Reckless challenge that breaks up a promising attack

[socal lurker]

And is a push allowed if it doesn't impede the opponent's progress, or a kick?

It's just playing advantage...

And if it's only holding if it impedes an opponent's progress, how come it's holding even if the ball is not in play and no one's moving?

" with these situations:
• the referee must warn any player holding an opponent before the ball is in play
• caution the player if the holding continues before the ball is in play"

It's no wonder the laws are twice as long as they used to be.

Well, it's not a holding foul, but it could rise to misconduct. This provision is about game management and trying to avoid what was seen as a growing problem. The idea was that the warnings pre-restart was a better solution than calling lots of fouls on corner kicks to get the message across--and it's a lot harder for the player to complain about the holding call if he was warned about it before the kick was taken. All that said, it's another question as to whether that belongs in the magic book--i think that kind of preventative refereeing was being done by many when appropriate long before it was in the book.

 

[bloovee]

Full circle - pushing could happen at a corner kick as well as holding. There's still no obvious explanation for why holding was taken out of the kicking, pushing list.

Several times I've had the feeling that whoever on IFAB did a revision, they resist any suggestion that it might have been a mistake, and we end up with extra wording to take us back to how things were instead of just changing the wording back. The "Gaining an advantage" lobby on IFAB must be quite persistent.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

And is a push allowed if it doesn't impede the opponent's progress, or a kick?

It's just playing advantage...

And if it's only holding if it impedes an opponent's progress, how come it's holding even if the ball is not in play and no one's moving?

" with these situations:
• the referee must warn any player holding an opponent before the ball is in play
• caution the player if the holding continues before the ball is in play"

It's no wonder the laws are twice as long as they used to be.

Re your last sentence, the 2017 revision reduced the LOTG by more than 10,000 words.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Full circle - pushing could happen at a corner kick as well as holding. There's still no obvious explanation for why holding was taken out of the kicking, pushing list.

Several times I've had the feeling that whoever on IFAB did a revision, they resist any suggestion that it might have been a mistake, and we end up with extra wording to take us back to how things were instead of just changing the wording back. The "Gaining an advantage" lobby on IFAB must be quite persistent.

Holding was never in the careless /reckless/excessive force list so it hasn't been "taken out" as you state.
The amendment about impeding an opponent's progress recognised that in close contact situations players' hands may well make minimal contact without affecting the play in progress.

 

[socal lurker]

Full circle - pushing could happen at a corner kick as well as holding. There's still no obvious explanation for why holding was taken out of the kicking, pushing list.

Well, perhaps because it never was in that list?

All fouls used to only be fouls if the were "intentional." Over time it became clear that wasn't really how fouls were called. As I recall (but am too lazy to look up--the oldest I have handy is 2008-9) the very first set of Laws to drop intent for CREF had 7 CREF fouls (e.g., tripping, kicking...) and three that were not (holding, spitting at, and deliberately handling). I don't think there is any mystery as to why those three were outside CREF--they aren't really about being careless, reckless, or using excessive force. A trip or kick often comes from a clumsy (i.e. careless) challenge, but that just isn't how holds come about. Referees have long called the holds that matter, not those that are trifling.

Well, of course, pushing also occurs on CKs. the difference is that holding is generally an ongoing action--the player holding before the CK is taken is likely to still be holding when the ball is kicked, which is when it becomes a foul. A push is not an ongoing action. The direction to warn players who are holding is to avoid those holds continuing. (And, of course, nothing prevents referees from warning players who are pushing before a CK is taken--that just isn't the evil that the direction to referees is intended to stop--holding was the ongoing problem they were trying to address.

As to gaining an advantage, I don't really see any parallel. Seeking to gain an advantage was in the Laws and was reduced to gaining an advantage, which was limited to deflections/rebounds--there was no going back in that process, just the ongoing shrinking of what constituted active involvement. (Though I agree that the time came long ago where they should have cut the phrase rather than defining it to mean something at odds with the words.)

 

[bloovee]

Re your last sentence, the 2017 revision reduced the LOTG by more than 10,000 words.

I'm comparing now with the LOTG in 1963... when "in the opinion of the referee" sufficed for most stuff.

 

[JamesL]

I'm comparing now with the LOAF in 1963... when "in the opinion of the referee" sufficed for most stuff.

2021 now mate. Times have moved on.

 

[socal lurker]

I'm comparing now with the LOAF in 1963... when "in the opinion of the referee" sufficed for most stuff.

So you want to go back to all fouls having to be intentional? Four steps for keepers? OS anytime a player is "seeking" to gain an advantage from OSP?

If your point is that the last 10 years or so have steadily gone away from the concept-based ideal of the Laws I-VII, well, I'd agree with you on that. There has definitely been an ongoing trend (excessive in my view) to talk about trees instead of forests. At the same time, before hi-def TV replays, and most sports having some level of video review it was a lot easier for the professional game to simply rely on the judgment of the R of the day.

 

[bloovee]

Well, perhaps because it never was in that list?

All fouls used to only be fouls if the were "intentional." Over time it became clear that wasn't really how fouls were called. As I recall (but am too lazy to look up--the oldest I have handy is 2008-9) the very first set of Laws to drop intent for CREF had 7 CREF fouls (e.g., tripping, kicking...) and three that were not (holding, spitting at, and deliberately handling). I don't think there is any mystery as to why those three were outside CREF--they aren't really about being careless, reckless, or using excessive force. A trip or kick often comes from a clumsy (i.e. careless) challenge, but that just isn't how holds come about. Referees have long called the holds that matter, not those that are trifling.

Well, of course, pushing also occurs on CKs. the difference is that holding is generally an ongoing action--the player holding before the CK is taken is likely to still be holding when the ball is kicked, which is when it becomes a foul. A push is not an ongoing action. The direction to warn players who are holding is to avoid those holds continuing. (And, of course, nothing prevents referees from warning players who are pushing before a CK is taken--that just isn't the evil that the direction to referees is intended to stop--holding was the ongoing problem they were trying to address.

As to gaining an advantage, I don't really see any parallel. Seeking to gain an advantage was in the Laws and was reduced to gaining an advantage, which was limited to deflections/rebounds--there was no going back in that process, just the ongoing shrinking of what constituted active involvement. (Though I agree that the time came long ago where they should have cut the phrase rather than defining it to mean something at odds with the words.)

A Wolves player Dave Woodfield was sent off for a push in 1965, so I suppose that would now have to categorised as "excessive force". He pushed Mike Summerbee off the pitch over the perimeter fence into the seats and needing 17 stitches in a head wound.

Well, perhaps because it never was in that list?

All fouls used to only be fouls if the were "intentional." Over time it became clear that wasn't really how fouls were called. As I recall (but am too lazy to look up--the oldest I have handy is 2008-9) the very first set of Laws to drop intent for CREF had 7 CREF fouls (e.g., tripping, kicking...) and three that were not (holding, spitting at, and deliberately handling). I don't think there is any mystery as to why those three were outside CREF--they aren't really about being careless, reckless, or using excessive force. A trip or kick often comes from a clumsy (i.e. careless) challenge, but that just isn't how holds come about. Referees have long called the holds that matter, not those that are trifling.

Well, of course, pushing also occurs on CKs. the difference is that holding is generally an ongoing action--the player holding before the CK is taken is likely to still be holding when the ball is kicked, which is when it becomes a foul. A push is not an ongoing action. The direction to warn players who are holding is to avoid those holds continuing. (And, of course, nothing prevents referees from warning players who are pushing before a CK is taken--that just isn't the evil that the direction to referees is intended to stop--holding was the ongoing problem they were trying to address.

As to gaining an advantage, I don't really see any parallel. Seeking to gain an advantage was in the Laws and was reduced to gaining an advantage, which was limited to deflections/rebounds--there was no going back in that process, just the ongoing shrinking of what constituted active involvement. (Though I agree that the time came long ago where they should have cut the phrase rather than defining it to mean something at odds with the words.)

Holding not a CREF offence? Isn't that part of what this thread is about? About holding that could cause serious injury?

Conversely, the idea that you can "jump at" an opponent in any manner not at least reckless is a perversion of its original meaning (a two-footed tackle). Even though (with holding and pushing) it was in the "intentional" list, "advice to players" was "realise that there is no such thing as accidental jumping at an opponent".

 

[bloovee]

So you want to go back to all fouls having to be intentional? Four steps for keepers? OS anytime a player is "seeking" to gain an advantage from OSP?

If your point is that the last 10 years or so have steadily gone away from the concept-based ideal of the Laws I-VII, well, I'd agree with you on that. There has definitely been an ongoing trend (excessive in my view) to talk about trees instead of forests. At the same time, before hi-def TV replays, and most sports having some level of video review it was a lot easier for the professional game to simply rely on the judgment of the R of the day.

It's not about changes in the laws per se but changes with no obvious logic, or without thinking through how they would work out and then needing wordy revisions or definitions in a forlorn hope of consistency.

Bringing back the four steps rule and allowing the GK to be shoulder charged when holding the ball would speed up play. GKs rarely took more than 6 seconds to get rid in those days.

The concept of a different phase of play in law 11 was there, but not applied. In advice to players: "If you are in an off-side position ... you can only be put on-side by an opponent playing the ball or if you are not in front of the ball when it is next played by one of your own side" (or if there are two defenders between you and the goal-line).

 

[socal lurker]

The concept of a different phase of play in law 11 was there, but not applied. In advice to players: "If you are in an off-side position ... you can only be put on-side by an opponent playing the ball or if you are not in front of the ball when it is next played by one of your own side" (or if there are two defenders between you and the goal-line).

Umm, those may be different words, but that’s no different than it is today.

among the things that haven’t changed on OS is that OS is that a player can only be OS if the ball was last touched or played by a teammate, and it is reassessed each time a teammate plays or touches the ball.

what changed with time is how much it took to be considered in active play—back with the “seeking” language, running toward the ball was enough.

(As an aside, though there is a quirk on gaining an advantage—back in the dark ages, a player who was in OS position at the time of a shot was NOT called for OS if he collected a save from the GK, as the GK’s save was considered a play; if the ball was collected off the goal, however, he would be sanctioned, as the ball was last played or touched by a teammate.)

 

[socal lurker]

A Wolves player Dave Woodfield was sent off for a push in 1965, so I suppose that would now have to categorised as "excessive force". He pushed Mike Summerbee off the pitch over the perimeter fence into the seats and needing 17 stitches in a head wound.

what’s that have to do with anything???? back in the day there were three send offf offenses: SFP/VC, foul or abusive language, and 2CT.

Holding not a CREF offence? Isn't that part of what this thread is about? About holding that could cause serious injury?

I really don’t know what to say. I thought you knew the difference between fouls (for which some are evaluated by CREF to determine if they are fouls) and misconduct (where Law 12 applies a caution to ANY DFK foul committed recklessly). garden variety holding just isn‘t careless—it’s a separate act from lack of care.

 

[one]

There is nothing to stop a referee from cautioning a holding offence for USB. In fact it has been the subject of discussion here many times where there was a caution, it was not SPA and advantage was played. Some thought it was against lotg.
There is also nothing to stop a referee to sanction holding for VC. Just because holding is not under CRUEF it doesn't mean it can't be sanctioned.

 

[bloovee]

Umm, those may be different words, but that’s no different than it is today.

among the things that haven’t changed on OS is that OS is that a player can only be OS if the ball was last touched or played by a teammate, and it is reassessed each time a teammate plays or touches the ball.

Well, my point was that the wording allowed for interpreting it as now for "different phases of play" but it was not in practice applied. Even aftet Ray Tinkler in the Leeds v WBA match set the tone, any player in an offside position who ran forward in the hope of getting a pass from a player who'd beaten the offside trap would be called for gaining an advantage.

what changed with time is how much it took to be considered in active play—back with the “seeking” language, running toward the ball was enough.

(As an aside, though there is a quirk on gaining an advantage—back in the dark ages, a player who was in OS position at the time of a shot was NOT called for OS if he collected a save from the GK, as the GK’s save was considered a play; if the ball was collected off the goal, however, he would be sanctioned, as the ball was last played or touched by a teammate.)

The GK's save was not "a play" (if you mean a deliberate act). Any touch by any opponent "cancelled" offside - how matter how far offside the player had been. Any touch, any deflection - so none of this having to determine whether the play was deliberate - you were "played onside". Unfair maybe, but simple.

 

[bloovee]

what’s that have to do with anything???? back in the day there were three send offf offenses: SFP/VC, foul or abusive language, and 2CT.

Nothing really to do with why holding isn't in the CREF, just of historic interest as a sending off for a single push was unheard of (and Summerbee said it wasn't a sending off. Being pedantic, the sending off wasn't for two cautions but for persisting in misconduct after a caution.

I really don’t know what to say. I thought you knew the difference between fouls (for which some are evaluated by CREF to determine if they are fouls) and misconduct (where Law 12 applies a caution to ANY DFK foul committed recklessly). garden variety holding just isn‘t careless—it’s a separate act from lack of care.

I really don’t know what to say. Are you distinguishing between pushing as a "foul" and holding as "misconduct"? Holding is obviously a foul as in SPA, "stops a promising attack with a foul/handball". And if I thought I could be pedantic, are you distinguishing between "careless" and "lack of care"?

 

[socal lurker]

The GK's save was not "a play" (if you mean a deliberate act). Any touch by any opponent "cancelled" offside - how matter how far offside the player had been. Any touch, any deflection - so none of this having to determine whether the play was deliberate - you were "played onside". Unfair maybe, but simple.

As I recall this flipped back and forth on exactly what qualified in the 70s. But you can't put 2021 analysis of the definition of play onto the Laws of the 60s and 70s to argue about what counts as a play. A save was considered a play that reset OS--a player seeking to gain advantage before the save would still be sanctioned, but a player who did nothing until the save would not. Hmm, that sounds like phases of play . . .

Well, my point was that the wording allowed for interpreting it as now for "different phases of play" but it was not in practice applied. Even aftet Ray Tinkler in the Leeds v WBA match set the tone, any player in an offside position who ran forward in the hope of getting a pass from a player who'd beaten the offside trap would be called for gaining an advantage.

You're simply wrong here. Whether the phase of play phrase was used, the concept absolutely, positively was there without any question--without it once as player was in OSP once he was there for the rest of the game! You're confusing two separate ideas to get to a nonsensical result.

Since "seeking to gain an advantage" was punishable as OS, a player running toward a cross violated Law 11 in that phase of play. If he did not seek to gain an advantage, it all reset on the next phase--exactly as it does today. The difference is about what active involvement meant, not at all about phases of play.

I really don’t know what to say. Are you distinguishing between pushing as a "foul" and holding as "misconduct"? Holding is obviously a foul as in SPA, "stops a promising attack with a foul/handball". And if I thought I could be pedantic, are you distinguishing between "careless" and "lack of care"?

I give up. I really can't tell if you are being deliberately obtuse or not. Several fouls are defined as fouls only if they are CREF. But any DFK foul committed recklessly is a caution. That is just black and white in Law 12.

I'm done here.

 

[bloovee]

As I recall this flipped back and forth on exactly what qualified in the 70s. But you can't put 2021 analysis of the definition of play onto the Laws of the 60s and 70s to argue about what counts as a play. A save was considered a play that reset OS--a player seeking to gain advantage before the save would still be sanctioned, but a player who did nothing until the save would not. Hmm, that sounds like phases of play . . .


You're simply wrong here. Whether the phase of play phrase was used, the concept absolutely, positively was there without any question--without it once as player was in OSP once he was there for the rest of the game! You're confusing two separate ideas to get to a nonsensical result.

Since "seeking to gain an advantage" was punishable as OS, a player running toward a cross violated Law 11 in that phase of play. If he did not seek to gain an advantage, it all reset on the next phase--exactly as it does today. The difference is about what active involvement meant, not at all about phases of play.


I give up. I really can't tell if you are being deliberately obtuse or not. Several fouls are defined as fouls only if they are CREF. But any DFK foul committed recklessly is a caution. That is just black and white in Law 12.

I'm done here.

Probably just as well, as half the time I think we agree, but then (e.g.) you say something about "a play" by a GK in the 60s/70s ... but then accuse me of trying to impose current wording onto that period.

It all goes back to badly worded laws now. E.g. "fouls are defined as fouls only if they are CREF". But law 12 calls everything in that first list not fouls but "offences" - but only penalised with a DFK if in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force. They might have meant they were not offences unless in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force, but that's not what it says.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Probably just as well, as half the time I think we agree, but then (e.g.) you say something about "a play" by a GK in the 60s/70s ... but then accuse me of trying to impose current wording onto that period.

It all goes back to badly worded laws now. E.g. "fouls are defined as fouls only if they are CREF". But law 12 calls everything in that first list not fouls but "offences" - but only penalised with a DFK if in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force. They might have meant they were not offences unless in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force, but that's not what it says.

Law 12 shows the offences in question are only offences if careless, reckless, or excessive force.

 

[bloovee]

Law 12 shows the offences in question are only offences if careless, reckless, or excessive force.

That's not what it says. It's what it means, but it's not what it says.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

That's not what it says. It's what it means, but it's not what it says.

It’s exactly what it says!