Corner kick

I'm not sure whether it's me not being precise and clear - I think I have been. I've already said that the ball "doesn't have to wholly be within the line" - but 30 years ago the argument would have been whether any of the ball could be outside the line, or it was OK just to have the base of the ball on the line and part of the ball outside. No-one then thought of applying "ball in and out of play" to this - this idea I think infiltrated from the USA.

I don't accept the notion that Law 9 creates a precedent for what "in the corner arc/area" means, so there's no "exception". Of course I can't show you where my interpretation is stated - hence my complaint that the latest revision might have addressed this.

I'm suggesting that the old diagram was intended to clarify that for "in" the ball could be on the line but part outside (and that they didn't include a ball "outside" the arc but a bit hanging inside the arc because that wasn't the issue at the time).

At a goal kick, where opponents must be outside the penalty area, if the opponent stands just outside the area and the goal kick hits him, what do you do? If law 9 applies (i.e. no exception), has the ball left the area?

I don't really think '30 years ago' is particularly relevant.....also don't have any way of verifying your claim nor what the LOTG said. LOTG or additional advice may have said something specific then. They don't know. So, moving on.

As said before, the LOTG clearly state that the lines form part of area they enclose. And the LOTG states the ball must be 'in' the corner arc, not 'wholly in'. so, partially on the line = in the corner arc. There's simply no other way the LOTG can be interpreted that is consistent. without stating 'for no reason whatsoever, I believe it's the opposite interpretation here'.

There is nowhere in the LOTG that is concerned with where the base of the ball is. So why on earth would you think it matters here when there is no mention of it?

bloovee said:

At a goal kick, where opponents must be outside the penalty area, if the opponent stands just outside the area and the goal kick hits him, what do you do? If law 9 applies (i.e. no exception), has the ball left the area?

Click to expand...

Of course it hasn't. What's your point? It's Law 1 that states the PA line is part of the PA.

It's relevant if the law was always understood one way but then for no reason whatsoever some started interpreting it a different way.

My point on the goal kick is: the law says the opponent must be outside the penalty area - so you'd think in that position he should be able to play the ball. That seems as logical as applying law 9 criteria (where the law is silent on any wider application).

@bloovee i think you're simply digging a hole and frankly I'm not certain of the purpose.

Regardless on the point in time when the interpretation came into being, the fact that IFAB have considered it acceptable by not amending the wording of the law to clarify or distinguish following the most fundamental revision to the laws in a long while means that any part of the ball being on or overhanging the line constitutes "in".

Not sure I understand the point regarding the position of an attacker outside the penalty area at a goal kick as it is perfectly possible for some lone outside a define area or line to play the ball before it had fully crossed the line and therefore come into play.

bloovee said:

It's relevant if the law was always understood one way but then for no reason whatsoever some started interpreting it a different way.

My point on the goal kick is: the law says the opponent must be outside the penalty area - so you'd think in that position he should be able to play the ball. That seems as logical as applying law 9 criteria (where the law is silent on any wider application).

Click to expand...

The law also states the the ball is not in play until it leaves the PA. That's the relevant part. It actually doesn't matter if the player you're talking about is an attacker or a defender.

Not sure what the relevance is. Clutching at straws bloovee, methinks.

In defence of Blovee I believe that prior to the 1997 re-write of the laws the ball at a corner kick did have to be totally inside the corner arc. What has happened since then is a gradual attempt to move towards a consistent application of laws, and the idea that lines are part of the areas they enclose is now applied across the board.

Hmmm.. Now I will have to find my folder with my copies of the laws in the last 5 decades.... I don't recall any actual change that relaxed what "in" meant (either from wholly in to base of ball within or from thence to merely a part in).

I maintain it's a leap from saying that lines enclose the areas (which has been understood a very long time) to the relatively recent idea that law 9 applies generally, rather than exclusively to law 9. It's obviously a leap that people seem willing to make for a "consistency" that means nothing (except to confuse players and fans who used to understand what "in" meant). It actually led a while ago to the spurious argument that the keeper could handle the ball outside his penalty area so long as part of the ball was "in" the area (which was slapped down by FIFA adding the diagram for the AR position to make sure the GK "does not touch the ball with his hands outside the penalty area").

(That should keep the thread going - I'm going away for a couple of days!)

How is it a leap from saying 'all lines form part of the area they enclose' to saying 'the corner arc forms part of the area it encloses'?

It would be a huge leap of logic to say anything but.
Not sure why you're insistent on law 9 - the relevant clause is in Law 1.

bloovee said:

. It actually led a while ago to the spurious argument that the keeper could handle the ball outside his penalty area so long as part of the ball was "in" the area (which was slapped down by FIFA adding the diagram for the AR position to make sure the GK "does not touch the ball with his hands outside the penalty area").

Click to expand...

Erm, the goalkeeper can have his hands on the outside of the ball as long as any part of it is in. Because that is 'in' the penalty area. FIFA's statement there isn't changing anything.....

You're starting to worry us bloovee!

With the quote I provided above you cannot possibly draw any other conclusion on either example. Find me one single statement in law to prove the opposite - so far all the evidence you've provided has supported my position!

'in' does not, in any part of the law, mean 'wholly in' - in fact, the law specifically states this is not the case. So it makes no sense to assume it means 'wholly in' in certain random areas of the law with no actual reasoning behind that. That's just a random approach to the laws, and quite incorrect in law. It's not even a matter of interpretation here.

@CapnBloodbeard - are you / we / LOTG saying that the size of the penalty area can effectively be extended by 9 inches (diameter of the ball) ..?

I'm happy to go with any Law - no matter how difficult it would be to sell this to players when they see a GK hand nearly a foot outside the area

... is my correct response to any aggrieved player "it doesn't matter where the GK hand is - all that matters is where the ball is - same applies if the GK was defending their goal line .." ?

Thanks

If 1% of the ball is on the line, then the ball is in the PA.
It's never mattered what part of the ball the keeper is touching - is the ball in the PA or not? Given those 2 facts, the ball can be 99% outside of the PA, the GK is handling only the part outside the PA (say, he's on the ground outside the PA), and no offence has been committed.

Hard to sell? Sure, but as the referee we know the laws better than those 22 players. So it's our job to deal with the hard-to-sell ones.

Very good shout @CapnBloodbeard

CapnBloodbeard said:

It's never mattered what part of the ball the keeper is touching - is the ball in the PA or not?

Click to expand...

I can't give chapter and verse till I'm back home, but that's definitely not true. GK cannot use his hands outside the penalty area. (When the GK could use his hands in his own half - that's going back even before my time - do you think both keepers could reach into the other half for the ball?) More tomorrow!

Ok, let me put it to you this way.
If you're going to award a DFK for a goalkeeper who is handling the ball on the PA line, where is the FK being taken from?

No FK if his hand is on the line. If his hand is outside the line then as for any FK the kick is taken from where the infringement occurred.

So the goalkeeper is standing, feet on the edge of the PA. Hugging the ball, so half the ball is outside the PA with his arms on that part.
Where is the FK?

Of course, one can only presume that you would argue the same holds true in reverse - ball straddling the line, defender punches the part outside the PA - so no PK?

So logically it would then follow that if the ball is on the edge of the touch line and a player, outside the FOP, slaps the part of the ball that's outside the FOP......drop ball? Play on?

Stand well back!

Let's say immediately that there is no way to have absolute consistency on this. I'm just saying that until a few years ago everyone knew what the law about "in" meant - until the Americans invented a need for "consistency".

Your first Q - the FK is on the ground right under where his hands are.

Re your middle bit - are you saying that a player hacked down just outside the penalty area is not a penalty, but a defender punching the ball toward his own goal - with his hand nearly nine inches outside the area - is a penalty? Not much consistency there... How can you possibly derive that from "A penalty kick is awarded against a team that commits one of the ten offences for which a direct free kick is awarded, inside its own penalty area"?

I don't want to get distracted over your last point (edge of the touch line) but I don't see how you avoid inconsistency. The ball is in play but the offence obviously occurs outside the field of play. (Has anyone actually seen a professional game where a player off the field, running with the ball and keeping it in play, has been fouled and the award has been a dropped ball rather than a FK on the line? I can't recall one, whatever the law says.)

Anyway, here goes with the history....

Compare and contrast:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/mar/06/you-are-the-ref-robbie-savage#_
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/13/trevillion-hackett-steve-bruce-sunderland

See also (the source of this surreptitious and pernicious change in interpretation):http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?cat=34
http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?cat=34 and item 5:
"The goalkeeper and the penalty area line" which takes what I will call the "new" interpretation (because it is). NB it says "[This answer repeats materials used in answers from 2003-2009, all in the archives of this site.]" Before 2003, they had my "old" interpretation. But go to page 2 of that USAF thread and there's the old interpretation in two replies on November 3 2008 (ignore the IDFK nonsense). I don't think I can trace my email of 13 years ago (!) to Jim .... of Asktheref but he said they'd "changed their mind" because (for some reason that hadn't occurred to anyone in over 100 years of refereeing) they thought the law 9 provision should be applied to other areas marked on the FoP.

Anyway, here's my last email to FIFA which sets out why I thought the diagram in the laws (now Law 6 "Goalkeeper releasing the ball") made it absolutely clear that I was (and am) right. (The diagram appeared after my email....)

They've not revised it to be beyond any doubt but if you don't think the diagram is already clear I may not convince you otherwise. There can be only one plain understanding of "check that the goalkeeper does not touch the ball with his hands outside the penalty area".




To: 'media@fifa.org'
Subject: "in the penalty area"


I emailed you in November 2006 re the interpretation that the goalkeeper could handle the ball if part of the ball was in the penalty area (rather than only being able to use his hands within the penalty area).


Soon afterwards, coincidence or not, the laws included a new diagram (Interpretation and Guidelines section, Assistant Referees, diagram 4) that I thought confirmed the view that it was the position of the hands that mattered.


It is still being taught that the position of the ball is what matters.


USSF, until 2003 having supported the view that it is where the hands are that matters, changed its mind and are still promoting the “position of the ball” interpretation:

http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?cat=34 THE GOALKEEPER AND THE PENALTY AREA LINE October 12, 2010
I’m writing now because the regular feature strip in the Guardian, “You are the Ref”, has also now printed this interpretation:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/13/trevillion-hackett-steve-bruce-sunderland
even though a previous strip had the opposite view http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/mar/06/you-are-the-ref-robbie-savage#_
Assuming that FIFA did intend to support what I regard as the traditional interpretation, a revised wording might be needed; if not to law 12, the instruction to assistants might be changed:
The assistant referees must take a position in line with the edge of the penalty area and check that the goalkeeper does not touch the ball with his hands outside the penalty area


to become


The assistant referees must take a position in line with the edge of the penalty area and check that the goalkeeper does not use his hands outside the penalty area to touch the ball.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


For brevity I won't quote the whole 2006 email - but I'd not been able to get a definitive answer from the FA (or senior refs I tried) but most EPL refs seemed on my side. My arguments for the "traditional view" were:

1. Historically, the goalkeeper could handle within his own half, and presumably this did not allow a keeper to reach over the half-way line.
2. Linguistically, the law (in all official languages) clearly means that “within the penalty area” applies to the act of handling, not the position of the ball.
3. It makes “within the penalty area” mean something other than its plain meaning.
4. It would mean a goalkeeper could legitimately touch a ball 20cm outside the area if the ball is “in the penalty area”, but if the ball is wholly outside the area it would be an offence, although the keeper’s hand was in exactly the same position. (Most who hold this view seem to think that a defender handling a ball “in the penalty area” should not concede a penalty unless his hand is in the penalty area, thus creating another inconsistency.)

For officials, it is easier to judge whether a hand is on the ball outside the line, whereas for the new interpretation officials would need to see the edge of the ball in relation to the line and the hand in another position. In some cases it would be no more difficult that an assistant referee judging whether a ball has been kept in play, but at some angles (and without an assistant) it would be much harder to judge.

And I did add:

Law 9 might also be clarified, viz. “handling offences committed outside the boundary lines of the field of play but while the ball is in play are deemed to have been committed on the field of play”.

There can be only one plain understanding of "check that the goalkeeper does not touch the ball with his hands outside the penalty area". (Bloovee)

Bloovee I am a little bemused by the point of all this discussion. You appear to be on some kind of campaign to revert to a (possible) older interpretation of the Laws, ie that it is not the position of the ball that matters in a case of Deliberate Handling, but rather where the hands are. To do this, you cite the above part of Law 6.

Sadly, you appear to miss an important consideration of how the Laws have worked for 150 years, ie sometimes the exact words may read differently but the intention is made clear by IFAB and FIFA. For instance for over one hundred years the Laws never said that a sent off player cannot return (since 2016 they do now!). Nor for a century and a half did it state anywhere that the team scoring most goals won the match! (Changed now also) Offside was very poorly worded to mean that a player had to be in active play (touching or challenging for the ball) at the EXACT moment the pass to the offside player was made...also now updated.

So though you are right that the law does not read precisely as it is interpreted, we have been told how to interpret. Handling is judged by position of the ball. Your discussion of a foul outside the PA has no bearing: fouls are judged by position of the offence, Handling by position of ball ...simple and consistent. This is all down to IFAB, not "America" as you want to suggest. America does not make the Laws. Indeed the USSF had to change its interpretation of Offside because IFAB pointed out they were out of step.

Now you may well be right that the older interpretation was very different. So what? Laws change all the time. For 150 years a kick-off had to go forward...now it does not matter. Interpretations also get revised without any alteration in the Law itself. Interpretation of Offside has changed radically since 2005 without any major change in wording of the Law. But it seems to me that you are getting personally (and emotionally) tied in to all this. You describe the change as "surreptitious and pernicious". It's only a Law of Football, not a Law of Nature! To a referee it should not matter what the Law is, so long as we have all been told to interpret it the same...and the responses to your comments show how out of line you now are with common acceptance of the interpretation here.

A final few points...Keith Hackett is the WORST person to use as an exemplar of the Laws...he is always giving very unusual and personal views (ie wrong) of what the Law is. Secondly the comments you refer to about why the "touchline" is so called are just wrong. In 1863 a ball leaving the pitch (no line yet, just marked by flags) was thrown in again by the first team to touch the ball...hence the area outside the pitch was known as "touch" and the line, when it appeared,as the "touch" line.

Ganajin said:

There can be only one plain understanding of "check that the goalkeeper does not touch the ball with his hands outside the penalty area". (Bloovee)

Bloovee I am a little bemused by the point of all this discussion. You appear to be on some kind of campaign to revert to a (possible) older interpretation of the Laws, ie that it is not the position of the ball that matters in a case of Deliberate Handling, but rather where the hands are. To do this, you cite the above part of Law 6.


So though you are right that the law does not read precisely as it is interpreted, we have been told how to interpret. Handling is judged by position of the ball.

....... Secondly the comments you refer to about why the "touchline" is so called are just wrong. In 1863 a ball leaving the pitch (no line yet, just marked by flags) was thrown in again by the first team to touch the ball...hence the area outside the pitch was known as "touch" and the line, when it appeared,as the "touch" line.

Click to expand...

There's no revert about it. I'm saying that there's never been any official change in the interpretation. If you have been told that it is the position of the ball that matters, not the position of the hands, then I want to know why those who taught you this think the interpretation changed, and what authority they had (or have if that's still being taught). The USAF "changed their minds", others followed, but there is nothing in the laws that would make anyone reading them for themselves conclude that they allow the GK to use his hands outside the penalty area - and while FIFA haven't taken up my suggestion to make it even clearer, they certainly haven't taken the opportunity to make clear that the GK can use his hands outside the penalty area - but when the law says he can't, why would they?

I have absolutely no idea what the last bit is about. No-one's said anything about why the touch line is called the touch line.

Hi
If we go back far enough a corner kick was taken one yard from the corner flag with no arc. The arc was introduced to bring order to the placement. Now we can argue forever about technicalities and what the law says or doesn't say yet the accepted practise at all levels including the very highest is that once the ball breaks the plane of the arc it is considered in the area and legal. I have seen FIFA ARs step forward to look down at the ball and agree that all is well when it looks "in" that is breaking the plane. If we go any other way then all of the ball must be inside the arc line and that plainly never ever happens.
Now I recall on other sites the GK handling on the line bring discussed ad finitum. The majority camp was of the view that if any part of the ball was on the penalty area line it was inside the penalty area as per Law 1 and the GK could then legally handle it. It is semantics to get involved in a debate about the part of the ball that the GK touches with his hands. We have all seen the GK slide out of the penalty area and he endeavours holds the ball on the line or inside it with his hands. For me if the ball is inside the penalty area the GK can handle it. For me all of the ball has to over all of the line to be outside the area it defines and that is consistent throughout the laws including the goal line and touchline so why make the penalty area line any different.
My last comment is that the Laws are not a legal document and QCs could tear any law to shreds and argue points for days with no conclusion. The judge is the referee on the day. For me if the ball is on plane of the arc it is IN and the same applies to the penalty area.

Ganajin said:

For instance for over one hundred years the Laws never said that a sent off player cannot return (since 2016 they do now!). Nor for a century and a half did it state anywhere that the team scoring most goals won the match! (Changed now also)

Click to expand...

Leaving aside everything else you've said in your post for just a moment, I should just point out that those two points are incorrect. It is only for about the last 20 years (since 1997) that the wording about a sent-off player not being replaced and the team scoring the most goals winning the match has been omitted. Prior to that, both were specified in the Laws.