I'll stick with it
Deliberate kick to the GK
- Thread starter cdsman
- Start date
You mean "has no longer been"? Or...?
Hi
Sorry typo. Yes No longer a deliberate kick.
Tacit knowledge over many years has meant that referees did not punish with the IDFK when the ball was touched / played by an opponent or a touch by a defender that is allowed on a deliberate kick.
For example what referee that is going to penalise a deliberate kick to the GK that an attacker fails to prevent yet plays / touches the ball enroute or in a similar situation where the deliberate kick to the GK is headed on by a defender.
Sorry typo. Yes No longer a deliberate kick.
Tacit knowledge over many years has meant that referees did not punish with the IDFK when the ball was touched / played by an opponent or a touch by a defender that is allowed on a deliberate kick.
For example what referee that is going to penalise a deliberate kick to the GK that an attacker fails to prevent yet plays / touches the ball enroute or in a similar situation where the deliberate kick to the GK is headed on by a defender.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
So I decided to send an email to the IFAB to get an official ruling on this - again (as mentioned, I believe we'd had one previously). Surprise, surprise, the answer came back the same as before:
Perfect. We'll take the words of Boudien as gospel. Much better to accept without challenge the words of a comms and admin manager, rather than, say, someone like David Elleray. We have no idea whether this is just her opinion, or whether she has validated the response with someone such as the aforementioned.
@Peter Grove could you ask a follow up question to see if she can explain why her response conflicts with the wording in the LotG (and I've checked the amendments for 17/18 as well)?
@Peter Grove could you ask a follow up question to see if she can explain why her response conflicts with the wording in the LotG (and I've checked the amendments for 17/18 as well)?
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Take a minute to think about the implications of what you're saying. What you seem to be suggesting is that the IFAB, the sole guardian of the Laws of the Game, has a policy that any time a laws enquiry is sent to their official email address they just assign it to a random member of staff to reply on behalf of the IFAB (once again using the IFAB's official email) giving a purely individual opinion without checking it. I don't know, maybe you're right and they do this as it is their main purpose and absolutely in their best interests (and in the best interests of the game) to sow confusion among the ranks of the refereeing community and to encourage differing interpretations of the Laws. But somehow I don't think so.
You are also ignoring the fact that this response is in complete accord with the ruling previously sent by FIFA to the ScottIsh FA on the same matter and that (as I said in an earlier post) if the word 'directly' is not understood then the law becomes impossible to apply, since if a single deflection does not reset matters, neither would any number of intermediate touches.
Anyway, although I felt slightly embarrassed to do it, as I am pretty sure what the response will be, I have sent a follow-up email asking for a re-confirmation of the official response that was already issued by an IFAB spokesperson.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
And here's the confirmation:
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Nice on @Peter Grove Thanks for taking the time to do that.
All you have to do now is convince @Brian Hamilton
All you have to do now is convince @Brian Hamilton
Thank-you @Peter Grove
The point I was making is that IFAB, as essentially a law making organisation (but for a sport, rather than for a country), needs to get on top of how it words things, whether that be in the LotG themselves, or in replies to enquiries. Laws should not be open to interpretation, other than where the application of the law is ITOOTR. Laws that are open to interpretation can be pulled apart, and leaves us potentially as the sole arbiter in the middle of a pitch of 22 people playing the game, surrounded by their coaches (and potentially spectators).
Even that second reply you received - why did David Elleray have to use the word "opinion"? Why is it only an opinion, and not the law itself? If he'd have replied that this was "the ruling from the technical director", it would not leave the subject open to anybodies opinion. Unfortunately "opinion" suggests a lack of confidence, a lack of willingness to commit. An opinion is non-contractual. Does this opinion need to be ratified by the board of IFAB before it becomes official?
IFAB have spent a lot of time on revising the laws to simplify the language, and to cut out misunderstandings. They need to always be explicit in any and all official communication, which the response you received was (official, but not explicit). Not a comment on this particular law per se, rather on IFAB's behaviour, as guardians of the laws.
The point I was making is that IFAB, as essentially a law making organisation (but for a sport, rather than for a country), needs to get on top of how it words things, whether that be in the LotG themselves, or in replies to enquiries. Laws should not be open to interpretation, other than where the application of the law is ITOOTR. Laws that are open to interpretation can be pulled apart, and leaves us potentially as the sole arbiter in the middle of a pitch of 22 people playing the game, surrounded by their coaches (and potentially spectators).
Even that second reply you received - why did David Elleray have to use the word "opinion"? Why is it only an opinion, and not the law itself? If he'd have replied that this was "the ruling from the technical director", it would not leave the subject open to anybodies opinion. Unfortunately "opinion" suggests a lack of confidence, a lack of willingness to commit. An opinion is non-contractual. Does this opinion need to be ratified by the board of IFAB before it becomes official?
IFAB have spent a lot of time on revising the laws to simplify the language, and to cut out misunderstandings. They need to always be explicit in any and all official communication, which the response you received was (official, but not explicit). Not a comment on this particular law per se, rather on IFAB's behaviour, as guardians of the laws.
Thank you @Peter Grove for obtaining a definitive response. I hereby amend my stance on this matter. Thanks again.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
True, but the FAQ's did not appear (as far as I am aware) until the Laws were put on the site as separate items, once they came into effect. If they follow the same approach this time, we may see some updated FAQ's in June.