PDA

View Full Version : Suggested Edits for the 2009/2010 LOTG


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

PVancouver
05 Jul 2008, 05:06 PM
Suggested Edits for the 2009/2010 LOTG

The 2008/2009 FIFA Laws of the Game have been published. Changes
in the text are welcome. However, as always, additional improvements
could be made, in my opinion, mostly for clarity or completeness. None
of these changes are intended to change way the Laws are currently enforced,
although Suggested Edits #11 and #14 are based solely on a USSF interpretations
which have not been stated publicly by IFAB/FIFA to my knowledge. Edit #17
is in disagreement with current USSF interpretation.


Color Key:
Unchanged Text
Text to be Deleted
Text to be Added
Comment


PREFACE
In the twelve years since its last major revision of the Laws of the Game,
the International Football Association Board has made a significant
number of additions and amendments to the Laws themselves, and
various accompanying publications and teaching materials have been
produced and distributed by football‘s governing bodies in order to
assist match officials in their duties and to clarify concepts for the
football community as a whole.

....

In addition, certain principles that were previously implicitly understood
throughout the game but did not explicitly feature in the Laws of the
Game have been included in this new edition for completeness.

Comment: Emphasis added.



Suggested Edit #1 Law 1:

The Corner Arc Area
A quarter circle with a radius of 1 m (1 yd) from each corner flagpost
is drawn inside the field of play. The area bounded by this arc, the
goal line, and the touch line is the corner area.

Comment: All additional references to “Corner Arc” (the area, not
the quarter circle) in the Laws should be replaced with “Corner Area”.



Suggested Edit #2 Law 3:

Players and Substitutes Sent Off
A player who has been sent off before the kick-off may be replaced
only by one of the named substitutes.
A player who has been sent off after the initial kick-off may not be
substituted or replaced.
A named substitute who has been sent off, either before the kick-off
or after play has started, may not be replaced



Suggested Edit #3 Law 5:

Powers and Duties

The Referee:
...
• acts as timekeeper and keeps a record of the match
• starts, stops and restarts play in accordance with Law 7
• stops, suspends or abandons the match, at his discretion, for any
infringements of the Laws
...
• takes disciplinary action against players and substitutes and
substituted players guilty of cautionable and sending-off offences.
He is not obliged to take this action immediately but must do so
when the ball next goes out of play
...
• indicates the restart of the match after it has been stopped or
suspended
...



Suggested Edit #4 Law 5:

Decisions of the Referee

The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play are
final.

The referee may only change a decision on realising that it is incorrect
or, at his discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee, provided that
he has not restarted play or terminated abandoned the match, and time
has not expired.

Comment: This completes the replacement of “terminated” with
“abandoned” in the Laws of the Game, and corrects an apparent oversight.



Suggested Edit #5 Law 5 (Interpretation):

Minimum number of players

....

Although a match may not START if either team consists of fewer than
seven players, the minimum number of players in a team required for
a match to CONTINUE is left to the discretion of member associations.
However, it is the opinion of the International F.A. Board that a match
should not continue if there are fewer than seven players in either
team.

If a team has fewer than seven the minimum number of players because
one or more players has deliberately left the field of play, the referee is
not obliged to stop the match and the advantage may be played. In such
cases, the referee must not allow the match to resume after the ball has
gone out of play if a team does not have the minimum number of seven
players.





Suggested Edit #6 Law 7:

Penalty Kick

If a penalty kick has to be taken or retaken, the duration of either half
is extended until the penalty kick is completed, if necessary



Suggested Edit #7 Law 8:

LAW 8 – THE START AND RESTART OF PLAY
LAW 8 – THE KICK-OFF AND DROPPED BALL

(or)

Other Methods to Restart Play
In addition to the kick-off and dropped ball, play may be restarted
by a free kick, penalty kick, throw-in, goal kick, or corner kick, as
described in Laws 13 through 17.



Suggested Edit #8 Law 9:

Ball Out of Play
The ball is out of play when:
• it has wholly crossed the goal line or touch line whether on the
ground or in the air, and leaves the field of play
• play has been stopped by the referee

Ball In Play
The ball is in play at all other times after it has been put into play,
including when:
• it rebounds off a goalpost, crossbar or corner flagpost and remains
in the field of play
• it rebounds off either the referee or an assistant referee when they
are on the field of play



Suggested Edit #9 Law 10:

Goal Scored
A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal
line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that
the ball was in play and that no infringement of the Laws of the Game
has had been committed previously by the team immediately prior to
scoring the goal.



Suggested Edit #10 Law 11:

Offence
A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the
ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of
the referee, becomes involved in active play by:

• interfering with play or
• interfering with an opponent on the field of play or
• gaining an advantage by being in that position

If this occurs after the ball goes out of play, is again played or touched
by one of his team, or is played and controlled by an opponent, he is
not be penalized.



Suggested Edit #11 Law 11:

Infringements and Sanctions
In the event of an offside offence, the referee awards an indirect
free kick to the opposing team to be taken from the place where the
infringement occurred (see Law 13 – Position of Free Kick).

If the offside position of the player at the moment the ball was played
or touched by one of his team was on the field of play, the infringement
occurred at this position.

If the offside position of the player at the moment the ball was played or
touched by one of his team was off the field of play, the infringement
occurred where the player subsequently entered the field of play.

Comment: This reflects the position of the USSF given in the
2007 Advice to Referees:

11.13 LOCATION OF THE RESTART FOR OFFSIDE
Offside is punished where the infringement occurred. In other words,
the indirect free kick should be taken from the place where the offside
player was when the teammate played the ball. The kick should not be
taken from the place where the second-to-last defender was nor where
the player was at the moment the offside was called. If the player being
penalized for offside was legally off the field when the teammate last
played the ball, the restart will be taken from the point on the touch line
where the player re-entered the field.

Suggested Edit #9 must be applied in order to prohibit the possibility
of a player off the field of play, before re-entering the field of play,
interfering with an opponent off the field of play, which would give no
viable location for a restart other than a dropped ball and would enable a
“foul” to occur off the field.



Suggested Edit #12 Law 12:

Fouls and misconduct are penalised as follows:

Fouls and Sanctions

Players can only commit fouls on the field of play while the ball is
in play. Players who return to the field of play without permission
can commit fouls. Direct free kicks, indirect free kicks, and penalty
kicks are methods of penalising fouls.

Indirect Free Kick
...
• commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12,
for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player
...

Disciplinary Sanctions
...

If no foul has been committed, but play is stopped solely to
issue a disciplinary sanction for an offence committed on the field of
play by a player, an indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team
from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 Position of Free Kick).

If play is stopped solely to issue a disciplinary sanction for an offence
committed on the field of play by a substitute or substituted player or
a player on the field without permission, an indirect free kick is awarded
to the opposing team from the place where the ball was when play was
stopped (see Law 13 Position of Free Kick).

If play is stopped solely to issue a disciplinary sanction for an offence
committed off the field of play, play is restarted with a dropped ball
at the place where the ball was located when play was stopped, unless play
was stopped inside the goal area, in which case the referee drops the ball
on the goal area line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to
where the ball was located when play was stopped.

Cautionable Offences
...



Suggested Edit #13 Law 12:

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player
commits any of the following three offences:
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his
own penalty area), using any part of the hand or arm or thrown object



Suggested Edit #14 Law 12:

An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper,
inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:

• touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked and
controlled to him by a team-mate

Comment: This reflects the position of the USSF given in the
2007 Advice to Referees:
12.20 BALL KICKED TO THE GOALKEEPER
A goalkeeper infringes Law 12 if he or she touches the ball with the
hands directly after it has been deliberately kicked to him or her by a
teammate. The requirement that the ball be kicked means only that it
has been played with the foot. The requirement that the ball be "kicked
to" the goalkeeper means only that the play is to or toward a place
where the ‘keeper can legally handle the ball. The requirement that the
ball be "deliberately kicked" means that the play on the ball is deliberate
and does not include situations in which the ball has been, in the opinion
of the referee, accidentally deflected or misdirected.



Suggested Edit #15 Law 12:

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the
opinion of the referee, a player:

• impedes the progress of an opponent when neither the player nor the
opponent is within playing distance of the ball



Suggested Edit #16 Law 12:

Sending-off Offences
A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any
of the following seven offences:
...
• receiving a second caution in the same match

A player, substitute, or substituted player who has been cautioned a
second time is sent off.

A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must
leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.



Suggested Edit #17 Law 12 (Interpretation):

Handling the ball

Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact
with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following
into consideration:
....
• the infringement occurs where the contact is made, irrespective of the
position of the ball, provided it is in play

Comment: This contradicts the position of the USSF implied by
Referee Week In Review, Week 12, Video Clip 9.



Suggested Edit #18 Law 12 (Interpretation):

Violent conduct

A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or
brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball.

He is also guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality
against a team-mate, spectator, match official or any other person.

A substitute or substituted player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses
excessive force or brutality against any person.

Violent conduct may occur either on the field of play or outside its
boundaries, whether the ball is in play or not.



Suggested Edit #19 Law 13:

Free Kick Inside the Penalty Area

Direct or indirect free kick awarded to the defending team:
• a free kick is taken from the place where it was awarded
unless it was awarded in the goal area in which case it may be
taken from any point inside that area
• all opponents must be at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball
• all opponents must remain outside the penalty area until the ball
is in play
• the ball is in play when it is kicked directly out of the penalty
area

Indirect free kick awarded to the attacking team:
• an indirect free kick is taken from the place where it was awarded
unless it was awarded inside the goal area in which case it must be taken
on the goal area line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest
to where the infringement occurred
• all opponents must be at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball until
it is in play, unless they are on their own goal line between the
goalposts
• the ball is in play when it is kicked and moves

Free Kick Outside the Penalty Area
• the free kick is taken from the place where the infringement
occurred or from the position of the ball when the infringement
occurred (according to the infringement) it was awarded
• all opponents must be at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball until
it is in play
• the ball is in play when it is kicked and moves



Suggested Edit #20 Law 14:

If, after the penalty kick has been taken:

the ball is touched by an any person not permitted on the field of
play or outside agent as it moves forward:
• the kick is retaken
...

otherwise, the penalty kick continues until:

• the ball goes out of play
• the ball is touched by any person or outside agent, other than
the goalkeeper
• in the opinion of the referee, a goal will not be scored



Suggested Edit #21 Law 15:

Procedure

At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower:
• stands and faces the field of play
...

The ball is in play when it is released and enters the field of play.

...

Infringements and Sanctions

...

If the ball does not directly enter the field of play, or contacts the
ground before entering the field of play:
• the throw-in is retaken

For any other infringement of this Law:
• the throw-in is taken by a player of the opposing team

Comment: If the thrower touches the ball a second time before
the ball enters the field of play, the throw-in is retaken.



Suggested Edit #22 Law 17:

Procedure

The ball must be placed inside the corner arc area, at the corner area
nearest to the point where the ball crossed the goal line

Comment: In addition to the near global replacement of “arc” with “area”,
a change is made here to ensure that no one is led to believe that the
ball must be placed on the goal line.



Suggested Edit #23 PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE
THE WINNER OF A MATCH OR HOME-AND-AWAY:
(Interpretation)

Kicks from the penalty mark

Procedure
• The kicks from the penalty mark are not part of the match
....
• The referee must not abandon the match kicks from the
penalty mark if a team is reduced to fewer than 7 the minimum number
of players required to allow play to continue in a match during the
taking of kicks from the penalty mark

Comment: Note that “The kicks from the penalty mark are not part of the
match”.

refereejoe
07 Jul 2008, 02:47 PM
PV, I just have to ask...

Why are you posting this here? You've littered the forum now with several posts talking about your suggestions for the ATR on different areas, and now this about what changes you want to see made to the LOTG. The problem is, you're not addressing the appropriate audience. If you actually care about providing input, write all of this up in a document and send it off to the powers that be at USSF. Nobody here can do anything about any of what you've written.

If you are hoping to elicit feedback, then perhaps once you've formalized your suggestions into an actual document you can upload it somewhere and provide us all a link in a single thread. Those who are interested can then read through your document and provide comments as they so desire.

By spamming the forum in the manner you did, all you will end up doing is getting yourself blocked. Your thoughts are way too spread out across all of these threads, and I can nearly guarantee that about 95% of us here really don't care either way about your topic. So, consolidate your thoughts into a single thread, let those 5% who actually care take a look and respond, and leave the rest of the forum alone! What you're doing is incredibly rude in my opinion!

Rufusabc
07 Jul 2008, 04:34 PM
Refjoe is offering some good guidance here. The greens and the reds and the blues and the bolds are a little hard to track. Plus, the LOTG are pedantic, and your additions do nothing to help that problem along. I read almost everything posted on this board. Your stuff is a bit much. And the people in Swiss Cheese land who actually control this thing don't give a fig about what one person on one message board in the US cares.

HOW IS THE USE OF THE TERM "CORNER ARC" GOING TO MAKE ME A BETTER REFEREE?????

DerbyRam54
07 Jul 2008, 09:18 PM
HOW IS THE USE OF THE TERM "CORNER ARC" GOING TO MAKE ME A BETTER REFEREE?????

You've missed his point, he wants to get rid of "arc" and replace it with the word "area". And, if we are being pedantic, he does have a point. An arc is a portion of the circumference of a circle. In other words, as far as I can see, it's a line. Clearly the LOTG ought to be referring to the area enclosed by the arc and the intersection of the goal line and the touchline.

Where I think he's missing the point is that while all these edits (and to be perfectly frank here, I haven't bothered reading them all, indeed I stopped after the arc piece because I don't have that long of an attention span) may well sort out the LOTG as we have them today, but it doesn't stop IFAB making a muck of things the next time they put pen to paper. Then we're back where we started.

What we really should be lobbying for is a change to IFAB. I would suggest getting rid of the original members since all they've ever done since the 19th century is confuse the heck out of everyone, and replace them with a geometrician, a logician, a lawyer and a semanticist.

Adding these four experts to IFAB will keep them from making the elementary errors that gives rise to threads like this. In fact, given that they will be recruited from among the highest academicians on the planet, it could well stop IFAB ever altering the laws again. Either way, it would make threads like this redundant. :D

Rufusabc
08 Jul 2008, 09:11 AM
Okay...HOW IS THE USE OF THE TERM CORNER AREA GOING TO MAKE ME A BETTER REFEREE?

PVancouver
08 Jul 2008, 09:56 AM
Law 17:

Procedure
• The ball must be placed inside the corner arc nearest to the point where the ball crossed the goal line

This is nonsensical. You may be OK with the laws being nonsensical, or needlessly unclear, but I am not.

I was almost in disbelief when Blanco was set to take a corner, and Marrufo blew his whistle ordering him to move the ball from inside the arc (not touching the arc) to actually being on the arc. Crazy. Blanco was happy to comply, however.

It is still difficult for me to believe that Jair Marrufo really made Cuauhtemoc Blanco move the ball in Week 4 for this reason, but that sure is what it looked like.

How did any of the edits that FIFA actually made for 2008/2009 make you a better referee?

None of these edits are meant to change the way the game is officiated, that is why I call them edits.

They are intended to make it easier to read and understand the law.

It might help new referees, players, and coaches more than someone who visits the BigSoccer Referee forum on a daily basis.

refereejoe
08 Jul 2008, 12:29 PM
It might help new referees, players, and coaches more than someone who visits the BigSoccer Referee forum on a daily basis.So don't post them here.

MassachusettsRef
08 Jul 2008, 01:01 PM
How did any of the edits that FIFA actually made for 2008/2009 make you a better referee?Changes in the Law are typically made either to change the rules (passback, DOGSO, etc.), to simplify language, or to make interpretations clearer. You don't change the Laws to make referees "better." Though I suppose you'll argue that clarifying interpretations will make "better referees."

None of these edits are meant to change the way the game is officiated, that is why I call them edits.

They are intended to make it easier to read and understand the law.But the key point here is that they are your ideas about the Laws. They are not the Laws. I honestly have no idea why you spend the time doing all this or, quite frankly, how you have the free time to write so much (I thought I wasted a lot of time on this site...). But if you're going to, I feel strongly that such posts are much more suited for the "Beautiful Game" board. You're talking about history and the evolution of the game itself. From time to time, such issues should come up here (such as the evolution of offside, DOGSO & SFP) because the particular issues deal directly with current instructions and why and how we referee the way we do. Pontificating on hypothetical changes to documents regarding what happens when a goal is scored with an extra player don't seem to belong. And I think the fact that you've started five massive threads since Friday that have zero responses (well, this thread has some) sort of says something about the reaction of our regular posters.

It might help new referees, players, and coaches more than someone who visits the BigSoccer Referee forum on a daily basis.This is the quote that finally prompted me to respond. I STRONGLY object to this.

Look, I'm not one of those people that gets high and mighty about the Internet. I don't think this is a "community" per se (I know others disagree) and I'm never really bothered by posters who are called "trolls" or just general pains. If you don't want to read something, skip it. That's how I've felt about a lot of people who drop in here to stir up trouble and, quite frankly, it's how I've felt about most of your posts.

But your incessant posting creates several problems (one major one and two tangential ones) in my eyes.

1) It is exactly the opposite of what you state above. It is hurtful to new referees, players and coaches. We struggle as is to try to educate new referees as to what the "right" thing to do is. There are plenty of myths out here and a lot of referees sort of end up here and read a ton as others hash it out. There are a lot of regular posters here but there is also a huge contingent of "lurkers" that come to this form to read and learn. Some are very advanced referees (a national who lurks here told me that when he was at the Milk Cup in Northern Ireland a few years ago, he had some European FIFA ask who some of the posters here were). But the vast majority of people that come to this board are looking for info. Having you post all these hypothetical edits and amendments doesn't help and is confusing. Honestly, when you posted the 2008/9 edits, I thought they were your personal ones and didn't come from FIFA/IFAB. I'm also sure many new posters think you are a referee who is speaking with some degree of authority on the subject (not that non-referees shouldn't be here; in fact, I wish MORE posted here, but the intensity of your level of participation certainly creates the impression you are a referee). So, as I said above, I strongly disagree with your statement and think your posts lead to confusion on the part of many. In addition...

2) One of the great things about this board was that you'd get a lot of the more respected/level-headed posters from the other forums in here asking questions. It was usually about weekly that we'd see a "hey, I know I'm biased for Team A but situation X happened in our game and I was wondering what you guys thought?" sort of post. We'd then end up with a 15-20 post thread discussing the situation and usually reach some sort of conclusion. With that, most people here learned something and the original poster usually went back to his board, linking to one of our threads. In short, it helped everyone. From time to time, of course, there'd be an issue that didn't have an easy answer and we'd go on for several pages. Even these helped everyone learn and discuss, though. The problem you create is that you question everything. In a purely philosophical sense, this might be admirable. But when people are trying to learn more about refereeing--both young referees and fans from other boards--it doesn't help the discussions, which leads me to...

3) I think your constant posts leads to people participating less. I have no hard evidence to back it up, but it feels to me as though ever since you sort of re-emerged and began posting threads upon threads, a lot of our more veteran posters that have been here a long time just aren't as inclined to post as much. This is my most flimsy argument, but it is a gut feeling I have. I know I'm personally less likely to post--or even read--when I come back online and I see four or five new threads from you.

I know this is some heavy criticism and I hope it's not viewed as a personal attack. I will say that I think some of your posts and the way you drive some discussions are very helpful. In particular, I'm fully on board with further vetting of the lowering standards of violent conduct and striking. But this represents interpretations and instructions that are set down from above and that we, as referees, have to deal with implementing (and fans and players have to deal with understanding). Discussions like that make perfect sense for this board. So do discussions about real experiments like the one we'll see in the Confed Cup.

But your hypothetical posts about changes you think we should see should stop. Or at the very least they should be moved to another venue. They should either be in a different forum where people actually want to discuss them or, as refereejoe said, you should formalize your proposals and ship them off to USSF & FIFA.

Nesto
08 Jul 2008, 01:42 PM
...But your hypothetical posts about changes you think we should see should stop. Or at the very least they should be moved to another venue. They should either be in a different forum where people actually want to discuss them or, as refereejoe said, you should formalize your proposals and ship them off to USSF & FIFA.

Amen. Wish you were a mod MassRef. I long ago blocked PV and usually only open threads he/she starts to mark them as read.

PVancouver
08 Jul 2008, 01:54 PM
But your hypothetical posts about changes you think we should see should stop. Or at the very least they should be moved to another venue. They should either be in a different forum where people actually want to discuss them or, as refereejoe said, you should formalize your proposals and ship them off to USSF & FIFA.

I've considered petitioning for a Laws of the Game forum or some such thing in the past. I've never been comfortable with the byline "Tactics, training and evaluation", but The Beautiful Game hardly seems to be a better forum for discussions about potential changes to the Laws or the ATR. But I've never been comfortable with asking for a new forum that would only be populated with threads created by me.

To me the Laws and official interpretations are all intertwined, as is their history, if you will, but clearly the Laws and how they are to be interpreted continue to undergo change.

Why no one else is interesting in trying to influence that change is beyond me.

I don't really understand this attitude of, well, the changes come down from on high, and we have absolutely no input or influence about what those changes should or shouldn't be. Obviously I don't have any direct influence, but I like to think that at least indirectly it is possible.

When I said my Suggested Edits were for the inexperienced, I wasn't referring to the post itself. I was referring to benefits they could have for future readers of the Laws, if they were implemented.

If I post here, anyone who might be interested could read my comments. If I send an "actual document" to USSF or FIFA, would anyone read it? Who am I to ask the USSF or FIFA that they should read something I send them anyway? But if the USSF or FIFA is interested, they can find it here if they want to.

It would help if even one person thought some of my ideas were good ones. It would also help if someone carefully went through and found one or two things, or more, that I had either completely wrong, or somehow took the Laws in the wrong direction. I'm not infallible. I might even change my mind.

As it is, I get the impression that everyone thinks the Laws have been perfect now and always have been perfect. Personally, I think they have a ways to go.

refereejoe
08 Jul 2008, 02:31 PM
I don't really understand this attitude of, well, the changes come down from on high, and we have absolutely no input or influence about what those changes should or shouldn't be. Obviously I don't have any direct influence, but I like to think that at least indirectly it is possible.I don't believe this is the attitude. The attitude is more that this is not the appropriate place to try and advocate those changes. You can recruit others to help you in your cause through a single thread in this forum, take the discussion offsite while you work on a formal proposal, and then ship the proposal off to those with authority for consideration. That way it won't be suggestions coming stricly from you, but by those your group represents. It still may not be read or considered, but this is your only avenue. By merely posting your personal musings here you guarantee that nobody with any authority will read or consider your changes, nor have the weight of any voice outside your own.

If I post here, anyone who might be interested could read my comments. If I send an "actual document" to USSF or FIFA, would anyone read it? Who am I to ask the USSF or FIFA that they should read something I send them anyway? But if the USSF or FIFA is interested, they can find it here if they want to.This doesn't make any sense. You are afraid that if you send your proposals directly to the people responsible that they won't be read, so instead you post them here in hopes that someone responsible will read them here? What makes you think a) they come here, b) they will read this when not addressed to them, or c) they will take them more seriously here instead of in a formal proposal? There is no logic in what you say at all.

Here's the deal, PV. I'm one of the guys that MassRef refers to -- I'm mostly a lurker that doesn't post much, but I'm also a fairly experienced referee. I enjoy reading the threads to see what challenges other referees are facing, the different perspectives on controversial calls, insight into new or upcoming changes in official interpretation, and occasionally to try and provide my own guidance on a particular subject. I don't reply often because I tend to find my own positions are already well-stated by some of my colleagues here.

However, it's a huge turn-off for me to visit BigSoccer and find half the forum dominated by your threads advocating changes to the wording of the laws and advice. Not that your posts have little value, because I think in some cases you can make some very compelling arguments (not often, in my opinion, but occasionally). This simply is not the correct audience for your proposals and I see very little value in spamming the forum as you have.

When I open the referee forum and see all of your topics, it makes me want to close the browser and come back a few weeks later to see if you've gone away. It doesn't promote participation at all, and tends to visually dominate over the other more valuable threads that we should be emphasizing, not hiding. New referees seeking guidance here will not find it because they will only see your crap and become dissuaded.

PVancouver
08 Jul 2008, 02:58 PM
I don't believe this is the attitude. The attitude is more that this is not the appropriate place to try and advocate those changes. You can recruit others to help you in your cause through a single thread in this forum, take the discussion offsite while you work on a formal proposal, and then ship the proposal off to those with authority for consideration. That way it won't be suggestions coming stricly from you, but by those your group represents. It still may not be read or considered, but this is your only avenue. By merely posting your personal musings here you guarantee that nobody with any authority will read or consider your changes, nor have the weight of any voice outside your own.

....

This doesn't make any sense. You are afraid that if you send your proposals directly to the people responsible that they won't be read, so instead you post them here in hopes that someone responsible will read them here? What makes you think a) they come here, b) they will read this when not addressed to them, or c) they will take them more seriously here instead of in a formal proposal? There is no logic in what you say at all.

Why should I have to take a discussion about soccer offsite?

What is special about a "formal" proposal? What would make a proposal "formal"?

If I send a proposal to "someone responsible", how do I know that it would ever go beyond the desk of that "someone", who would likely be a possibly thoughtful but powerless assistant?

By "merely posting my personal musings here", how do I "guarantee that nobody with any authority will read or consider" my changes?


However, it's a huge turn-off for me to visit BigSoccer and find half the forum dominated by your threads advocating changes to the wording of the laws and advice. Not that your posts have little value, because I think in some cases you can make some very compelling arguments (not often, in my opinion, but occasionally). This simply is not the correct audience for your proposals and I see very little value in spamming the forum as you have.

When I open the referee forum and see all of your topics, it makes me want to close the browser and come back a few weeks later to see if you've gone away. It doesn't promote participation at all, and tends to visually dominate over the other more valuable threads that we should be emphasizing, not hiding. New referees seeking guidance here will not find it because they will only see your crap and become dissuaded.

I am sorry all my spam and crap is a huge turn-off for you. If I had known that I would get zero responses I would have created a single thread. Since you didn't rationally respond to anything I said in my rather long post, you should have created a new thread to discuss all the topics that shouldn't be discussed in the Referee forum. You have instead been spamming my thread with unrelated comments.

I rarely post this many topics about law changes. I was inspired by the announced but hidden revision of the 2008/2009 laws. Otherwise I usually only post suggestions for the ATR and Laws as situations come up during the year.

I have written some articles suggestion changes to the Laws, but I haven't decided what to do with those yet. I was hoping to get some confirmation that my Suggested Edits were indeed Edits, and didn't have some Changes lurking in them. You can relax, I won't be posting any suggested Changes to the Laws anywhere on BigSoccer in the near future.

Caesar
08 Jul 2008, 04:57 PM
More unnecessary guff to clutter the forum. Excellent.

PVancouver
08 Jul 2008, 05:07 PM
More unnecessary guff to clutter the forum. Excellent.

Would you prefer I take my guff to the

• The FIFA and Tournaments Board •

The FIFA and Tournaments board is the place to discuss FIFA, its politics, its regulations (including the Laws of the Game) and FIFA run inter-confederation tournaments past, present and future. forum, which you moderate?

I don't understand all the distaste for discussing ways to improve the Laws (or ATR).

Caesar
08 Jul 2008, 06:25 PM
Would you prefer I take my guff to the

forum, which you moderate?

I don't understand all the distaste for discussing ways to improve the Laws (or ATR).
Please do, there are a hundred thousand threads on the subject of changing the laws in there already.

I don't object to improving the game. I object to pseudo-lawyers trying to turn the LOTG into a watertight contract. It's simply not possible to eliminate every element of perceived ambiguity, and if we tried to then we'd just end up with a book that's a foot thick. Common sense works pretty well.

ref2coach
08 Jul 2008, 06:40 PM
I don't understand all the distaste for discussing ways to improve the Laws (or ATR).

Because this particular community has been historically focused on approriately applying the Laws that we "have" to the games we collectively officiate. We deal with the facts of Law and Advise as they "exist" because we recognize that we do not have the power to change them so we as a community seek to help each other consistently apply what we have to work with.

You are "tilting at windmills" and creating confusion. Your long hypothetical posts have definitely diminished the usefulness of the forum and reduce my enjoyment. Your post that dealt with the changes that are in the 08/09 law was very helpful because it dealt with the reality of changes that we will need to be aware of and apply. Your rapid and detailed comparison of the factual changes is good.

BUT

All your theory and proposed changes need to be directed to your State's SDI or SRA, they have the "channel" to take appropriate ideas to USSF who can edit the ATR. Any edits to TLOG would have to be submitted by USSF to FIFA for submission to the IFAB.

My request as one forum member to another is post anything here that deals with the "current" Law or Advise that helps clarify what we are required to use because it is currently published. Please do not post the dreams wishes and desires for change. Please take them through appropriate channels.

Alberto
08 Jul 2008, 06:45 PM
You can see that Paul comes from the school of thought that wants every possible scenario covered in the rule book. Like baseball's archaic rule book. 100's of pages of empirical descriptions of how to rule. The beauty of soccer is that the laws of the game are based on common sense and an underlying structure that is easy to recognize and act upon.

PVancouver
08 Jul 2008, 06:55 PM
Please do, there are a hundred thousand threads on the subject of changing the laws in there already.

Really?

The last thread title that covered a subject of Law was created March 22, 2007, and wasn't even created in that forum, it was moved there by a moderator: How could FIFA improve the game? (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=503822)

There were a couple of threads on Sepp Blatter and diving.

PVancouver
08 Jul 2008, 06:56 PM
You can see that Paul comes from the school of thought that wants every possible scenario covered in the rule book. Like baseball's archaic rule book. 100's of pages of empirical descriptions of how to rule. The beauty of soccer is that the laws of the game are based on common sense and an underlying structure that is easy to recognize and act upon.

Yes, you can tell this by the pages and pages of text I added in the "Suggested Edits".

NativeGuy
08 Jul 2008, 08:13 PM
3) I think your constant posts leads to people participating less. I have no hard evidence to back it up, but it feels to me as though ever since you sort of re-emerged and began posting threads upon threads, a lot of our more veteran posters that have been here a long time just aren't as inclined to post as much. This is my most flimsy argument, but it is a gut feeling I have. I know I'm personally less likely to post--or even read--when I come back online and I see four or five new threads from you.


I frequently lurk around Big Soccer, and in particular this board. For what it's worth, the snarky attitude and tone directed at PVancouver are one of the major reasons I do not post more here. Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but it seems that everytime I see something with this posters name attached to it, the next few posts are either condescending, dismissive, or just plain rude towards him (or her or whatever). In fact, I said as much in the last post I made on this board, however long ago that was, and I see that nothing much has changed.

I think it's pretty funny how nasty this board is toward this particular poster, and since I don't feel like having that kind of nonsense pushed down on me, I'll continue to lurk, instead of actively participating.

Finally, I don't really understand everyone telling PVancouver that this would be better placed in some other board. I've been all around Big Soccer, and I have yet to come across another board that deals with the laws of the game. I may not agree with everything this poster says, but I appreciate the effort they put in, and am always game to read anything about my favorite weekend pastime, however fanciful and off the beaten path it might be. And the last time I checked, the board had moderators who were responsible for telling posters what they could and could not post here.

And away I go again, before I become the Referee boards next red-headed stepchild.