SkySports reporting of the proposed new IFAB laws

[Samuel]

Saw the official link going round a group chat yesterday, but of course I've lost it. 5 sec countdown to start when the referee deems the restart to have taken too long. Really just means we have another reason to not give out delaying restart yellows, with as rare as they are anyway.

I like this cause it means we aren't forced to give a decision if the game doesn't expect it, but also we will see many teams thinking they have got the wrong end of the stick.

 

[socal lurker]

So in the final minutes of the game, no GK is going to take a GK until the ref starts counting. . . There may be some intended impacts from this.

 

[Russell Jones]

So in the final minutes of the game, no GK is going to take a GK until the ref starts counting. . . There may be some intended impacts from this.

I'm sure there will be plenty of intended impacts . As for unintended, you're right, we will setting up a similar situation to the one we now see with the GK punts of teams that are leading. They will typically wait until the count is low before putting the ball back into play. Fortunately, this still means they are doing so far quicker than they were prior to the law change. I actually think things will be pretty simple once the player is in place to take the restart. They 'grey' area, that will need managing with clarity and consistency is the level of expectation regarding the pace at which players need to get the ball and get in position. Put simply, will a walk be acceptable or is a slow jog the minimum needed ....

 

[RustyRef]

Given the reintroduction of long throws into the game I can't see them doing anything to prevent them. The devil will be in the detail, but if the count only starts when the referee deems they are in position / taking too long, the current delays caused by the left back trundling over to take a throw on the right wing and / or the central defenders jogging into place aren't really going to be reduced. Best will in the world it takes time to set up a long throw, so they either have to accept this or effectively outlaw them.

 

[socal lurker]

Given the reintroduction of long throws into the game I can't see them doing anything to prevent them. The devil will be in the detail, but if the count only starts when the referee deems they are in position / taking too long, the current delays caused by the left back trundling over to take a throw on the right wing and / or the central defenders jogging into place aren't really going to be reduced. Best will in the world it takes time to set up a long throw, so they either have to accept this or effectively outlaw them.

Not really. Doesn't have to be the left back taking a long throw on the right side. I don't think the Game needs to wait patiently for that player to casually make his way over. I would hope that instructions to refs are going to be that the count can start after a reasonable time, even if a player isn't there to make the throw in.

As I recall, the rule in basketball, once upon a time, was that the player closest to the ball when it went out had to do the throw in. I personally wouldn't mind that rule, even though I've often been the one coming over to take a throw as I have a strong throw (OK, also because I'm not as strong with the ball at my feet . . .)--but I don't imagine the Game would have much appetite for that idea.

 

[socal lurker]

I don't think this has been mentioned here yet--the league that is going to trial the daylight OS concept doesn't use VAR. Doesn't sem that is going to give a good sense of how it would actually impact professional soccer. Though perhaps will help show how difficult that actual judgment is for the 99%+ of games that don't use VAR.

 

[RefereeX]

I don't think this has been mentioned here yet--the league that is going to trial the daylight OS concept doesn't use VAR. Doesn't sem that is going to give a good sense of how it would actually impact professional soccer. Though perhaps will help show how difficult that actual judgment is for the 99%+ of games that don't use VAR.

I honestly don't even know why they're trialling it. Worst idea anyone has had for a long time.

 

[RustyRef]

Not really. Doesn't have to be the left back taking a long throw on the right side. I don't think the Game needs to wait patiently for that player to casually make his way over. I would hope that instructions to refs are going to be that the count can start after a reasonable time, even if a player isn't there to make the throw in.

As I recall, the rule in basketball, once upon a time, was that the player closest to the ball when it went out had to do the throw in. I personally wouldn't mind that rule, even though I've often been the one coming over to take a throw as I have a strong throw (OK, also because I'm not as strong with the ball at my feet . . .)--but I don't imagine the Game would have much appetite for that idea.

That hardly seems fair though. As an example, Brentford have probably the best long thrower in football in Kayode, and he is a right back, to prohibit him from taking long throws on the left wing is arguably a restriction of trade. The way football is at the moment he could probably argue that his saleable value, and therefore his potential earnings, had been unfairly restricted by such a law change.

 

[socal lurker]

That hardly seems fair though. As an example, Brentford have probably the best long thrower in football in Kayode, and he is a right back, to prohibit him from taking long throws on the left wing is arguably a restriction of trade. The way football is at the moment he could probably argue that his saleable value, and therefore his potential earnings, had been unfairly restricted by such a law change.

That sounds like a whole lot of nonsense to me. Every rule change has winners and losers.

 

[JamesL]

I'd like to see a law clarification to state that while a referee should stop play at the earliest opportunity if a player is down possibly seriously injured, including a head injury, a team have no right to argue that the referee's failure to stop play if he doesn't see the injury as serious enough is the cause of them going on to concede a goal or similar, and that stopping play in that situation is for the players safety and not to prevent a team defending with a man down.

This is very specific....

 

[RustyRef]

That sounds like a whole lot of nonsense to me. Every rule change has winners and losers.

Not really. We already have the situation that footballers are threatening legal action over the amount of games they have to play, even though the increase in games is a direct result of the ever increasing salaries they are demanding. It isn't beyond comprehension that a player who probably has an extra £20k a week put on his potential salary due to a specific skill takes legal action because he is financially disadvantaged by having that potential skill removed from his arsenal by a law change.

 

[DavidObs]

Not really. We already have the situation that footballers are threatening legal action over the amount of games they have to play, even though the increase in games is a direct result of the ever increasing salaries they are demanding. It isn't beyond comprehension that a player who probably has an extra £20k a week put on his potential salary due to a specific skill takes legal action because he is financially disadvantaged by having that potential skill removed from his arsenal by a law change.

Ridiculous about players wanting to go on strikes when they play less time in the FA Cup than they ever used to & want all the trimmings of everything they receive - chauffeur driven cars to games/personal PA’s/pampered etc. It would not surprise me that with smaller squads of players in the 70’s,80’s & 90’s played more games than they do now, with League Cups and FA Cups with replays and extra time.

 

[santa sangria]

Sorry to mention futsal… the 5s works in futsal and the powers have had years to study it.

In futsal the teams also understand it. At the highest levels they appreciate that the 4 second count is for the benefit of the paying punters.

The count starts when the player is ready - but also if another player positions the ball, or starts interfering close to the spot - so you can’t faff then run off and leave it to a mate without the count starting.

There are going yo be a few nuances with ball retrieval to work out but I think it will work great - and be welcomed by clubs with paying punters. Elite clubs will whinge depending on whether they win or lose pf course!

 

[santa sangria]

…in high levels futsal (televised etc.) the teams know part of our job is to hurry them up. Flagrant slow walking to a corner can lead to the count starting…

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

That hardly seems fair though. As an example, Brentford have probably the best long thrower in football in Kayode, and he is a right back, to prohibit him from taking long throws on the left wing is arguably a restriction of trade. The way football is at the moment he could probably argue that his saleable value, and therefore his potential earnings, had been unfairly restricted by such a law change.

If the change does come in as discussed here, the Brentford goalkeeper needs to go down "injured" until Kayode has wandered across to take the throw

 

[bester]

You have to feel for the throw-in coaches. They'll have a really strong case at CAS

 

[RefereeX]

This is very specific....

I know, but I’ve seen it happen and it would also discourage players going down holding their heads to get an attack stopped. I just worry if we go too far in the direction of head injuries mean play stops, that will be the next big problem

 

[one]

The game is for the spectators and fans. Without them there is no game (I wish VAR makers knew this). The law changes are about making the game safer, fairer and more attractive to watch. GK and TI count, as well as tactical goalkeeper injury prevention are of the latter kind (making the game attractive to watch). Players will always adapt to law changes and make it work.
Adaptability is also a curse, if there are loopholes, player will find it. That's why we have the dilemma now.

So in the final minutes of the game, no GK is going to take a GK until the ref starts counting. . . There may be some intended impacts from this.

Which will be faster than every GK that is being taken with current laws in same senario. If otherwise, the problem won't be with the law change, it will be with the referee's application of it.

 

[Pembroke]

Sorry to mention futsal… the 5s works in futsal and the powers have had years to study it.

In futsal the teams also understand it. At the highest levels they appreciate that the 4 second count is for the benefit of the paying punters.

The count starts when the player is ready - but also if another player positions the ball, or starts interfering close to the spot - so you can’t faff then run off and leave it to a mate without the count starting.

There are going yo be a few nuances with ball retrieval to work out but I think it will work great - and be welcomed by clubs with paying punters. Elite clubs will whinge depending on whether they win or lose pf course!

The four second rule in Futsal is not for the benefit of paying customers. Its part of the game of Futsal, a game that is two halves of twenty minutes with rolling subs on a pitch that is forty metres long.

 

[one]

The four second rule in Futsal is not for the benefit of paying customers. Its part of the game of Futsal, a game that is two halves of twenty minutes with rolling subs on a pitch that is forty metres long.

It's important to mention that there is a stop clock in futsal. Which means the 4 second count is not so that we don't lose playing time. its to make the game faster and more attractive "for the benefit of the paying customer" . Faster and more attractive is what's lacking in football now. Those games are few and far between.