2007-2008 FIFA Laws Of The Game

[MassachusettsRef]

I think that this link just recently became live:

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/laws%5fof%5fthe%5fgame%5f0708%5f10565.pdf

I'm posting it because it's the full text of FIFA's Laws of the Game plus the "Additional Instructions" document, all published in one place. I'm doubting that USSF referees will get a copy of the 136 page document, so it's nice to have all in one place. I'm just reading it for the first time now, but there are some interesting things in this edition of the Additional Instructions.

To start, relative to Law III, "outside agents" and "team officials" are distinguished between under the umbrella of "extra persons on the field of play." I've never seen that before. There's also some interesting stuff under Law V, but that's as far as I got. It seems that this document has been greatly and quietly expanded.

[MassachusettsRef]

Found another very interesting point already. FIFA concedes that two offences can be committed by different teams at the same time and allows a dropped ball for this. I had always been taught that there's no way two offences can be committed simultaneously and you should pick and punish what you deem to be the first offence:

More than one offence occurring at the same time
• Offences committed by two players from the same team:
– The referee shall punish the most serious offence when players
commit more than one offence at the same time.
– Play shall be restarted according to the most serious offence
committed.
• Offences committed by players from different teams:
– The referee shall stop play and restart it with a dropped ball
from the position of the ball at the time of the stoppage * (see
page 3)

It's also interesting to see suggested referee positioning incorporated into the document.

[oldmanreferee]

good stuff. Is that Stott on page 98

[MassachusettsRef]

good stuff. Is that Stott on page 98I think that's a drawing; look at the legs.

In other news, FIFA seems to have finally answered USSF's questions about indirect kicks and DOGSO:

Denying a goal or a goalscoring opportunity
There are two sending-off offences that deal with denying an opponent
an obvious opportunity to score a goal. It is not necessary for the
offence to occur inside the penalty area.
If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
and a goal is scored directly, despite the opponent’s handling
the ball or fouling an opponent, the player cannot be sent off but he
may still be cautioned.
Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding
whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring
opportunity:
• The distance between the offence and the goal
• The likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
• The direction of the play
• The location and number of defenders
• The offence which denies an opponent an obvious goalscoring
opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an
indirect free kick.I'd also note that FIFA says referees should "consider" the bullets that they list, rather than unequivocally stating certain conditions must be present for DOGSO to occur.

[MassachusettsRef]

Also, this came up on another thread and a couple of us had remembered it but couldn't cite any documents, so here it is:

• The referee shall not abandon the match if a team remains with
less than 7 players during the taking of kicks from the penalty
mark.

[oldmanreferee]

I think that's a drawing; look at the legs.

In other news, FIFA seems to have finally answered USSF's questions about indirect kicks and DOGSO:

I'd also note that FIFA says referees should "consider" the bullets that they list, rather than unequivocally stating certain conditions must be present for DOGSO to occur.

SO we can now send the unintelligent guy off for TRYing to deny it even though he did not

[MassachusettsRef]

SO we can now send the unintelligent guy off for TRYing to deny it even though he did notWhat do you mean?

[oldmanreferee]

What do you mean?

In the past US SOCCER has said if the player attempts to deny but does not stop the goal only slows it down, then you can only give a yellow card. Since the Deny was not completed

[Spaceball]

In the past US SOCCER has said if the player attempts to deny but does not stop the goal only slows it down, then you can only give a yellow card. Since the Deny was not completed

If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
and a goal is scored directly, despite the opponent’s handling
the ball or fouling an opponent, the player cannot be sent off but he
may still be cautioned.

Isn't that what is said here? Did you misread it or are Mass and I confused by your meaning. FIFA seems pretty clear that attempting to DOGSO is at most a caution.

[oldmanreferee]

If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
and a goal is scored directly, despite the opponent’s handling
the ball or fouling an opponent, the player cannot be sent off but he
may still be cautioned.

Isn't that what is said here? Did you misread it or are Mass and I confused by your meaning. FIFA seems pretty clear that attempting to DOGSO is at most a caution.

OOOOOOOPPPPPPPPP i miss read it all sorry lack of sleep

[Ref Flunkie]

OOOOOOOPPPPPPPPP i miss read it all sorry lack of sleep

Sure it isn't the "oldman" part coming into play?? :) Just kidding.

[NHRef]

Also, this came up on another thread and a couple of us had remembered it but couldn't cite any documents, so here it is:

This was on the state level exam either last year or this year. Basically the question was something like: how many members of a team must remain for KFTM to continue? The answer was 1.

[falcon.7]

Personally, I don't like the addition of the instructions with the Laws. I think that Laws should be just that - the Laws. All the extra stuff needs to be kept seperate. I understand the reasoning - throwing the Instructions and positioning in with the main Laws will promote reading by coaches/players/parents and hopefully understanding of how referees arrive at decisions, but I think it makes the book unwieldy. The book is now twice the size and half of it isn't even the Laws. It's not supposed to be a referee manual, it's supposed to be a document setting forth the Laws by which the game is played.

[Tarheel Ref]

Personally, I don't like the addition of the instructions with the Laws. I think that Laws should be just that - the Laws. All the extra stuff needs to be kept seperate. I understand the reasoning - throwing the Instructions and positioning in with the main Laws will promote reading by coaches/players/parents and hopefully understanding of how referees arrive at decisions, but I think it makes the book unwieldy. The book is now twice the size and half of it isn't even the Laws. It's not supposed to be a referee manual, it's supposed to be a document setting forth the Laws by which the game is played.

Just wait until they get even more politically correct and start hiring some of the administrator types that wrote the NFHS rules.

Get your backpacks out...

[MassachusettsRef]

Personally, I don't like the addition of the instructions with the Laws. I think that Laws should be just that - the Laws. All the extra stuff needs to be kept seperate. I understand the reasoning - throwing the Instructions and positioning in with the main Laws will promote reading by coaches/players/parents and hopefully understanding of how referees arrive at decisions, but I think it makes the book unwieldy. The book is now twice the size and half of it isn't even the Laws. It's not supposed to be a referee manual, it's supposed to be a document setting forth the Laws by which the game is played.This is all well and good but the fact is that most referees--I would even argue many at the higher levels--aren't aware of all these instructions. It's a bit frustrating when you run a line for someone who gets some blatantly wrong because, ultimately, he's unaware of it.

The instructions have the force of Law. Getting them in the hands of as many referees as possible is a good thing. If that makes a book a few ounces heavier, then so be it.

[Sagy]

I'd also note that FIFA says referees should "consider" the bullets that they list, rather than unequivocally stating certain conditions must be present for DOGSO to occur.

Does this means that the USSF "must" is now replaced with "consider" or is the USSF interpretation still has to be used in the US?

The reason for the question is that there is no longer need for interpretation (the rule is clear and different from what the USSF say).

[MassachusettsRef]

Does this means that the USSF "must" is now replaced with "consider" or is the USSF interpretation still has to be used in the US?

The reason for the question is that there is no longer need for interpretation (the rule is clear and different from what the USSF say).I'm not certain, but I would guess the USSF memo has the force of law until it is rescinded or clarified further. I'm sure USSF would make the argument that the 4 D's memo clarifies/amends both the Laws AND the Additional Instructions.

I'm with you on this, as most anyone that reads this forum knows. But I'm guessing nothing changes with USSF.

[chrisrun]

Does this means that the USSF "must" is now replaced with "consider" or is the USSF interpretation still has to be used in the US?

The reason for the question is that there is no longer need for interpretation (the rule is clear and different from what the USSF say).

Remember, these are the LOTG from FIFA. USSF usually changes a few things to their liking. You should look at the USSF LOTG and follow them. You'll notice it still has the old, simple additional instructions. The 2007/2008 USSF LOTG can be found here:
http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/07_law_of-the-game.pdf

The new procedures can be found here as well:
http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/07_gde_proced.pdf