of conflicting interpretations. The criteria for ball being in play is independent of the rest of the procedures. For example, on kick off which of these can we play advantage on (there are many other scenarios just on kick off)
- Ball is kicked and clearly moves but team mates are on the wrong half of the field
- Ball is kicked and clearly moves but the ball was not stationary at the time of the kick
- Ball is kicked and clearly moves but the ball was placed 10m away from the centre mark
- Ball is kicked and clearly moves but referee had not signalled yet.
Some other restarts will become even more complex.
Law 8,
.."unless it hit a match official or outside agent"... being pedantic but I would have much preferred using the word "touched" to make it consistent throughout the laws. IFAB can really benefit from having a copy writer / technical writer. I can picture a player telling me but it only barely touched you ref, It didn't hit you.
Law 10,
The use of the word "deliberately" is unnecessary and would have unwanted consequences. Scenario, taker kicks the ball into the bar and it pops up. Kicker turns back and the ball accidentally hits the taker on the back of the head and goes into goal. This is now a legal goal using the new wording.
Law 12,
Removing "cheating" forms of disciplinary actions is fine if it is replaced by other forms of punishment. But in the cases of when advantage is played, both for DOGSO and when a defibrate handball attempt to stop a goal, there is no actual punishment, the natural flow of the game produces negative outcome for the offender which would have happened anyway even without the cheating. That natural outcome is not a punishment. As mentioned by others (and I in other threads) this encourages cheating. Basically cheating is now almost always a risk worth taking.
Law 14,
"deliberate" is unnecessary. Same as law 10.
Laws 15, and 16
I like it
General note: A lot of cross-referencing creeping into the LOTG which I don't like. Cross-references add a level of complexity to the comprehension of a law or a point being made. There is also the risk of future 'broken links'.
one
RefChat Addict
I think it is completely different. I don't agree with the shinpad change. What is the point of having it compulsory if players are the judge of their size and material. I had to accept a shinpad that was 5cm in height and 3cm in width. What is the point?
Had IFAB said players are responsible for determining if an accessory is safe then I would compare them to shinpads.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
one
RefChat Addict
This is entirely an interpretation though. You have used "only" for that simultaneous case and nothing in the new law implies that.
Having said that and reading the new laws (and the penalty summary table) again, my scenario would result in a retake of the penalty kick and not a legal goal. Either way it is mot an intended outcome.
What does the new law say should happen if the penalty kick hits the crossbar and then accidentally hits the penalty taker's head?
Can’t help but feel some people are over thinking this. A player hitting the ball against the bar, then it accidentally rebounding off of him would not be immediately from the initial kick, it’s gonna be at least a few seconds and obviously it has hit the cross bar in the mean time.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Agree. This was a change to address a very specific incident, and immediately has to be understood in that context, regardless of whether IFAB could have phrased it better. (And yes, this means immediately means something different than with HB—at least I think we would all agree ithat if a ball was blasted off an attackers arm, bounced off the goal frame, and the attacker played it into the goal, that would satisfy immediately for the accidental HB rule.)
I hate having discretion as to what is and isn't a dangerous accessory because it means lazy referees can make life harder for the rest of us.
Is a wedding ring dangerous if it's taped up? Yes it is, but probably only to the person wearing it. If you break your finger while wearing a ring you will very likely lose the finger. So are they allowed or not? Earrings present much more risk to the person wearing them than anyone else and taping them up has no effect on that risk.
Is a wedding ring dangerous if it's taped up? Yes it is, but probably only to the person wearing it. If you break your finger while wearing a ring you will very likely lose the finger. So are they allowed or not? Earrings present much more risk to the person wearing them than anyone else and taping them up has no effect on that risk.
I suspect we will see some guidance come out regarding this, whether from IFAB or individual associations. Pretty sure it arises from problems that have arisen with religious items that could be classed as jewellery, whilst the FA put guidance out around it not all associations have and I believe it has led to some problems.
I do think it will lead to inconsistencies as what some referees deem to be dangerous accessories others will allow, but that happens to an extent now. I've seen a couple of referees refuse to allow female footballers to wear a spare hair band on their wrist as they classified it as jewellery, it clearly isn't so I've never had a problem with allowing this (just as top level referees in both the womens and mens games allow it).
I also wonder if this is moving the same way as shin pads have, in that IFAB are going to make it the onus of the player to make sure they don't wear anything dangerous to them. As you rightly say, a taped up wedding ring constitutes very little risk to opponents but is a major risk to the person wearing it.
"Immediacy" only applies to the new 'Circular 31 law'. IFAB have actually added the word "deliberately" to another part of law 14 which causes the issue. Looking back at my previous comment, I probably should have explained the change better for the benefit of people who haven't read the law changes document.
Current law:
If, after the penalty kick has been taken:
the kicker touches the ball again before it has touched another player:
an indirect free kick (or direct free kick for a handball offence) is awarded
New law:
If, after the penalty kick has been taken:
the kicker deliberately touches the ball again before it has touched another player:
an indirect free kick (or direct free kick for a handball offence) is awarded
This means any accidental (i.e. non-deliberate) double touch other than a 'circular 31 double touch' means play continues which is a huge unpublicised law change.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
No it doesn’t. That’s what your grammar teacher thinks it means. But is not what it means. Shrug. When IFAB uses words, they mean what IFAB wants them to mean (With apologies to Lewis Carroll.)