Dutch Referee Blog - Laws of the Game changes for 2020-2021

Laws of the Game changes for 2020-2021. Some highlights first, then the summary. You can also download the full text pdf. Summary of Laws of the Game changes for 2020-2021 Law 1 – The Field of Play Goalposts and the crossbar may be a combination of the four basic shapes Law 10 – Determining the […]

Continue reading...

 

[one]

My favorites:

• ‘accidental’ handball by an attacking player (or team-mate) is only penalised if it occurs ‘immediately’ before a goal or clear goal-scoring opportunity

We have debated this here a few time for needing clarification. A VVD accidental handball was correctly not penalised. A an IBra accidental handball was incorrectly penalised.

• A goalkeeper can receive a YC or be sent off (RC) for ‘illegally’ touching the ball a second time after a restart (e.g. goal kick, free kick etc.) even if the touch is with the hand/arm

I have been arguing this for years. The wording of the law made this possible until a recent change. Now it is possible again. As long as it is an offence and DOGSO should be red (or yellow) regardless of hand or foot.


And this one should have included the attackers from the wall for 1m distance.

• A player who fails to respect the 4m required distance at a dropped ball should receive a YC

 

[Mr Dean]

How tf does this help?

At least they removed the word 'usually'.

 

[Peter Grove]

I think this change in the VAR protocol is quite a biggie - and I think we know who it's aimed at primarily.

For subjective decisions, e.g. intensity of a foul challenge, interference at offside, handball considerations, an ‘on-field review’ (OFR) is appropriate
[...]
• Reorganising the text emphasises that ‘on-field reviews’ (OFRs) are expected when the incident/decision is non-factual.

 

[Peter Grove]

This is another interesting one:

A holding offence occurs only when a player’s contact with an opponent’s body or equipment impedes the opponent’s movement

This would seem to indicate a relaxing of the standard on what constitutes holding.

 

[Big Cat]

Law 14 is a mess... as is Law 10. Law 12 is all over the place (Whilst I'm on, the rest of the Laws aren't much better)
Having officiated in two sports for some time, it long since struck me that there's something intrinsically wrong with the wordy nature of how sporting rules evolve. Both golf and football (in which I'm qualified), have participants who have little clue concerning the rules. Golf has made a mess (IMO) of redressing this to some extent, but both games are flawed by the same opacity between players, officials and the book. I suspect many sports would benefit from starting over, preferably by reaching out for expertise to present the rules in a much simplified restructured format
However, as sport is generally governed by 'Old Boys Clubs', I'm wasting my energy by merely expressing a view

 

[Mr Dean]

@Big Cat you might want to look away now

"if the offence interfered with or stopped a promising attack, the player is not
cautioned [if the referee delays the caution for a quick free kick]"

This suggests that a reckless challenge which ALSO interferes with or stops a promising attack is not cautionable.

Edits in green

 

[one]

@Big Cat you might want to look away now

"if the offence interfered with or stopped a promising attack, the player is not
cautioned [if the referee plays advantage]"

This suggests that a reckless challenge which ALSO interferes with or stops a promising attack is not cautionable.

Ammmm, not exactly.

 

[Mr Dean]

Ammmm, not exactly.
View attachment 4210

Silly me. I meant if the referee delays the caution for a quick free kick. I wrongly assumed the same wording was used for playing advantage.

 

[Big Cat]

Surely it must occur to IFAB from time to time, that the Laws are dirge
If the players, spectators and commentators have little understanding of the rules, there's clearly a lot wrong with the sport. Continual tweaking, additive, wordy titbits, is not gonna solve anything

 

[Mr Dean]

Someone one Twitter came up with this, essentially saying that the arm (using the IFAB's bottom of armpit definition) can be defined differently depending on the position of the arm.

 

[one]

"For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit."

I think this definition with the given diagram is going to create more problems than it solves.

Does "in line with" mean a horizontal line from the armpit?

 

[Big Cat]

Someone one Twitter came up with this, essentially saying that the arm (using the IFAB's bottom of armpit definition) can be defined differently depending on the position of the arm.View attachment 4213

Where did they get this radiological image of me and what have they done with my whistle???

 

[socal lurker]

"For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit."

I think this definition with the given diagram is going to create more problems than it solves.

Does "in line with" mean a horizontal line from the armpit?

Given the diagram IFAB gives, yes it does:


I don't think that the pic @Mr Dean found on twitter is what IFAB meant, but hard to be sure, I suppose.

What was previously taught on this where y'all are? I have heard this is consistent with what was previously taught in Canada as far as where the arm starts. In the US the teaching was the top vs the side--like where the seam would be on a dress shirt. So there seems to have been a discrepency in teachings, and it makes sense for there to be a clarification. (But I think the top vs side would have been a better choice, as is it easier to identify.)

 

[one]

Given the diagram IFAB gives, yes it does:

And Hance why I say it creates more problems. Imagine the arm of a player is above horizontal position (pointing up above his head). Now draw a horizontal line from his armpit. For the purposes of handball, we have an armless player.

 

[socal lurker]

And Hance why I say it creates more problems. Imagine the arm of a player is above horizontal position (pointing up above his head). Now draw a horizontal line from his armpit. For the purposes of handball, we have an armless player.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

This may seem a daft question but when did it become law that anything else but the hand below the shirt line was classed as HB? Was it always so woolly or was it a gradual creep up the arm from the actual hand?? @Peter Grove

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

This may seem a daft question but when did it become law that anything else but the hand below the shirt line was classed as HB? Was it always so woolly or was it a gradual creep up the arm from the actual hand?? @Peter Grove

Always been hand and arm, and in the UK we have always used the seam at the shoulder (or where the sleeve starts, if seamless) as the decider - other countries have adopted different approaches, e.g. North America.

 

[Peter Grove]

Well, it wasn't always hand and arm - for one thing, under the early laws in the 1860's, players were allowed to use their hands (and presumably their arms) to stop or catch the ball - for instance in the technique known as a "fair catch." The only uses of the hands that were specifically forbidden, were to carry the ball, knock it on, throw it, pass it (with the hands) or to pick it up off the ground.

Handling the ball in any way wasn't outlawed until 1870 but again, it didn't specify hands and arms, it simply said:

handling the ball, under any pretence whatever, shall be prohibited.

I can't find exactly when the phrase "hand or arm" was first introduced but it seems to have been with Sir Stanley Rous's great rewrite of 1938 when the laws were first arranged into the 17 Laws we have today.

Prior to this date I can only find references to "handling", "handles" etc. but after that date we can see the phrasing that was used until 1997:

Handles the ball, i.e. carries, strikes or propels the ball with his hand or arm.

The use of the shoulder seam on the shirt is something that seems to have been a fairly widespread rule of thumb and that I have quite often seen referred to in refereeing discussions but it has never been part of the laws. This is the first time the laws have ever carried a specific definition of where the arm starts.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

A hand written snippet from the 'Rous' Laws from 1936.... When the actual administrators were actual ex-referees!!!