RefSix

Temporary dispensation for encroaching keepers

#4
Green light for more nonsense
No. The PK is still reviewed by VAR and retaken. The caution was wholly unnecessary once you use technology to punish every trifling infraction.

(The statement that cautions will still be given to GKs during games because it wouldn't be fair to change that since GKs have already been cautioned is BS to try to save face--if you took a poll of the 16 GKS, you'd get complete unanimity on wiping off that stupid, idiotic rule right now.)
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#5
No. The PK is still reviewed by VAR and retaken. The caution was wholly unnecessary once you use technology to punish every trifling infraction.

(The statement that cautions will still be given to GKs during games because it wouldn't be fair to change that since GKs have already been cautioned is BS to try to save face--if you took a poll of the 16 GKS, you'd get complete unanimity on wiping off that stupid, idiotic rule right now.)
I get that, but they are indirectly endorsing more nonsense with PKs by addressing a side-effect of what they've created
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#6
The last sentence is very interesting:

"the experience gathered will enable further consideration of the impact of VARs on penalty kicks, and especially KFPM, in the future"

It looks like VAR at PKs is coming to an end.
Hopefully, you're interpretation is correct, otherwise we'll have to test the new directive on the big lads come August
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
#7
Hopefully, you're interpretation is correct, otherwise we'll have to test the new directive on the big lads come August
Think that will happen. Anyway. Changes to law are usually, in my experience, reserved for the annual update.
Clarifications can be issued but this doesnt really fit that criteria as it is a change in law that is required.
Some other posters might be able to correct me otherwise but I just can't see this being changed before next year
 

Sheffields Finest

Maybe I'm foolish, maybe I'm blind!
#8
They’ve opened the Pandora’s Box of VAr being pernickety on everything and now they’ve just tried shutting the anomalies it creates! Bonkers to call it so harshly in the first place!
 

cwyeary

RefChat Addict
#9
"minimum interference, maximum benefit"

If that was the case, IFAB wouldn't need to give your tournament permission to ignore a part of the LOTG.
 
#10
I don't understand some of the reactions on here. Plenty of people have expressed the opinion that cautioning the keepers for such infinitesimal infractions that could only be detected by VAR was both overly harsh and risked causing an undesirable outcome (law of unintended consequences, anyone?) when it came to KFPM. Now that the IFAB has (belatedly) shown some common sense in saying that they won't enforce the caution (just a retake) during penalty shoot-outs, people are still complaining. You can't have it both ways.

They've also said they'll review this going forward and what I suspect is that they may well do away with the caution altogether, even during normal play.
 

Sheffields Finest

Maybe I'm foolish, maybe I'm blind!
#11
I don't understand some of the reactions on here. Plenty of people have expressed the opinion that cautioning the keepers for such infinitesimal infractions that could only be detected by VAR was both overly harsh and risked causing an undesirable outcome (law of unintended consequences, anyone?) when it came to KFPM. Now that the IFAB has (belatedly) shown some common sense in saying that they won't enforce the caution (just a retake) during penalty shoot-outs, people are still complaining. You can't have it both ways.

They've also said they'll review this going forward and what I suspect is that they may well do away with the caution altogether, even during normal play.
Let’s go the whole hog then and mark lines where throw ins should be taken from. My guess would be 99.9999% aren’t taken from the exact place and we generally ignore it.... we all agree that keepers should be visually complying but this is draconian and spoils football massively!
 

Goldfish

Well-Known Member
#14
Hi
Don't like this development. FIFA knew there was going to be problems with the cautions at KFTPM so it fixed it to suit itself at its tournament
- the presence of VARs acts as a far greater deterrent than the caution is a strange statement? Sure what about calling blatant encroachment without VAR. Does the same not apply.
The fact here is that FIFA don't want GKs walking on red cards for encroachment as it has consequences for the spectacle plus the next game.
 
Top