IFAB Laws of the Game 2016 overhaul

[Kes]

The overhaul points all seem valid and common-sense based I suppose. Sadly, a chance to sort out something which (IMO) is ruining our game has been overlooked.
Here's something I posted on a different thread:

Not so much at our level, but I'd love to see referees at the top apply Law 12 rigidly and caution a player for USB when he is seen to deliberately play-act, feign injury or suddenly throw themselves to the floor writhing in agony in order to exacerbate a situation and/or get a fellow player cautioned/dismissed. We can do it for an obvious dive in the penalty area and we're allowed to judge whether or not a player handled the ball deliberately, so why not make a call on these things as well? It's weakness in my opinion.....

This "overhaul" was an ideal opportunity to empower referees to begin to try and stamp out the above practice which I personally find abhorrent.
Real opportunity missed there.......

 

[Peter Grove]

I think

The overhaul points all seem valid and common-sense based I suppose. Sadly, a chance to sort out something which (IMO) is ruining our game has been overlooked.
Here's something I posted on a different thread:



This "overhaul" was an ideal opportunity to empower referees to begin to try and stamp out the above practice which I personally find abhorrent.
Real opportunity missed there.......

I suspect that when the final, full document with all the changes comes out, there will be a lot more amendments than the handful mentioned by David Elleray in his statements thus far. Of course, whether that will include the issue you mention, I have no idea.

 

[bloovee]

"So in future, the free kick will always be given where he commits the offside offense, even if he's in his own half, because you cannot be in an offside position in your own half, but you can go back into your own half to commit an offside offense." Why's Ellery spelling in American?

So it's now quite feasible for offside to be penalised with an IDK in a "dangerous" position (or even theoretically on the edge of the goal area). One goal from such a FK and that rule won't last.

And if grabbing an opponent off the field is penalised by a FK, why only for grabbing an opponent and not for any foul off the FOP while the ball is in play?

 

[AlexF]

Ellery's speaking. The writer for the AP, who interviewed him, is writing under the AP style guide... which uses American spelling.

And with respect to grabbing, I suspect that they've generalized to include all DFK fouls...

 

[Will Triffitt]

These mostly sound good, but as you guys have said, the offside change would be wrong and would only cause more unneeded confusion.
I'm unreasonably annoyed at changing the kick off so players can kick it backwards. Is it really that hard for players to remember to kick it forward?

I did an adult womens game not long ago and they didn't know that they had to kick the ball forwards. Also thye thought they could kick off when they wanted after a goal. When I said that i needed to be ready and blow the whistle for the restart they started arguing!!!

 

[xPositor]

I did an adult womens game not long ago and they didn't know that they had to kick the ball forwards. Also thye thought they could kick off when they wanted after a goal. When I said that i needed to be ready and blow the whistle for the restart they started arguing!!!

Doesn't matter what match I'm doing, after a goal its always watch the scoring team get clear of the defending team, notepad away, trot back to the centre circle with a call of "On the whistle please, <gender relevant reference here, e.g. Gents, Ladies, Lads etc>".

 

[Peter Grove]

I'm unreasonably annoyed at changing the kick off so players can kick it backwards. Is it really that hard for players to remember to kick it forward?

It depends which age/level you're talking about. For younger players it does seem particularly troublesome. I used to referee a lot of U12, U14 & U16 games. In some matches, even though in most cases I would tell them to kick it forward, up to 50% (sometimes more) of the kicks would go backwards, even if only slightly. I remember having to have one kick-off retaken four times before they got it right - and wondering whether I wasn't being slightly anal about being so insistent.

In the final analysis, what does it matter if they kick it backwards? It's their kick-off, surely if they want to kick it backwards, that's up to them? I don't have the actual statistics but it seems to me that a large proportion of kick-offs are touched very slightly forwards then immediately backwards to a player standing around the edge of the centre circle anyway. Also, as others have pointed out there is no requirement for free kicks, goal kicks, throw-ins or corners to travel in a specific direction so why require it for kick-offs?

If you can give me a logical, legitimate reason why kick-offs should have to go forward , I'd be interested to hear it.

 

[Will Triffitt]

Doesn't matter what match I'm doing, after a goal its always watch the scoring team get clear of the defending team, notepad away, trot back to the centre circle with a call of "On the whistle please, <gender relevant reference here, e.g. Gents, Ladies, Lads etc>".

I like that!!! might try it

 

[happy whistler]

as an attacker cannot be in an offside position if he is in his own half, would it not make sense to further change the law that if the player becomes active in own half because that is where he touched it then he should not be penalised even if in opponents half in offside position when ball initially played forward.

 

[RegalRef]

as an attacker cannot be in an offside position if he is in his own half, would it not make sense to further change the law that if the player becomes active in own half because that is where he touched it then he should not be penalised even if in opponents half in offside position when ball initially played forward.

I wouldn't disagree. How a player could possibly gain an advantage from being offside then returning to his own half to collect the ball is beyond me. Must be a 1% chance.

The kick off one is a big one for me. Can't say I ever pull it back for not going forwards if the ball only moves between the two players around the ball anyway.

 

[Peter Grove]

as an attacker cannot be in an offside position if he is in his own half, would it not make sense to further change the law that if the player becomes active in own half because that is where he touched it then he should not be penalised even if in opponents half in offside position when ball initially played forward.

Apart from the "ball initially played forward" bit (the direction the ball travels makes no difference to an offside decision) I would agree with you.

I think that in making this change, the Technical Advisory Panel has lost sight of the original intent of the offside law. It was always meant (and still should be, as far as I'm concerned) to prevent a player remaining high up the pitch beyond virtually all the defenders and (using the phrase in its true, dictionary sense, rather than in the IFAB's unnecessarily restrictive sense) gaining an advantage from being in that position. If a player has to come all the way back to his own half to play the ball, I wouldn't consider that he has gained much of an advantage and even if he has, it was not by virtue of being in an offside position.

As for the idea of awarding a free kick for an offside offence in or near the the player's own penalty area (or even his own goal line, which is theoretically possible under this new amendment) well that just strikes me as slightly perverse.

 

[xPositor]

as an attacker cannot be in an offside position if he is in his own half, would it not make sense to further change the law that if the player becomes active in own half because that is where he touched it then he should not be penalised even if in opponents half in offside position when ball initially played forward.

It's all about scale though, isn't it. The attacking player could be half-a-yard in the opposition's half and be in an offside position, and a pass is played to him; he decides to take two steps back to be able to control the ball, and he now touches it half-a-yard within his own half. Has he gained an advantage? Maybe, maybe not - but no less an advantage than a player in the penalty area who mistimes his move by a split second and is considered offside by virtue of his forehead of part of his boot being six inches ahead of the line.

The laws have to be written to cover the majority of scenarios, and there will always be outliers (such as the possibility of a player becoming active from an offside position just outside his own penalty area, and under the proposed rewrite conceding an IDFK in that position). You cannot cover all of these outliers, without making the LotG far more complex than it already is. And if everything was covered, there would be no fun in some of the debate on this site!

 

[bloovee]

Small pitch. IDK on 6 yard line. All defenders on goal line bar one. Ball cleared a long way out to the other player IOP who runs in and plays the ball 7 yards outside the area (halfway in the half).

Perverse example maybe but there will be more realistic scenarios that will make people think this is a daft idea. Why not just give the FK where it became possible to be offside i.e. on the halfway line?

 

[Peter Grove]

I'm sorry xPositor, but are you really saying that a player who ends up getting the to ball ahead of a defender in the penalty area is in no more of an advantageous position than a player who gets the ball inside his own half?

Anyway, what I'm really saying is that I don't agree with this change and there are a number of different reasons for this, some of which I've already mentioned. All things considered, I think that in this case, the solution is worse than the problem and a better solution to the contradiction in the different parts of the offside law over where the free kick should be, is to remove the mention of punishing the offence where it occurs and keep the stipulation that it be where the player was when the ball was last touched by a team mate.

Another thing I disagree with, that I hadn't mentioned yet, is the reason the IFAB has given for doing this - consistency, specifically in regard to the principle of punishing offences where they occur. It's not that I disagree in principle with the idea of having more consistency within the laws, in fact in the vast majority of cases I welcome it. However I don't think that the pursuit of consistency should overrule all other concerns. As Ralph Waldo Emerson put it, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds ..."

All in all, I think that the current IFAB Technical Advisory Panel has lost sight of the spirit of the law and the overall good of the game in this particular instance, by their insistence on consistency above all else.

Rant over.

 

[Darius]

Am I the only one who thinks all this nonsense is avoided if you just add the words 'and if the player touches the ball within his own half of the FOP then the IDFK is taken from the halfway line'.

Job done

 

[Peter Grove]

Am I the only one who thinks all this nonsense is avoided if you just add the words 'and if the player touches the ball within his own half of the FOP then the IDFK is taken from the halfway line'.

Job done

I don't think that would be too bad of a compromise but unfortunately it would not fit with the IFAB panel's stated aim of achieving consistency over the positioning of free kicks.

 

[xPositor]

I'm sorry xPositor, but are you really saying that a player who ends up getting the to ball ahead of a defender in the penalty area is in no more of an advantageous position than a player who gets the ball inside his own half?

No. What I'm saying is does an attacker whose head or foot is a few inches in front of the offside line at the precise moment the ball is last played really gain a bigger advantage than a player who becomes active in their own half? i.e. why should you punish the former and not the latter.
For me, leave the offside law as is - with the IDFK being taken from where it currently should be (although typically isn't). After all, if you have two attacking players chasing a ball (one of whom was in an offside position when the ball was last played), you hold the flag down until one of them plays it. If the offside player touches it first, flag up - but should you disadvantage the defending team by taking the IDFK from the location of that touch, when in fact the actual offence took place maybe 30 - 40 yards further up the pitch?