The Ref Stop

IFAB Circular 11

P

Peter Grove

RefChat Addict
I've just come across this - although it was apparently issued nearly a month ago. I haven't seen any previous discussion on here about this circular despite searching so if it has already been mentioned, my apologies.

http://www.theifab.com/backend/library/doc/circular-11-clarifications-to-the-laws-of-the-game-201718

Some interesting (and somewhat suprising) "clarifications" here - the biggest surprise for me being that a penalty - and a red card can now be awarded for a goalkeeper inside their own penalty area committing what according to Law 12 is considered as a handling offence - even though the IFAB now says it isn't.
Throwing an object is a direct free-kick offence (not a handling offence) so a goalkeeper who throws an object and hits the ball/an opponent in their own penalty [sic] is sanctioned with a penalty kick and a caution (YC) or dismissal (RC).
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% convinced about the reasoning here - I wasn't aware that direct free-kick offences and handling offences were two mutually exclusive categories.

This also reverses a previous Q&A answer, in 2006 we had this as the ruling:
5. An attacker goes past the goalkeeper and kicks the ball towards the open goal. A goalkeeper then throws a boot or similar object, which strikes the ball and prevents it entering the goal. What action does the referee take?

The goalkeeper is cautioned for unsporting behaviour and the match is restarted by an indirect free kick
Click to expand...
It also goes against the statement in Law 12 that says "hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) is an offence" which comes under the category of "Handling the ball."
 
The Ref Stop
It seems like poor wording on the mutual exclusiveness.

I think reasoning is in response to the confusion cased by :
"The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other
player outside the penalty area. Inside their penalty area, the goalkeeper
cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any related
sanction but can be guilty of handling offences that incur an indirect free kick."

I am also sure this will trump the exiting statement you quoted from law 12 and will be better worded in the next release of the LOTG.
 
I like this, I was going to ask, but it explains, offside should be judged at first contact:
"LAW 11 – OFFSIDE When judging an offside position, the first point of contact of the ‘play or touch’ of the ball should be used. Explanation This definition is required as the VAR use of slow motion shows a detectable difference between the first and last contact with the ball when it is ‘passed’."

Great spot @Peter Grove
"HANDLING THE BALL Throwing an object is a direct free-kick offence (not a handling offence) so a goalkeeper who throws an object and hits the ball/an opponent in their own penalty is sanctioned with a penalty kick and a caution (YC) or dismissal (RC)."

This is quite a significant rule change really. It does make sense to me. It always seemed like the IDFK handling offence was a get out of jail.

The last point is also significant I think:
"GLOSSARY
KICK • The ball is kicked when a player makes contact with the foot and/or the ankle Explanation: This clarifies the parts of the body used to ‘kick’ the ball (especially in terms of passing the ball to the goalkeeper etc.). The shin, knee or any other part of the body ‘play’ rather than ‘kick’ the ball."

So, the ankle is part of the foot but the shin isn't... no one tell Wayne Rooney!
 
Been saying this about kick for years.

As for throwing an object, it is tantamount to striking, so careless, reckless, excessive force applies.
 
one said:
I think reasoning is in response to the confusion cased by :
"The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other
player outside the penalty area. Inside their penalty area, the goalkeeper
cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any related
sanction but can be guilty of handling offences that incur an indirect free kick."
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean by "the confusion caused" - there is no confusion in that statement that I can see, just an unequivocal provision that a goalkeeper cannot commit an offence incurring a direct free kick for a handling offence inside their own penalty area.

I don't disagree with the idea behind the change but I don't agree with the way it's been done. Saying that a keeper inside their own penalty area throwing an object at the ball is now a penalty kick (and potentially a red card) is not a mere clarification - it's a full on laws change, not least because it flies directly in the face of the two provisions in law 12 that say a) throwing an object at the ball is a handling offence and b) a goalkeeper cannot commit an offence incurring a direct free kick for a handling offence inside their own penalty area or be subject to additional sanctions for it.

The IFAB is of course, entitled to make such changes but as far as I'm concerned, for this to work, those two pieces of wording have to be removed from the laws. For me, that requires an amendment to the laws that can only be done by issuing a new version of the laws document as part of the annual update cycle. I don't see how it can be passed off as a simple clarification because as far as I can tell that's not what it is - it's a complete change to the laws as they stand.
 
Peter Grove said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "the confusion caused" - there is no confusion in that statement that I can see, just an unequivocal provision that a goalkeeper cannot commit an offence incurring a direct free kick for a handling offence inside their own penalty area.
Click to expand...
'Confusion' is probably the wrong choice of word. I have been involved in a number of debates about handling offences by goalkeepers in heir own PA. One is as in the circular. Another is if he threw the ball at an opponent with excessive force (when ball in play). One more is for an offence of second touch by hand after a restart. In each case the debate revolves around whether the offences are handling offences.
What I am saying is that they have now clarified the former case is not a handling offence and the goal keeper can be sent off and PK awarded. The latter two will still be debated.

Peter Grove said:
I don't agree with the way it's been done. Saying that a keeper inside their own penalty area throwing an object at the ball is now a penalty kick (and potentially a red card) is not a mere clarification - it's a full on laws change, not least because it flies directly in the face of the two provisions in law 12 that say a) throwing an object at the ball is a handling offence and b) a goalkeeper cannot commit an offence incurring a direct free kick for a handling offence inside their own penalty area or be subject to additional sanctions for it.
Click to expand...
I agree with you there and hence my comment about trumping (not clarifying) the existing law 12.

Peter Grove said:
The IFAB is of course, entitled to make such changes but as far as I'm concerned, for this to work, those two pieces of wording have to be removed from the laws. For me, that requires an amendment to the laws that can only be done by issuing a new version of the laws document as part of the annual update cycle. I don't see how it can be passed off as a simple clarification because as far as I can tell that's not what it is - it's a complete change to the laws as they stand.
Click to expand...
Agreed again. And hence my comment about being fixed in the next release of the LOTG. But from experience IFAB had never been perfect at wording the LOTG and they will most likely will leave some sort of conflicting information in it before someone points it out and it will take one more release before it is properly fixed.
 
Last edited:
Peter Grove said:
Saying that a keeper inside their own penalty area throwing an object at the ball is now a penalty kick (and potentially a red card) is not a mere clarification - it's a full on laws change, not least because it flies directly in the face of the two provisions in law 12 that say a) throwing an object at the ball is a handling offence and b) a goalkeeper cannot commit an offence incurring a direct free kick for a handling offence inside their own penalty area or be subject to additional sanctions for it.

...The IFAB is of course, entitled to make such changes but as far as I'm concerned, for this to work, those two pieces of wording have to be removed from the laws.
Click to expand...

Fully agree with you that this is an actual change, not a mere clarification. Just to be exact though, it does not fly in the face of two provisions....only one. If throwing the ball is not considered a handling offence, that is the only real change. The provision that a goalkeeper cannot be sanctioned for handling offences in the PA has not been changed in the slightest and still applies...just that there is one less handling offence to be considered using it.
 
Yes, you're right that they only need to remove the part of the wording that says throwing an object at the ball is a handling offence for this to not be a contradiction of Law 12 (or rather, move it from where it is under "Handling the Ball" to the previous section listing DFK offences) although until they do that and as things stand, I'd say it still goes against both provisions. But as you say, once it's no longer listed as a handling offence, the second piece of wording can remain as is.
 
Back in the "They don't know what they're doing" camp...

Throwing an object is a direct free-kick offence (not a handling offence) so a goalkeeper who throws an object and hits the ball/an opponent in their own penalty area is sanctioned with a penalty kick and a caution (YC) or dismissal (RC)

Now I had read that to mean that if it hits the ball it's a caution and if it hits an opponent it's a dismissal - but presumably if it's thrown at the ball and prevents it crossing the line, it's DOGSO so a dismissal.

Now can anyone tell me what the sanction is if a player kicks an object on the field and it hits the ball?
 
Does the Law 11 bit, "This definition is required as the VAR use of slow motion shows a detectable difference between the first and last contact with the ball when it is ‘passed’", effectively mean that all those TV freeze-frames might have been showing misleading white lines across the pitch all these years?

 
Last edited:
bloovee said:
Does the Law 11 bit, "This definition is required as the VAR use of slow motion shows a detectable difference between the first and last contact with the ball when it is ‘passed’", effectively mean that all those TV freeze-frames might have been showing misleading white lines across the pitch all these years?

Click to expand...
Nah. Although I appreciate the point that there's a small amount of time over which the ball is kicked, I don't think standard TV cameras have the frame rate for it to make a difference. I've seen shows where the tape is rolled backwards and forward by a frame at a time and there's usually one clear frame where the foot is in contact with the ball and a following frame where the ball is no longer in contact.
 
bloovee said:
Back in the "They don't know what they're doing" camp...

Throwing an object is a direct free-kick offence (not a handling offence) so a goalkeeper who throws an object and hits the ball/an opponent in their own penalty area is sanctioned with a penalty kick and a caution (YC) or dismissal (RC)

Now I had read that to mean that if it hits the ball it's a caution and if it hits an opponent it's a dismissal - but presumably if it's thrown at the ball and prevents it crossing the line, it's DOGSO so a dismissal.

Now can anyone tell me what the sanction is if a player kicks an object on the field and it hits the ball?
Click to expand...

This is also a DFK restart. I think this part of law 12 was rewritten to emphasise that the consequences should be no different for an offence that begins outside the field of play.

Incidentally, presumably this logic of 'where the object would have struck the opponent' is the same for a player who takes off his boot and throws it towards an attacker bearing down on goal, inside the penalty area. If we see that, is it a penalty?
 
bloovee said:
Does the Law 11 bit, "This definition is required as the VAR use of slow motion shows a detectable difference between the first and last contact with the ball when it is ‘passed’", effectively mean that all those TV freeze-frames might have been showing misleading white lines across the pitch all these years?

Click to expand...
What do the LotG have to say about that trouser/sock combo!?
 
If this question comes up in my LOTG exam in 3 weeks I presume I answer with the current law answer? I'm guessing my course tutor will assume I am aware of the new update/clarification.
 
Personally having games controlled by freeze frame rates gets us into the American Football Horlicks of a TV Dinner game.
VAR has been crap so far, badly conceived, badly implemented, bad idea from the start..... football is a simple game spoiled by silly stuff thats crept in and TV money. Lets get back to basics, humans make mistakes, even cameras make mistakes, refs make mistakes, players make mistakes.... lets just see who makes the least and we'll all get on fine!!!
 
The bit I don’t like is the ref leaving the pitch, Rugby has it spot on. Bloke in the stand, microphoned up to the ref. Screen to crowd replays if you want. Crowd are involved then, they can see the process. At the moment everyone in the stadium is just left waiting, unsure what he’s seen and not knowing if a goal is a goal. Also, how far do you go back, the foul not seen on the edge of the box leading to a 80yard breakaway. Where do you start looking for errors! It can work but this is a dogs dinner so far
 
@Sheffields Finest Agree on that point, but the way the MLS has it is that if it's a solely factual point and a "clear and obvious error" (i.e. ref gives a penalty but foul occurred outside the box), the ref can just accept the advice of the VAR and give the free kick. That's how it should be IMO, although I can accept the argument that going and watching the replay increases accountability and credibility as we know the ref has seen all available footage.
 
alexgr said:
@Sheffields Finest Agree on that point, but the way the MLS has it is that if it's a solely factual point and a "clear and obvious error" (i.e. ref gives a penalty but foul occurred outside the box), the ref can just accept the advice of the VAR and give the free kick. That's how it should be IMO, although I can accept the argument that going and watching the replay increases accountability and credibility as we know the ref has seen all available footage.
Click to expand...
I'm addicted to the MLS ref highlights YouTube vids so I think I've watched almost all the VAR reviews that have happened in the MLS.

The good news is:
- ARs are getting a lot of hard decisions right
- Refs are getting help on SFP to upgrade YCs to RCs

The bad news is:
- Correcting offside decisions that are impossible to see in real time. I would rather have a human judgement call from the AR.
- Referees hedging and giving YCs for SFP in the knowledge they have the VAR to fall back on. This would be much better handled by post game review IMHO.
- The game that had 3 VARs in 10 mins. Not good.
- Refs watching a pitch-side screen. Not good.
- VAR only on one phase of play. Quite a few examples where there is an undetected foul, followed by e.g. throw in and goal. The VAR cannot act, making a mockery of the whole thing.

Overall I think, ditch the VAR, keep goal line tech, give more powers to post match video review to cover anything and everything that happens in the match.

How about this: give the 3rd team (all 4-6 officials plus observer) continued powers for disciplinary action and a channel for feedback to the teams (for minor offences) in a full post game video review with access to all angles - and give the ref responsibility for the explanatory press conference ($-exposure win). Ditch the in game VAR and the review committee.
 
Now can anyone tell me what the sanction is if a player kicks an object on the field and it hits the ball?

SLI39 said:
This is also a DFK restart. I think this part of law 12 was rewritten to emphasise that the consequences should be no different for an offence that begins outside the field of play.

Incidentally, presumably this logic of 'where the object would have struck the opponent' is the same for a player who takes off his boot and throws it towards an attacker bearing down on goal, inside the penalty area. If we see that, is it a penalty?
Click to expand...

But is there anything in the laws to cover a player on the field kicking an object on the field?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top