RefSix

IFAB AGM 133

spuddy1878

RefChat Addict
Might already have been posted and ive missed it but what if we give a drop ball on the edge of a penalty area and someone thumps it fifty yards up field, how are we supposed to be in any sort of position to give offside ?
 

xPositor

RefChat Addict
Might already have been posted and ive missed it but what if we give a drop ball on the edge of a penalty area and someone thumps it fifty yards up field, how are we supposed to be in any sort of position to give offside ?
In the same way we don't currently "engineer" drop ball outcomes...
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
Might already have been posted and ive missed it but what if we give a drop ball on the edge of a penalty area and someone thumps it fifty yards up field, how are we supposed to be in any sort of position to give offside ?
Part of why this is just plain stupid. With opponents 4 meters away, play is going to move quickly and we are going to be out of position. (Not really an issue on DBs to the GK, where we can ask them to give us time to move out, but we can't so much do that when the action is going to be quickly contested.)

And it's not just in the defensive third--think about the DB to the attacking team in the attacking third, especially if the DB is on the AR side of the field. We'll be dropping the ball while managing the opponents to 4 meters away when the ball may be instantly crossed into the GA.
 

spuddy1878

RefChat Addict
Handball changes.

The goal that Wolves scored (Boly) would know be disallowed.

The United penalty from last week will know be 100% a penalty.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Handball changes.

The goal that Wolves scored (Boly) would know be disallowed.

The United penalty from last week will know be 100% a penalty.
And that has been the problem all along. IFAB change laws to address specific incident without thinking about the wider consequences. Then spend the next few years refining that change because the negative consequences of the changes show up in games situations.

For example:

1552434381692.png
This is a good change in concept. But let's say the keeper is out of place with an empty goal. An attacker takes a shot on goal the ball is on the way to a certain goal. Only that it takes a small deflection of the referee and still ends up in goal. The fair outcome is to give the goal but the law says dropped ball.
 
Last edited:

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
1552434673720.png
1552434684981.png

Am I missing something here? Would these ever be needed? They are now obsolete and should have been removed because they would never happen. Remember, in GK and defensive FK in PA, the ball is now in play as soon as it is kicked. Previously there was a time/distance gap between the ball being kicked and it going in play.
 
Last edited:

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
And here is another one.

1552435372990.png

If the kick taker feigns to take the kick after completing run up but not take the kick, will you retake or is it IDF? I think their intention is a retake but is it clear with the way the entire law 14 is worded?

1552435358157.png
1552435337277.png
 

JH

RefChat Addict
View attachment 3268
View attachment 3269

Am I missing something here? Would these ever be needed? The are no obsolete and should have been removed because they would never happen. Remember, in GK and defensive FK in PA, the ball is now in play as soon as it is kicked. Previously there was a time/distance gap between the ball being kicked and it going in play.
I assume you're talking about challenging before it is in play? That seems to be a mistake, that is now impossible?
 
  • Like
Reactions: one

RobOda

RefChat Addict
Level 3 Referee
The fair outcome is to give the goal but the law says dropped ball.
I'm concerned about this one because if you take it liberally...

Say, the ball skims off you and possession turned over. You have to give a dropped ball, even though possession was going to be turned over whether the ball touched you or not, as the wording doesn't give that an exemption and the ball only has to 'touch' the official.

I wonder if savvy players who end up in a bit of a defensive pickle will try and play the ball off the referee on purpose to get a drop ball?

Am I missing something here? Would these ever be needed? They are now obsolete and should have been removed because they would never happen. Remember, in GK and defensive FK in PA, the ball is now in play as soon as it is kicked. Previously there was a time/distance gap between the ball being kicked and it going in play.
Yes, I noticed that as well and thought it was a silly oversight. I can't imagine anyone is going to be dumb enough to try challenging a goal kick that hasn't been taken yet... But stranger things have happened?
 
  • Like
Reactions: one

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
I'm concerned about this one because if you take it liberally...

Say, the ball skims off you and possession turned over. You have to give a dropped ball, even though possession was going to be turned over whether the ball touched you or not, as the wording doesn't give that an exemption and the ball only has to 'touch' the official.

I wonder if savvy players who end up in a bit of a defensive pickle will try and play the ball off the referee on purpose to get a drop ball?
Yeah this is another scenario, unfair but you can still sell it (like when it hits a stray dog for example). But it's not as bad as when you have to disallow a goal (which was going to be a goal anyway) just because it took a slight deflection off you. In case of a stray dog, it would still be given as a goal.

Page 51:
1552439974750.png

Yes, I noticed that as well and thought it was a silly oversight. I can't imagine anyone is going to be dumb enough to try challenging a goal kick that hasn't been taken yet... But stranger things have happened?
That is not considered challenging for the ball. It is already covered in failing to respect the distance at a restart. And if it is touched or kicked by the opponents, then it is covered under delaying the restart. There is absolutely no need for that quoted section to exist anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JH

Peter Grove

RefChat Addict
This is a good change in concept. But let's say the keeper is out of place with an empty goal. An attacker takes a shot on goal the ball is on the way to a certain goal. Only that it takes a small deflection of the referee and still ends up in goal. The fair outcome is to give the goal but the law says dropped ball.
Unless he was sprinting back to try and make a goal-line clearance (?) why on earth would a referee be positioned directly in front of goal in between an attacker and an empty net? I'm struggling to envisage a realistic scenario where that would happen.

(Yes, I know there's a YouTube clip where this happens, but I've always thought of that as a one-off aberration, unlikely to be repeated).
 
Last edited:

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Unless he was sprinting back to try and make a goal-line clearance (?) why on earth would a referee be positioned directly in front of goal in between an attacker and an empty net? I'm struggling to envisage a realistic scenario where that would happen.

(Yes, I know there's a YouTube clip where this happens, but I've always thought of that as a one-off aberration, unlikely to be repeated).
Te referee does not have to be directly in front of goal for this to happen. In any case the new changes includes provision for events that are literally impossible :) Or when was the last time you saw or heard of a goalkeeper scoring a goal directly from a throw? And there exists laws now that are just as unlikely. I guess it's not important until an important team loses because of it then there is a knee jerk reaction to 'fix the problem' :)
 
Last edited:

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
They want the kick to be retaken, after a caution is shown to the kicker.

The new wording makes this clear(er than before).
Agreed. Especially about the 'er'. Given that feint dot point is under another dot point containing the words "Except for" and "regardless of " a better wording would have been more appropriate.
 

xPositor

RefChat Addict
A team official is someone named on the team sheet, so no.
But shouldn't the referee be able to dismiss a ballboy who is guilty of delaying a restart - might save some of the scenarios we've seen over time?
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
But shouldn't the referee be able to dismiss a ballboy who is guilty of delaying a restart - might save some of the scenarios we've seen over time?
That is a common sense scenario which IMO does not need to be covered by LOTG although partly covered by outside interference in law 5. I would use the term "removal" instead of "dismiss" to avoid confusion. Similar to removal of a fan who is abusing a player/players/officials. The referee does not do it directly but asks ground stewards/club officials to do it.
 

Kent Ref

Well-Known Member
I do not see why the coin toss was changed back. The explanation about players wanting to shoot from the kick-off is a lie.

If there's a dogso i will stop the game and give the red. I wont look for a free kick to be taken quickly in order to restore the attack and downgrade the first offence to a yellow only. Why not give the quick free kick (if circumstances are right) and go back and give the red after?
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
I do not see why the coin toss was changed back. The explanation about players wanting to shoot from the kick-off is a lie.

If there's a dogso i will stop the game and give the red. I wont look for a free kick to be taken quickly in order to restore the attack and downgrade the first offence to a yellow only. Why not give the quick free kick (if circumstances are right) and go back and give the red after?
Because if the attack is restored then it isn't a dogso.
Similar principle to playing advantage on a Dogso. By giving the advantage, or in this case allowing the quick free kick, the obvious opportunity to score remains therefore, it becomes interfering with promising attack instead. Fine art to it. Not many will be able to pull it off. Mainly down to the skill level of the players we referee. There won't be many teams wise to it either. And those that are are unlikely to play the free kick if they are sure they can have a man of the opposition dismissed.
 
Top