What's the restart?

[GraemeS]

Good luck to any public park ref penalising what they deem a trick, and then cautioning the player and saying the words
"Number 4 you circumvented the laws of the game"

Hope you left your car engine running....

You love these imaginary scenarios don't you?

I don't see why any self-respecting referee would have a problem with trying to enforce this law once they've detected a violation. Do they have to quote the law book exactly? Of course not - something along the lines of "you've used a trick to get around the backpass law there, that's a yellow card for unsporting conduct" will do perfectly well.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

You love these imaginary scenarios don't you?

I don't see why any self-respecting referee would have a problem with trying to enforce this law once they've detected a violation. Do they have to quote the law book exactly? Of course not - something along the lines of "you've used a trick to get around the backpass law there, that's a yellow card for unsporting conduct" will do perfectly well.

At the classes, we recommend that when you caution the player, you say what its for. The laws tell us, without us having to make up our own invented words. The LOTG are the same globally. If everybody stuck to whats in the book instead of making up their own versions, things would be more straight forward.

The imaginary situations make it easier to visualize it happening, other than typing 1000 words trying to paint a picture. If we are going to discuss what to do if it happens, I feel its perfectly acceptable to paint a picture in the head of how it would come about. Some folk learn better that way,

 

[GraemeS]

At the classes, we recommend that when you caution the player, you say what its for. The laws tell us, without us having to make up our own invented words. The LOTG are the same globally. If everybody stuck to whats in the book instead of making up their own versions, things would be more straight forward.

The imaginary situations make it easier to visualize it happening, other than typing 1000 words trying to paint a picture. If we are going to discuss what to do if it happens, I feel its perfectly acceptable to paint a picture in the head of how it would come about. Some folk learn better that way,

But you've literally just complained that the laws are confusing and make you sound pretentious/antagonistic. So I suggested that using a simplified version is clearer and makes you sound more grounded. Which side of the argument do you want to take?

And while I do get that point, I don't always understand why the imaginary scenarios always seem to end with a referee cowering in his car? What does that add?

 

[Ciley Myrus]

But you've literally just complained that the laws are confusing and make you sound pretentious/antagonistic. So I suggested that using a simplified version is clearer and makes you sound more grounded. Which side of the argument do you want to take?

And while I do get that point, I don't always understand why the imaginary scenarios always seem to end with a referee cowering in his car? What does that add?

Its my way of saying "good luck with that one". Nobody esp me has asked you or anybody to like or dislike my analogy (sorry in advance to the grammar police if thats not exactly the correct word I was meaning)

 

[Big Cat]

It's ok to mince about with intricacies as it helps cement the basics
I had one last year, defender brought the ball down into possession before the keeper came out and took it off him. They both argued, 'there'd been no back pass', so how could it be an offence?

 

[GraemeS]

Its my way of saying "good luck with that one". Nobody esp me has asked you or anybody to like or dislike my analogy (sorry in advance to the grammar police if thats not exactly the correct word I was meaning)

Which takes us round in a circle to my initial point - unless you're being patronising or condescending, I don't understand why you think there would be any difficult in applying this law.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Which takes us round in a circle to my initial point - unless you're being patronising or condescending, I don't understand why you think there would be any difficult in applying this law.

If you mean me personally...its nothing I have ever had to give and although nobody knows what happens tomorrow, I cant see how I will be giving it too many times before I end up in an urn. My point was meant to be, i was trying to imagine me firstly actually blowing the whistle to penalise this, and I was trying to visualize the reaction, and in my image, I have now had 3/4 yellows for dissent, possibly a red for f/a and indeed the yc for the guy who circumvented. I also now have a time delay of, 3/4/5 mins, i have the other team wondering wtf is going on never mind the offending team, the other team have prob tried already to take a quick free kick and now they might be even moaning that they could not as I was dealing with other things, I have a coach now screaming for a word and all am able to shout back is "deliberate trick" , I then have a sideline shouting back at me "nice one Paul Daniels" and so on.........and all because I know the laws and am not afraid to use them........

or maybe I will just use law 18

 

[Big Cat]

I gave an IDFK for my scenario
I didn't issue any caution however, as they hadn't attempted to circumvent the law, rather they'd just fallen foul of it

 

[GraemeS]

If you mean me personally...its nothing I have ever had to give and although nobody knows what happens tomorrow, I cant see how I will be giving it too many times before I end up in an urn. My point was meant to be, i was trying to imagine me firstly actually blowing the whistle to penalise this, and I was trying to visualize the reaction, and in my image, I have now had 3/4 yellows for dissent, possibly a red for f/a and indeed the yc for the guy who circumvented. I also now have a time delay of, 3/4/5 mins, i have the other team wondering wtf is going on never mind the offending team, the other team have prob tried already to take a quick free kick and now they might be even moaning that they could not as I was dealing with other things, I have a coach now screaming for a word and all am able to shout back is "deliberate trick" , I then have a sideline shouting back at me "nice one Paul Daniels" and so on.........and all because I know the laws and am not afraid to use them........

or maybe I will just use law 18

And that's the ridiculous fantasy. You're the ref. You've blown your whistle to apply the laws. You explain the decision as you give it, and then you get on with the game.

I've given some decisions that will seem strange to an outsider in my time: multiple failing to respect the distance cautions, same again for someone harassing a thrower, DOGSO on the half way line, penalty for something so far off the ball no one else knew it had happened and every foul throw ever. I've never had anything even close to the reaction you seem to be imagining.

This fantasy scenario you've made up doesn't justify using "law 18" to bottle making a decision you're employed to make IMO.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

And that's the ridiculous fantasy. You're the ref. You've blown your whistle to apply the laws. You explain the decision as you give it, and then you get on with the game.

I've given some decisions that will seem strange to an outsider in my time: multiple failing to respect the distance cautions, same again for someone harassing a thrower, DOGSO on the half way line, penalty for something so far off the ball no one else knew it had happened and every foul throw ever. I've never had anything even close to the reaction you seem to be imagining.

This fantasy scenario you've made up doesn't justify using "law 18" to bottle making a decision you're employed to make IMO.

Hen, the day I bottle any decision on yon footy field has not yet been invented
If you are giving pens that nobody else is aware of, then, maybe you focus should be on your own management of your own game and leave me to mine.....

 

[GraemeS]

Hen, the day I bottle any decision on yon footy field has not yet been invented
If you are giving pens that nobody else is aware of, then, maybe you focus should be on your own management of your own game and leave me to mine.....

Haha, I'm not the one who suggested ignoring the laws because you didn't feel like dealing with the consequences! You can dodge around the word all you like, but it sounds like bottling to me.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Haha, I'm not the one who suggested ignoring the laws because you didn't feel like dealing with the consequences! You can dodge around the word all you like, but it sounds like bottling to me.

No, I will manage my game as I see fit. As you can yours
Bigger picture.
Anybody can know the laws
Not anybody can know how to apply them

 

[GraemeS]

No, I will manage my game as I see fit. As you can yours
Bigger picture.
Anybody can know the laws
Not anybody can know how to apply them

Or in some cases, not apply them....

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Or in some cases, not apply them....

They are laws..not rules, for a reason. The clue is in the name

 

[RobOda]

Knee it up to his shoulder then head it back. What would you do?

Hm, no offence? But, my argument there would be because it is immaterial what he uses to sent the ball back because if it is at knee height he's still not circumventing the backpass law. - As in, it's irrelevant if he knees it back, or knees it up to head it. There's no circumvention possible. If however, he tries to knee it, missed it and it's on the ground and now he has to play it with his foot, then it's an offence.

 

[Peter Grove]

I'll give this one more try.

An over hit cross comes in at about head high to an isolated defender who directly heads it to his keeper. We all agree there is no offence here.

The same situation, cross comes in, the defender bounces the ball up off his chest, bounces it up again of the top of left shoulder, then the right shoulder then heads it back to the keeper. Now it's clear he has used a deliberate trck here to pass the ball . For me this is still not an offence. If you think it's an offence then we are in disagreement of the intent of back pass / deliberate trick law. If you think it's not an offence, whatever reason you use here (given the wording of the law) I would also use it for the other scenario in debate.

I'm sorry but that's a completely different argument and has nothing you do with the point I was making, which was that it doesn't matter who the ball comes from.

The contention that I was objecting to was the one saying that, "If the ball is kicked along the ground by an opponent and the defender kneels and uses his knee or get on the ground to use his head to pass it back to the keeper it is not circumvention."

Now you have completely changed the scenario to a ball played in the air and coming to the player at chest level.

Just to reiterate, it doesn't matter who the ball comes from, it only matters whether the player uses a deliberate trick designed to avoid the restrictions in Law 12 on using the foot to play the ball to the keeper.

In the example given in quotation marks above, if a player receives a ball kicked along the ground to them and then kneels down to head the ball to their keeper, this is a deliberate trick used to circumvent Law 12 and should be penalised as such, no matter whether the ball was played by a team mate or an opponent.

This was confirmed by the IFAB as follows:


Nowhere in any of my posts in this thread have I referenced the scenario of a player receiving a ball in the air at chest level and that was not the situation you originally posited either, so I'm not sure why you're introducing it now.

As I have said in previous discussions on this matter, it does make a difference whether the player receives the ball on the ground or in the air, however what does not make a difference is who the player receives the ball from.

For what it's worth, what I have said before and what I'll repeat now, is that if a player receives the ball in the air such that he can play it with a part of the body other than the foot without resorting to a contrived or artificial bodily manoeuvre, there is no circumvention.

So in neither of the "overhit cross" scenarios that were described earlier, is there circumvention but that has nothing to do with who the ball came from and everything to do with the actions required of the player to avoid using the foot to play the ball.

In the example of the player juggling the ball from chest to shoulder and shoulder to head, the player may have used a "trick" in a general and non-specific sense but (and this is the important part) he has not used a deliberate trick to avoid the restrictions in Law 12 on using the foot to play the ball to the keeper, since the ball never presented itself in a manner conducive to using the foot in the first place.

 

[Big Cat]

I'm sorry but that's a completely different argument and has nothing you do with the point I was making, which was that it doesn't matter who the ball comes from.

The contention that I was objecting to was the one saying that, "If the ball is kicked along the ground by an opponent and the defender kneels and uses his knee or get on the ground to use his head to pass it back to the keeper it is not circumvention."

Now you have completely changed the scenario to a ball played in the air and coming to the player at chest level.

Just to reiterate, it doesn't matter who the ball comes from, it only matters whether the player uses a deliberate trick designed to avoid the restrictions in Law 12 on using the foot to play the ball to the keeper.

In the example given in quotation marks above, if a player receives a ball kicked along the ground to them and then kneels down to head the ball to their keeper, this is a deliberate trick used to circumvent Law 12 and should be penalised as such, no matter whether the ball was played by a team mate or an opponent.

This was confirmed by the IFAB as follows:
View attachment 2221

Nowhere in any of my posts in this thread have I referenced the scenario of a player receiving a ball in the air at chest level and that was not the situation you originally posited either, so I'm not sure why you're introducing it now.

As I have said in previous discussions on this matter, it does make a difference whether the player receives the ball on the ground or in the air, however what does not make a difference is who the player receives the ball from.

For what it's worth, what I have said before and what I'll repeat now, is that if a player receives the ball in the air such that he can play it with a part of the body other than the foot without resorting to a contrived or artificial bodily manoeuvre, there is no circumvention.

So in neither of the "overhit cross" scenarios that were described earlier, is there circumvention but that has nothing to do with who the ball came from and everything to do with the actions required of the player to avoid using the foot to play the ball.

In the example of the player juggling the ball from chest to shoulder and shoulder to head, the player may have used a "trick" in a general and non-specific sense but (and this is the important part) he has not used a deliberate trick to avoid the restrictions in Law 12 on using the foot to play the ball to the keeper, since the ball never presented itself in a manner conducive to using the foot in the first place.

The grammar in Elleray's response might explain some of the gibberish in the book!