Outside the Box thought Re: Handling & PK/DFK and Law 11

[Hattrix]

Elsewhere there was a thread about the proper restart when a defender handles a ball on the penalty area boundary line in such a way that the hand contacts the ball at a point outside the PA, while the ball, by being "on the line" is technically inside the PA.

The laws state that a PK is awarded for "handling the ball in the PA." In addressing whether this was "handling the ball in the PA" (i.e. PK) or "handling the ball in the PA" (i.e. the handling wasn't in the PA, thus DFK), it seems to be agreed somewhere that handling occurs where the ball is, not where the hand is, so PK is the appropriate restart.

Now, that's somewhat counter intuititive, since the infraction actually occured at a point on the FOP oustide the PA, but is interpreted to have occured inside the PA.

Consider now the call that invalidates so many attacking moves: the Offside infraction when an attacker is just a hair closer to the end line than the 2LD. The "Daylight Provision" has been interpreted as a violation of the LOTG since a player who is not yet entirely beyond the last defender is "nearer the goal line" than that defender.

Now consider the fact that the ball is in play if it has not entirely crossed a boundary line, and apply this logic to a ball entering or leaving the Penalty Area. For a ball leaving the PA, there is no inconsistency with the out of bounds call. It's not out of the PA until the moment it clears the plane of the exterior of the PA markings. For a ball entering the PA, its status changes the moment it breaks (not clears) that plane. Similarly, an attacker's status changes the moment he breaks the plane of the part of the 2LD's body closest the goal line, rather than at the moment his body clears that plane.

What I'm driving at here is that there are already arbitrary and, perhaps, counterintuitive aspects to the applications of the Laws regarding the breaking or clearing of a plane and the status of either the ball or a player and that changing the interpretation of law 11 to allow close calls to favor attacking soccer--and goals--would not require a re-write. That is, the "daylight provision" is not necessarily a violation of the letter of law 11.

Thoughts?

[Gary V]

Thoughts? I have no idea what you are talking about. What is this "daylight provision" you are writing about? The one the British media picked up on and ran with a couple years ago, based on remarks from a FA representative that were totally misinterpreted?

[Rufusabc]

What exactly are we trying to accomplish here? I think the "daylight" thing is an idea that has been floated from time to time about there being a clear break from defender to attacker and no body parts may overlap. However, it isnt in the rules. I think we as referees have many more problems on the field than to worry about a re-write of law 11.

R

[PVancouver]

It seems Hattrix is in favor of restoring the "daylight" provision, and sees that perhaps a re-interpretation of the Laws, without a rewrite, could accomplish this.

For example, one could be considered "even with" an opponent if any part of his body overlaps any part of the opponents body.

To be "nearer than" an opponent could be defined as "nearer and not overlapping" an opponent.

He is noting how the Laws take some liberties with interpretation and declares that, by taking similar liberties, the "daylight" provision could be restored (although in an altered form, IMO), if in fact it was ever applied in the first place.

[refereejoe]

Is this a joke?

In a single post, we have a discussion surrounding what constitutes the ball crossing a boundary, where handling occurs in relation to a ball, how offside positioning is determined, and concluding that we need to restore some sort of mythical "daylight provision?"

Gentlemen, please try and remember that the Laws of the Game do not define how soccer is played, they are meant to describe how a game is already played. The conventions and spirit of the game itself come first, and only when there is a recognizable amount of confusion will the law be changed.

Through proper instruction and publications, there is little confusion about how the laws are intended to be applied currently. Do you honestly think advocating these types of changes are going to make the game substantially better?

[PVancouver]

Explain this:

“LIFTING” THE BALL TO KICK IT
June 24, 2008
Question:
On a restart; Can a player scoop/lift the ball in the air for another player to volley it?

USSF answer (June 24, 2008):
Yes, that is legal. A player may take a kick restart by lifting the ball with one or both feet simultaneously. Law 13, under the new 2008/2009 Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees, tells us: “The ball is in play when it is kicked and moves. A free kick can be taken by lifting the ball with a foot or both feet simultaneously.”

However, the player who is allowed to do that by flicking the ball to another player may NOT play it a second time him- or herself. If the ball is truly flicked up and then propelled (contact with the ball is lost and then regained), then a second-touch violation has occurred.

I would not have said that lifting the ball with the foot was something that might normally result from a "kicking" motion, but FIFA has and so now USSF must also.

I also would not have said dragging the ball with the foot would restart play with "kicking" motion. But now the ATR will say:

"When the restart of play is based on the ball being kicked and moved, the referee must ensure that the ball is indeed kicked (touched with the foot in a kicking motion) and moved (caused to go from one place to another). Being “kicked” can include an action in which the ball is dragged by continuous contact with the foot. The referee must make the final decision on what is and is not “kicked and moved” based on the spirit and flow of the match."

Before (2007) it said:

"Being "kicked" does not, for example, include an action in which the ball is dragged by continuous contact with the foot."


The LOTG say that a ball has to be kicked and moved.

Now we are allowing dragging and lifting, two forms of ball movement that I would not label as "kicks".

The ATR might as well give up the whole "kicking motion" thing, and just admit that as long as the ball is touched by the foot and moves, it is a legal restart, unless, of course, the kicker was only repositioning the ball, and did not mean to restart play. It will be difficult to continue to disallow tapping the ball with the current FIFA directives, especially in the case of a player who taps the ball, and then quickly backs away to let a teammate kick it in a planned maneuver.

At the recent [local] tournament I had the opportunity to talk to several level 5 referees about this ruling - they were unanimous in telling me that you don’t tell teams about this ruling and you certainly don’t follow it - if you disallowed a goal because the only touches were a tap on top of the ball and a kick that put the ball in the goal you wouldn’t make it off the field in one piece.

[rippingood]

Explain this:



But now the ATR will say:

"When the restart of play is based on the ball being kicked and moved, the referee must ensure that the ball is indeed kicked (touched with the foot in a kicking motion) and moved (caused to go from one place to another). Being “kicked” can include an action in which the ball is dragged by continuous contact with the foot. The referee must make the final decision on what is and is not “kicked and moved” based on the spirit and flow of the match."

Before (2007) it said:

"Being "kicked" does not, for example, include an action in which the ball is dragged by continuous contact with the foot."





let's make a deal. If you are correct about your prediction that is quoted above, then we should see a change to the ATR when it comes out in 2008 that reflects your comments about the ball being kicked. We will recognize your brilliant insight in a ceremonail "PV is Great" thread.

However, if there is no change, you will realize that your comments are just so much baseless blather and you'll promise not to start or reply to any thread for a month.

[PVancouver]

BALL IN PLAY FROM KICK RESTART; ADVICE 13.5 FOR 2008
June 3, 2008

Question:
The 2007 ATR is quite specific that a tap on top of the the ball, stepping on the ball, or dragging of the ball does not count as the first touch for an indirect free kick - the ball must be touched in a kicking motion. So far this season I have refereed mover 50 games and have talked to thirty or more referees. Not one coach, or even one referee has been aware of this ATR. I have taken the tack this season to inform both teams during equipment check that I would be following the ATR and then giving the coach a copy, so that they would know where I was getting my information from. I have had now problems. However, this does require a little “speech” to the players, a luxury one does not always get.

At the recent [local] tournament I had the opportunity to talk to several level 5 referees about this ruling - they were unanimous in telling me that you don’t tell teams about this ruling and you certainly don’t follow it - if you disallowed a goal because the only touches were a tap on top of the ball and a kick that put the ball in the goal you wouldn’t make it off the field in one piece.

I’m now in a quandry - do I follow the ruling - if so, do I tell the teams before the game. Imagine this situation - League tournament finals, score tied, one minute to go, defender makes a high kick - IDFK just outside, or inside, the penalty area. Kicking team lines up four players who run at the ball in turn. The first player jumps over the ball, the second player taps the top of the ball, the third player kicks it, loops it over the wall tough play for the keeper. The keeper, following the ATR, knows that a goal cannot be scored, and not risking touching the ball, backs away from the ball and lets it go untouched into the goal. What’s my call? Do I follow the ATR and signal for a goal kick, following a ruling that NOBODY else in the stadium knows, risking major mayhem, or do I make the easy call - GOAL penalizing the goalie for knowing the rules?

That raises a second question - why isn’t a ruling that makes such a fundamental change in how what can be a critical play is judged, better advertised?

USSF answer (June 3, 2008):
It is not surprising that many State-level referees, no matter which state they come from, do not follow the instructions in the Advice to Referees. We find this to be the case throughout the United States, because so many “senior” referees and assessors seem to know more than the Federation about how games should be refereed.

No matter what your colleagues may tell you about what is in the Advice to Referees, it is the interpretation of the U. S. Soccer Federation and should be followed by all referees, assessors, and instructors. Anyone who troubles to read the introduction will find that the Advice is intended to be read by referees, instructors, assessors, players, coaches, parents, and anyone else wants to know what to expect from the officials in a game.

Section 13.5 of the Advice has been changed for 2008, but only “gently.” It now reads:

13.5 BALL IN PLAY
The ball is in play (able to be played by an attacker other than the kicker or by an opponent) when it has been kicked and moved. The distance to be moved is minimal and the “kick” need only be a touch of the ball with the foot in a kicking motion. Simply tapping the top of the ball with the foot or stepping on the ball are not sufficient.

When the restart of play is based on the ball being kicked and moved, the referee must ensure that the ball is indeed kicked (touched with the foot in a kicking motion) and moved (caused to go from one place to another). Being “kicked” can include an action in which the ball is dragged by continuous contact with the foot. The referee must make the final decision on what is and is not “kicked and moved” based on the spirit and flow of the match.

The referee must judge carefully whether any particular kick of the ball and subsequent movement was indeed reasonably taken with the intention of putting the ball into play rather than with the intention merely to position the ball for the restart. If the ball is just being repositioned (even if the foot is used to do this), play has not been restarted. Likewise, referees should not unfairly punish for “failing to respect the required distance” when an opponent was clearly confused by a touch and movement of the ball which was not a restart.

The referee must make the final decision on what is a “kick” and what is “not a kick” based on his or her feeling for the game-what FIFA calls “Fingerspitzengefühl” (literally: “sensing with one’s fingertips”).
The intelligent referee will do at least two things here:
1. Recognize the situation for what it is and deal with it correctly.
2. Not to explain all this to players or coaches or spectators either before the match or at the time of the first indirect free kick (which is the only situation where the distinction is important).

We continue to emphasize to new referees that, for example, the “captains talk” (the coin toss) is not the time to lecture on the Law.

[Iforgotwhat8wasfor]

Looks like rippingod has a thread to start...

PV, what's so difficult about ignoring a tap?? Either it's hard enough that the ball rebounds into the air and so it's been kicked and moved, or it does not so it's been kicked but hasn't moved. Not difficult.

[rippingood]

Looks like rippingod has a thread to start...

PV, what's so difficult about ignoring a tap?? Either it's hard enough that the ball rebounds into the air and so it's been kicked and moved, or it does not so it's been kicked but hasn't moved. Not difficult.

not close to 'god, just 'good.

Read the 'unpublished ATR" more carefully. In '07 the distinction was made to separate the 'kick' and the 'move' phases of the ball. In '08, that distinction is gone, along with trembling, quivering balls. There is nothing really new except that the explanation is a bit better and indeed, clarifies what has been legal all along. A player can 'push' the ball with the bottom of one's foot and - as long as the ball is released, it is kicked. If it's not released, it may be considered a repositioning movement.

[rippingood]

Explain this:



Now we are allowing dragging and lifting, two forms of ball movement that I would not label as "kicks".

The ATR might as well give up the whole "kicking motion" thing, and just admit that as long as the ball is touched by the foot and moves, it is a legal restart, unless, of course, the kicker was only repositioning the ball, and did not mean to restart play. It will be difficult to continue to disallow tapping the ball with the current FIFA directives, especially in the case of a player who taps the ball, and then quickly backs away to let a teammate kick it in a planned maneuver.

I see nothing in that section of the ATR that discusses 'giving up the whole "kicking motion" thing' or that tapping the ball without moving it is to be allowed. The other section has already been presented (in the ussoccer web site) as part of the 2008 ATR. So, we wait for the ATR to come out to see if this is indeed the case...

[soccertim]

Now consider the fact that the ball is in play if it has not entirely crossed a boundary line, and apply this logic to a ball entering or leaving the Penalty Area. For a ball leaving the PA, there is no inconsistency with the out of bounds call. It's not out of the PA until the moment it clears the plane of the exterior of the PA markings. For a ball entering the PA, its status changes the moment it breaks (not clears) that plane. Similarly, an attacker's status changes the moment he breaks the plane of the part of the 2LD's body closest the goal line, rather than at the moment his body clears that plane.

What I'm driving at here is that there are already arbitrary and, perhaps, counterintuitive aspects to the applications of the Laws regarding the breaking or clearing of a plane and the status of either the ball or a player and that changing the interpretation of law 11 to allow close calls to favor attacking soccer--and goals--would not require a re-write. That is, the "daylight provision" is not necessarily a violation of the letter of law 11.

Thoughts?

The offside seems to be your main point, but your logic on the PA vs out of bounds is a little off. When a ball leaves the field of play it isn't out of bounds until it clears the plane of the line. But what about when it comes back inbounds? A throw-in just has to break the plane for the ball to be considered in the field of play. The entire ball doesn't have to be completely inside the line. Wouldn't you agree? If so, it's treated exactly the same as the PA.

[NHRef]

This has got to be one of the dumbest threads on here. If we are to ignore the laws about lines are part of the boundary, and the fact that some are trying to lump handling into fouls (which can only occur against an opponent, on the field of play during play), it just keeps getting worse.

If we make the leap that PV and others are asking, that would mean that if a ball comes to rest on the touch line, with part hanging over the touch line, then a player could pick up the ball for a throw-in, as long as he only touches the portion of the ball that is over the touch line?? Come on now, we all (I hope, but am staring to have my doubts) call this for handling and give a DFK.

Sheesh.

[PVancouver]

This has got to be one of the dumbest threads on here. If we are to ignore the laws about lines are part of the boundary, and the fact that some are trying to lump handling into fouls (which can only occur against an opponent, on the field of play during play), it just keeps getting worse.

If we make the leap that PV and others are asking, that would mean that if a ball comes to rest on the touch line, with part hanging over the touch line, then a player could pick up the ball for a throw-in, as long as he only touches the portion of the ball that is over the touch line?? Come on now, we all (I hope, but am staring to have my doubts) call this for handling and give a DFK.

Sheesh.

Actually, handling and dangerous play are fouls, as are offenses committed by goalkeepers. Fouls are not required to be committed against an opponent.

As for handling a ball outside the touchline, we currently allow tripping, holding, and pushing outside the line, why not handling? If any of those are done in an unsporting manner to deny attacking play (certainly the handling would breach the spirit if not the law of the game), we can still stop play and caution the offender.

In the case you gave, a throw-in could not be awarded until the ball was out of touch, and your thrower would have been the last one to touch it, so a throw-in would be awarded to the other team.

A better solution for off the field handling would be to declare a work-arounds, either for handling the ball off the field of play or, preferably in my mind, to allow any "foul" off the field of play to be called as a foul, restarted at the nearest on-field point. I have trouble understanding why a foul must only occur on the field of play.

[roby]

Oy vey!

It used to be that I would always come to this Forum 1st to get the latest poop. Then I would go to World Rivalries for a chuckle. As of late....no need to descend to WR. :rolleyes:

Play on..........

[PVancouver]

I should also make clear that the current workaround, that handling the ball at any point is treated as if it were handled at all points simultaneously, is a clever and neat workaround, but that is what it is. And it is never mentioned in the Laws of the Game that this is how handling is to be treated. This is astonishing.

[NHRef]

Actually, handling and dangerous play are fouls, as are offenses committed by goalkeepers. Fouls are not required to be committed against an opponent.

As for handling a ball outside the touchline, we currently allow tripping, holding, and pushing outside the line, why not handling? If any of those are done in an unsporting manner to deny attacking play (certainly the handling would breach the spirit if not the law of the game), we can still stop play and caution the offender.

In the case you gave, a throw-in could not be awarded until the ball was out of touch, and your thrower would have been the last one to touch it, so a throw-in would be awarded to the other team.

A better solution for off the field handling would be to declare a work-arounds, either for handling the ball off the field of play or, preferably in my mind, to allow any "foul" off the field of play to be called as a foul, restarted at the nearest on-field point. I have trouble understanding why a foul must only occur on the field of play.


You've out done yourself with that one! Especially that last part. Holy crap.

[PVancouver]

I take it you rarely think outside the box.

[CalNorth Pride]

Actually, handling and dangerous play are fouls, as are offenses committed by goalkeepers. Fouls are not required to be committed against an opponent.

Before making a comment to justify your point, you may want to make sure it is accurate. In order for a foul to occur it must be AGAINST AN OPPONENT. Misconduct does not have to be only against an opponent. Please don't just make stuff up as you go along in order to prove some esoteric point.

[PVancouver]

N.B.



Basic requirements for a foul
The following conditions must be met for an offence to be considered a foul:
• it must be committed by a player
• it must occur on the field of play
• it must occur while the ball is in play



12.1 WHAT IS A FOUL?
A foul is an unfair or unsafe action committed by a player against an opponent or the opposing team, on the field of play, while the ball is in play. Deliberate handling of the ball is committed against the opposing team, not against a particular opponent. If any of these three requirements is not met, the action is not a foul; however, the action can still be misconduct.