IFAB Laws of the Game 2016 overhaul

[AlexF]

The Associated Press posted an article today listing several of the overhauls the LotG are going through this year.

The big one? Compiling the interpretations into the Laws themselves, and thus taking the size from ~22000 words to ~12000.

Others include fixing several ambiguities, inconsistencies, etc. Full story here:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/43ad...aws-overhauled-attempt-remove-inconsistencies

Thoughts?

I like most, but REALLY hate the offside free kick location one...

 

[xPositor]

What's interesting about the offside change, and we debated it on here some months ago, is that what is being proposed would mean an IDFK for offside where the ball could not be placed in line with the assistant (as you only patrol your own half - if the IDFK is taken from where the player "commits the offence" by playing the ball in their own half if they were in an offside position previously, unless the AR tracks back in to the other half, you would have to "guess" as to where to play the IDFK from).

But, even more shocking for some on here I'm thinking: "We are encouraging referees to referee according to the spirit of the game and to use common sense. ... If you can play the game and there's a minor breach of the law, report it to the authorities and sort it out afterwards. Don't be too black and white in minor areas."

 

[Padfoot]

Elleray's offside explanation is nonsense.

You don't commit the offence until you play or attempt to play the ball, so the FK would always be taken from that position.....it's perfectly possible under the current wording for a player coming back from offside position to commit the offence in his own half, and the FK to be taken from there. Doesn't need any changes to the current wording.

Does he not remember that being in an offside position is not an offence on its own?

 

[Kes]

Elleray's offside explanation is nonsense.

You don't commit the offence until you play or attempt to play the ball, so the FK would always be taken from that position.....it's perfectly possible under the current wording for a player coming back from offside position to commit the offence in his own half, and the FK to be taken from there. Doesn't need any changes to the current wording.

Does he not remember that being in an offside position is not an offence on its own?

Glad you said that Padders, because it's (rightly or wrongly) exactly what went through my mind as well.

 

[Refollie]

These mostly sound good, but as you guys have said, the offside change would be wrong and would only cause more unneeded confusion.
I'm unreasonably annoyed at changing the kick off so players can kick it backwards. Is it really that hard for players to remember to kick it forward?

 

[ASM]

Elleray's offside explanation is nonsense.

You don't commit the offence until you play or attempt to play the ball, so the FK would always be taken from that position.....it's perfectly possible under the current wording for a player coming back from offside position to commit the offence in his own half, and the FK to be taken from there. Doesn't need any changes to the current wording.

Does he not remember that being in an offside position is not an offence on its own?

Sadly that is not currently the case and is precisely what Lord Elleray is saying. Law 13 says that free kicks are taken from the position of the offence, except that Law 11's guidance says an IDFK for offside is taken from the offside position the player was in when the ball is played not the position that they committed the offence.

It is this inconsistency that is being corrected by all accounts and therefore when the rewritten LOTG come into effect we will start seeing offside free kicks taken from within the player's own half, which cannot currently happen.

 

[Peter Grove]

But, even more shocking for some on here I'm thinking: "We are encouraging referees to referee according to the spirit of the game and to use common sense. ... If you can play the game and there's a minor breach of the law, report it to the authorities and sort it out afterwards. Don't be too black and white in minor areas."

I'm not sure why anyone would find that shocking. If you consider the example given (problems with the corner flags) he's talking about the more "technical" type of offence, rather than on-field play. I've always thought it was a bit ridiculous that a game should be abandoned if there were no corner flags. I don't know about anyone else but I for one, have gone ahead with matches in that situation.

 

[Peter Grove]

Elleray's offside explanation is nonsense.

You don't commit the offence until you play or attempt to play the ball, so the FK would always be taken from that position.....it's perfectly possible under the current wording for a player coming back from offside position to commit the offence in his own half, and the FK to be taken from there.

Not according to what's written on page 111, which clearly states:

When an offside offence occurs, the referee awards an indirect free kick to be taken from the position of the offending player when the ball was last played to him by one of his team-mates.

Now, what Elleray is saying is that this very clear and unambiguous statement can be seen as inconsistent with an interpretation of the wording on page 38 and which says:

the referee awards an indirect free kick to the opposing team to be taken from the place where the infringement occurred

However, while the wording on page 38 is open to interpretation, the instruction on page 111 is unequivocal and especially as it comes in the section usually seen as interpreting and clarifying the provisions of the first 60 pages, as it stands you never see a free kick for offside awarded in the player's own half (at least, I never have, not in over 55 years of playing, spectating, coaching and refereeing).

Edit: Ah, I see that my response was pretty much pre-empted by ASM. My excuse is that it took me so long to compose it (among other things, I got interrupted when I lost my Internet connection for a while) that I hadn't seen ASM's contribution before I posted my two subsequent posts.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Though you could send a player off before kickoff anyway!!! Most of these are much-needed fixes though.

 

[Peter Grove]

But the thing I really, really hope they change in the offside law is the logically almost impossible stipulation that a player should only be penalised for being active in play "at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team." The only time this has a more than infinitesimal chance of occurring is in the case of a player interfering with an opponent. It can't possibly be the case for gaining an advantage and is all but impossible for interfering with play (it would require the PIOP to touch the ball at the exact same moment his team mate does).

To my way of thinking, it would only require a relatively minor change/rearrangement of the wording to fix this. Something along the lines of:
"A player is only penalised if, having been in an offside position when the ball was last touched or played by a team-mate, he then, in the opinion of the referee, becomes involved in active play ..."

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Agreed! I find it hilariously that, according to the LOTG, offside is virtually impossible and we're all applying it incorrectly.

 

[xPositor]

I'm not sure why anyone would find that shocking. If you consider the example given (problems with the corner flags) he's talking about the more "technical" type of offence, rather than on-field play. I've always thought it was a bit ridiculous that a game should be abandoned if there were no corner flags. I don't know about anyone else but I for one, have gone ahead with matches in that situation.

Not shocking for me, but perhaps for "some on here". Corner flags - couldn't agree more: the number of 3G pitches that have no flags (neither self-supporting ones, or with holes in the ground to take normal flags). None of the games on 3G would ever get played...

Does the statement "Don't be too black and white in minor areas." leave us open to inconsistency though - last week's ref coming to the fore, but now through no fault of ourselves?

Perhaps now is the time for elements of the laws to be broken down in to being applicable at the different football pyramid levels, e.g. sock-tape, colour of undershorts/shirts etc. Sunday pub and duck league, not applicable. Semi-pro and above, applicable. This would, for me, be a sensible approach. The underlying laws around the playing of the game would remain the same at all levels, but the application of technical laws could differ at the different levels. This would also cater for the inevitable introduction of further technology at the highest levels, for example.

As referees we are there to enable to 22+ people to play a game of football. If we are to be encouraged "to referee according to the spirit of the game and to use common sense", refining the laws by level would be the only way to gain at least some consistency, removing interpretation where possible.

 

[AlexF]

Though you could send a player off before kickoff anyway!!!

I'm under the impression that this really applies to higher level games (ie, those with full walk-outs, etc). As the Laws are currently written, the players/etc have to actually enter the "field of play area" in order for the referee to have jurisdiction over them. The tunnel has not been considered part of that area.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this really means that they'll define the times when cards may be given much more precisely.

 

[happy whistler]

I thought the proposed change to penalty kicks was the correct procedure in force now.
I had this scenario in a cup game earlier in the season when I had dismissed a player from one team and told the team with 11 players remaining to stand a player down when we got to penalty kicks. It turned out to be irrelevant as winner after 5 kicks each.

 

[ASM]

@happy whistler it is for the start of the kicks but what is referred to here is where a player is subsequently sent off during kicks from the penalty mark. Currently, in this situation, the other team wouldn't equalise and potentially their last kicker would be against the first taker from the side who had been penalised.

 

[santa sangria]

I am happy with those. The off the field fouls and sub interference changes are very interesting - and more meat for You Are The Ref!
The kick off is great news. In lower amateur leagues with high scoring games it is currently practically unenforceable to get players to take a kick off forward at 12-0 down with 5 minutes to go.

On the equipment point: our FA gives us clear guidelines as to what equipment laws are appropriate to what leagues e.g. after division x undershorts no longer have to colour match. The kind of common sense that helps player numbers in amateur leagues.

 

[Peter Grove]

I could also see the proposed change about an injured player remaining on the field if the opponent receives a card being problematic. Elleray says that a player could receive "quick treatment" but how can the referee (or anyone else, for that matter) know how long treatment is going to take, ahead of time? Surely, if the challenge was bad enough for a card, there's a fair chance the player might need lengthy treatment. If he receives all that treatment while on the field, the game could be held up for long periods of time. Unless of course, you're going to allow the game to continue while the player receives treatment, like they do in rugby. But that would throw up a whole bunch of other potential problems.

 

[santa sangria]

Just to ram home the kick off point. My second ref blew for a backwards kick off re-take when a team was 9-2 down today. In the previous game I could have whistled for a retake when the team were 19-1 down... I think it is a great rule change.

 

[Darius]

Is anyone else looking forward to the start of next season with one team taking the kick off '5 a side' style and just playing it to the Left/Right back and the other team going berserk because 'you can't do that!'.

Also looking forward to the stories of LWR not knowing the law change and pulling it up!

 

[Peter Grove]

Well, this is interesting. I sent an email to the IFAB about the logical error in the offside law (mentioned in my earlier post). I also brought up the issue of the Laws not specifying that a sent-off player cannot be replaced. I just received the following response.

Dear Mr Grove,
Thank you for your email and for dealing the proposed amendments.
I am pleased to inform you that both topics were addressed and included in the revision:
---
1. Law.11 - A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by one of his team is only penalised if he becomes involved in active play by: (…)
2. Law 3 - (…) A player who has been sent off after the kick-off can not be replaced.
---
Again, many thanks and best wishes,

[Name redacted]
Secretary
The International Football Association Board -IFAB