The Ref Stop

Law Changes from July 2024

While I tend to agree that players are silly about shin guards, at the same time, how many actual injuries are there that would have been meaningfully lessened had the player been wearing better shinguards. I don’t think it is really a lot. (Though I still wear heavy duty, full size ones when I play—I think in practical terms they do more to reduce cuts and minor pain/bruising than serious injury.)
 
The Ref Stop
socal lurker said:
While I tend to agree that players are silly about shin guards, at the same time, how many actual injuries are there that would have been meaningfully lessened had the player been wearing better shinguards. I don’t think it is really a lot. (Though I still wear heavy duty, full size ones when I play—I think in practical terms they do more to reduce cuts and minor pain/bruising than serious injury.)
Click to expand...
I would change the question.

How many incidents without an injury are there that a lesser shinguard would have meant an injury?

In my games, I'd say every season I get a couple to half dozen sounds of loud thud when a kick connects to a shin pad. I'd say a micro shinpad would have meant injury in at least half of those. Maybe not all serious though but some.
 
one said:
I would change the question.

How many incidents without an injury are there that a lesser shinguard would have meant an injury?

In my games, I'd say every season I get a couple to half dozen sounds of loud thud when a kick connects to a shin pad. I'd say a micro shinpad would have meant injury in at least half of those. Maybe not all serious though but some.
Click to expand...
This is a massive consideration. I had one match where a player had full size shin pads on at the start of the match and then changed them to micros at half time, which I was fine with as it isn’t my concern once I’ve told them it’s their risk. Same player caused the game to be abandoned when we had to call an ambulance for what I suspected to be a very bad leg break… I don’t like micros whatsoever.
 
WiisardNic said:
The handball/penalty one is interresting.

Does this mean "denial of a goal" by handball is only a yellow card now if it's considered not deliberate (thinking something akin to Harry Kewell's red card against Ghana at the 2010 World Cup) - or will that be another separate consideration.

Obviously, will depend on how exactly they word things....
Click to expand...
If non-deliberate handballs are to be treated as any other foul, this would that denial of a goal/goal scoring opportunity is still a red card.
DOGSO doesn't have to be a deliberate action. I'd say 90% of fouls are accidental either the player trying to win the ball.
 
Will_A said:
If non-deliberate handballs are to be treated as any other foul, this would that denial of a goal/goal scoring opportunity is still a red card.
DOGSO doesn't have to be a deliberate action. I'd say 90% of fouls are accidental either the player trying to win the ball.
Click to expand...
The law is being changed so that non-deliberate handball that is DOGSO and a penalty is awarded will be yellow card, in a similar way that attempting to play/challenging for the the ball is
 
Will_A said:
If non-deliberate handballs are to be treated as any other foul, this would that denial of a goal/goal scoring opportunity is still a red card.
DOGSO doesn't have to be a deliberate action. I'd say 90% of fouls are accidental either the player trying to win the ball.
Click to expand...

JamesL said:
The law is being changed so that non-deliberate handball that is DOGSO and a penalty is awarded will be yellow card, in a similar way that attempting to play/challenging for the the ball is
Click to expand...

socal lurker said:
No room for controversy in that distinction . . .
Click to expand...

on DOGSO, that makes sense. But we don't have the full wording yet (do we? or am I just blind?) and I'm just commenting on this line:

"Handball offences that are not deliberate, and for which penalties are awarded, are to be treated in the same way as other fouls."

Noting that penalties for handball are awarded in "DOGSO" or "Denial of Goal", is Denial of Goal going to be considered a tier up from DOGSO, so still a red card regardless of being deliberate, or will it be lumped in the same category as DOGSO and downgraded to yellow?
 
WiisardNic said:
on DOGSO, that makes sense. But we don't have the full wording yet (do we? or am I just blind?) and I'm just commenting on this line:

"Handball offences that are not deliberate, and for which penalties are awarded, are to be treated in the same way as other fouls."

Noting that penalties for handball are awarded in "DOGSO" or "Denial of Goal", is Denial of Goal going to be considered a tier up from DOGSO, so still a red card regardless of being deliberate, or will it be lumped in the same category as DOGSO and downgraded to yellow?
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20240427-070357.png
 
JamesL said:
View attachment 7279
Click to expand...
Thanks for that!

Basically confirms that if the referee determines the denial of goal by handball is not deliberate, then it's just a yellow card (alongside the penalty).

So again, leading to my examples from 2010 history - Suarez' red card against Ghana would still be a red card, and there's argument that Kewell's red card against Ghana would be a yellow card under today's law (again, assuming the referee determines it as non-deliberate)
 
So if a player has their arm out in a position justifiable by their movement, then the ball is hit toward the arm, and they try to move the arm to avoid it but it then hits the arm, is that deliberate or non-deliberate? Because that distinction didn't previously matter.

And how can a substitute or substituted player commit a non-deliberate handball?
 
bloovee said:
So if a player has their arm out in a position justifiable by their movement, then the ball is hit toward the arm, and they try to move the arm to avoid it but it then hits the arm, is that deliberate or non-deliberate? Because that distinction didn't previously matter.
Click to expand...
But that isn’t a HB offense at all. It’s neither deliberate not in an unnatural position.

The caution becomes HB offenses where the HB offense was not deliberate, but only unnatural position (which is stil quirky as the origin of unnatural position was as a kind of deliberate action.)

A substitute who enters the field unnoticed could commit a HB offense by unnatural position just as much as a player could, so no reason to specially carve that out.
 
socal lurker said:
But that isn’t a HB offense at all. It’s neither deliberate not in an unnatural position.

The caution becomes HB offenses where the HB offense was not deliberate, but only unnatural position (which is stil quirky as the origin of unnatural position was as a kind of deliberate action.)

A substitute who enters the field unnoticed could commit a HB offense by unnatural position just as much as a player could, so no reason to specially carve that out.
Click to expand...
But the hand moves to avoid the ball (or at least to get the arm closer to the body) so am attempt to avoid the ball looks like "hand to ball" and so looks deliberate.

If a substitute comes on and uses a hand to deny a goal I'm calling that deliberate. It's pointless talking about arms in an unnatural position for a player whose body is in an unnatural position (i.e. on the FoP). It would be two yellows anyway: entering the FoP without permission and DOGSO...
 
bloovee said:
But the hand moves to avoid the ball (or at least to get the arm closer to the body) so am attempt to avoid the ball looks like "hand to ball" and so looks deliberate.
Click to expand...
All that matters is the opinion or the referee. If the referee believes the arm was not on an unnatural position and that there was no deliberate handling, then it simply isn’t a HB offense. If the R concludes it was deliberate, then it’s a HB offense, and as deliberate, a send off.

But the line between deliberate and unnaturally bigger is far from a bright line. Consider the first play in this inside video review from MLS PRO—is that HB deliberate or is it merely unnaturally bigger? (For those interested in VAR, this week’s has some interesting conversation in the boioth and with the R and a scenario with the R properly sticking with a PK after the o field review:
 
WiisardNic said:
on DOGSO, that makes sense. But we don't have the full wording yet (do we? or am I just blind?) and I'm just commenting on this line:

"Handball offences that are not deliberate, and for which penalties are awarded, are to be treated in the same way as other fouls."
Click to expand...
We do have the full wording, and it's not as has been quoted several times in this thread.

The full wording of the explanation is this particular change is:

"Clarification that non-deliberate handball offences for which penalties are awarded are to be sanctioned in the same way as fouls which are an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball."
(Emphasis mine)
 
Peter Grove said:
We do have the full wording, and it's not as has been quoted several times in this thread.

The full wording of the explanation is this particular change is:

"Clarification that non-deliberate handball offences for which penalties are awarded are to be sanctioned in the same way as fouls which are an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball."
(Emphasis mine)
Click to expand...
So as I expected, it's basically what's known as the 'double jeopardy rule' where it should only be a caution if a penalty is awarded if we deem the handball to be non-deliberate. I think a good example (and I speak purely from memory without actually watching it back, so may be mis-remembering) would be the Willian handball against Man Utd (?) which then lead to Mitrovic also being sent off for losing his mind.
 
Peter Grove said:
We do have the full wording, and it's not as has been quoted several times in this thread.

The full wording of the explanation is this particular change is:

"Clarification that non-deliberate handball offences for which penalties are awarded are to be sanctioned in the same way as fouls which are an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball."
(Emphasis mine)
Click to expand...
Apologies, when I meant full wording, I didn't mean the explanation of why, but moreso the actual wording of how it was inserted into law 12 (which @JamesL provided) to see if it clarified my original query on whether DOG and DOGSO were separate considerations (related to the part you emphasised) or not.

Satisfied that they are not after reading the full changes (provided the offending handball is not deliberate of course)
 
santa sangria said:
So, we are back to reading minds and deciding if a player was deliberate or not. Yay!
Click to expand...
They may release further guidance regarding what constitutes deliberate, but for me it would have to be a players hand / arm making a clear movement towards the ball / trajectory of the ball to stop it entering the goal.
 
santa sangria said:
So, we are back to reading minds and deciding if a player was deliberate or not. Yay!
Click to expand...

In the last decade, with handball in lotg, it's been a case of one step forward, two steps back. Or is it two forward and one back? Either way there's a long way to go to get it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top