Well, nothing has been adopted yet, these are proposals. I really think it is unlikely that either of these are being adopted. They are both pretty radical. Creating a goal kick from a ball still on the field is quiet a departure from tradition and the basic concepts that drive the game. (See MR's post above.) (Though I confess there have been a number of other departures in the past few years.) And completely removing "deliberate" would be a huge change--and will certainly open doors of unintended consequences. (I noted that one of the comments to the article suggested removing deliberate would go back to the way it was--umm, that would be "intentional" . . . .) I just can't see IFAB taking that big of a leap in a single sitting. And while it might not be, in practice, a huge change at the professional level, it would be at the youth level where non-deliberate handling is so common. I would not, however, be surprised if the idea that hand/arm contact that puts the ball into the goal is adopted either in Law 12 itself or in the guidance at the end.
So then we would get to have arguments with coaches about whether the hands were at 4 o'clock and 8 o'clock, or more like 3:30 or 8:30. "Well, his pinkie was there." Something to look forward to. NOT.
I'm sorry, but that's a pretty straight forward decision tree. I can't agree with changing the game for the sake of referees who can't see the logic in it. This isn't a judgement call. As far as the impact on the game in general, I agree with you. This would make a penalty kick like a technical foul in basketball. It takes away any sort of excitement.the Now, if they came at it from the angle that a team shouldn't have more than one chance at this already extremely high percentage shot, then I might be okay with it (and still complain about it from a tradition and excitement standpoint.)
No, it’s not straightforward. Feinting is punished with an IFK coming out, regardless of the result of the kick. And that’s relatively new. You can argue the logic behind that, but it’s undeniable that the sanctions are not straightforward. There is no longer a simple chart that results in an “if A then B but if X then Y” outcome. I admit it shouldn’t be hard to learn, but we have FIFA referees who’ve botched it in the last year. Also, sanctioning infringements at PKs is inherently a judgment call. We allow minor encroachment on pretty much every single PK that’s ever existed. The degree of encroachment that each referee allows obviously varies. And plenty of referees will not call egregious defensive encroachment if the shot is wide or over the bar. You may not like that, but it’s a reality. Making this change removes all that subjectivity. Again, I don’t like or want the change. But it’s impossible to argue it wouldn’t be easier for referees.
I agree with MR on this. It used to be a very straightforward decision tree, but here (and in other places) IFAB has felt compelled to carve out exceptions, not all of which are logical. (I think that is a fundamental error in direction by IFAB, but that's another discussion.) It would be easier for refs, but it is a horrible idea that undercuts the flow of the game. Five years ago, I would have expected this idea to be DOA, but some of the other conceptual departures make me less certain, as micro-decision management has been replacing concepts in a variety of ways. But I still think this is very unlikely to be adopted. (This is also a change that would affect lower levels of the game far more than the professional game. There are far more missed PKs and rebounds in youth than there are in the pros.)
I'm not saying it wouldn't be easier for referees. I don't think that's a valid reason to make or want a change in this case though.
It seems that IFAB doesn't realize why the penalty kick exists in the first place at all. The reason it is there is simply due to the fact that it is illogical and impractical to allow normal free kicks any closer to the goal. Que the bizarre and absurd scenes every time we have an IFK due to a back pass violation. The penalty kick is a just a normal restart without a wall for all intents and purposes. It seems like they keep looking for solutions to problems that don't exist instead of focusing on things that seem to be going out of style like giving red cards for studs into the knee cap.
Not really. It serves to discourage fouls close to the goal through adding game changing consequences much like DOGSO does. It's not because having a wall is impractical. If that were the case, 'penalty kicks' could be taken from where the foul occurred with only the keeper and a kicker involved. (hmmmm.....there's a thought.)
There’s a change that would actually be interesting. The FK is taken from the spot of the foul but no defenders other than the keeper can be in the area.
It could make for a much more interesting tie breaker to spread the kicks around as well as opposed to straight kicks from the penalty spot. 5 spots 12+ yards out which the teams rotate through. Alternate which team gets to pick where both teams kick from for all unused spots.
Agreed. It still makes it a more punitive punishment because it’s a 1v1 shot but removes some of the sting when a foul barely inside the area gets a perfectly positioned point blank shot on the keeper.
FAPTAP are supporting changes discussed at their meetings: substitutes having to leave the field of play at the nearest boundary line yellow and red cards for misconduct by team officials the ball not having to leave the penalty area at goal kicks defending team free kicks taken inside the penalty area It appears we can may also see changes to handling, at least in the context of a goal scored by inadvertent handling: One of the most debated areas of the Laws of the Game is handball and this topic was discussed at length during the ABM, with an agreement being reached on the necessity for a more precise and detailed wording for the different types of handball offences. The ABM duly took note of football stakeholders’ expectations, so the most significant clarifications relate to ‘non-deliberate’ handball situations, where there is an unfair ‘outcome/benefit’ due to the ball making contact with a player’s hand/arm (e.g. a goal should not be allowed if the ball goes directly into the goal from a player’s hand/arm or if a player gains control/possession of the ball from contact with hand/arm and then scores or creates a goal-scoring opportunity). http://www.theifab.com/news/ifabs-1...-fine-tuning-laws-for-the-benefit-of-the-game The IFAB meeting is March 2.
I wish full transcripts were available of these meetings. If we can figure out in relatively quick fashion all the potential negatives of mandating a substituted player leave the field at the nearest boundary, surely Collina and Busacca can too, right? So looking at the photo in the link above, I just want to know if those sort of points get raised at the meeting and the committee says, after debate, "yes, but combating timewasting is more important" or if serious people at the top level of football just ignore or don't recognize the consequences. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things (until and unless any change is a disaster and they have to go back and fix their error), but it would be reassuring.
<synic hat on> Do these guys get paid? If so, if they ever decided the laws were fine the way they are would there be any justification for them to collect a salary? <synic hat off>
Does anyone else foresee a problem with the handling discussion. Will we see a reverse of what was occurring a few years back where attackers were skillfully kicking the ball into defenders arms to force a handling decision in the area. I could foresee this from defenders now, where if under pressure they will ensure the ball hits an attackers arm so a goal will be nullified if it happens. The fact that they emphasized that it need not be deliberate on the attackers part seems to open the laws to this being exploited by saavy defender.
I think we should wait to see what they actually come up with, including specific language put into Law 12 before we get too excited about it. But if the only change is that an inadvertent handling can't cause a goal, I see little real world risk of defenders trying to play the ball off the arm of an attacker. That is a high risk attempt to pull off--if the defender has the opportunity to try to make that happen,the defender also has the far less risky option of clearing the ball. But as with many things, the devil is in the details.
Yep...a better point than you think...I think. Ever seen a consultant come into ANY situation (corporate or otherwise) and say "Everything is fine...leave it be" Nope..never. Money or not, there is a psychological need to offer up a change. There is a human need to justify your existence.
The issue with this change in handling is how far back you go? What is "immediate? Is it ball coming off your hand into the goal? Is it ball coming off your hand and then attacker shooting it into goal? Or is it ball coming off your and attacker dribbling for a bit and slotting it into goal? What this essentially will do, if implemented, is essentially force referees to call handling anytime the ball hits a players hand. At non VAR levels we won't have replay to bail us and we basically won't have the excuse anymore of "it wasn't deliberate." Our only cop out will be "it didn't hit his hand" and that's a much tougher sell.
I think you're reaching here. If a defender is in a desperate enough situation like this, he's just going to clear the ball. Trying to win a penalty out of nothing by kicking it at your opponent is one thing. It's no-risk, high-reward. Trying to bail yourself out of an already desperate situation by kicking the ball at your opponent's hand is borderline crazy. It's very high-risk coupled with a reward that is barely better than your obvious alternative. First, you need to do it accurately (and professional defenders aren't as good at that as professional attackers) or you run the risk of just handing possession to your opponent--or, worse, scoring a goal on a ricochet. Second, even if you do it, you have to ensure the referee (in non VAR situations) sees it. And even if those things happen, you're left with a DFK in your own goal area instead of simply clearing the ball.
Valid points, but two things: First, this will not have the consequence of forcing referees to call handling every time it hits a player's hand on the defensive end. There doesn't seem to be any talk about that and it doesn't sound like anyone wants penalty calls for totally inadvertent handling. So we're really only talking about one end or side of the field. What you are looking at is a lot more calls for handling that result in an attacking opportunity or OGSO for attackers and midfielders, however. If you look at the language in the article, that's what "stakeholders expect." It will be a change and, as said above the devil will be in the details, but it might actually make things easier for referees (even if it instantly warps any logic about non-intentional handling not being a foul). Second, to your first paragraph, it doesn't sound like "immediate" is going to be a limitation here. If, for example, one midfielder kicks the ball at an opposing midfielder, the ball hits that second player's hand and drops to his feet, opening up an attacking opportunity... that sounds like it's going to be an offence. In short, the result of inadvertent handling is going to play a marquee role in determining an offence if leads to an attacking opportunity (or better). The big question, to me, is how and where the IFAB will implement some magic dividing line. A player 10 yards from his own goal won't be giving away a penalty for an accidental handball but a player 10 yards from his opponent's goal won't be able to gain possession from an accidental handball. Fine, that's easy. But what about 30 yards from your own goal or your opponent's goal? 40 or 50? Where's the dividing line between where an attacking midfielder no longer gets punished and where a defender or defending midfielder still has to get punished if he gains possession? That's the part that seems impossible to legislate. Also, one minor yet consequential aspect is whether the language around attempting to score a goal with your hand will be relaxed or clarified. Even if unintentionally scoring a goal with your hand becomes a foul, it shouldn't be misconduct. So while that aspect of the Law might become fairer and more in line with stakeholder expectation, it might also create a very tough decision for referees when it occurs.
With the advent of VAR I don’t think I’m teaching at all. If a non deliberate handling can nullify the entire attacking phase of a team I’d say the risk and reward is well justified, especially when you have not only the referee but the VAR to bail you out if the ball does go in the net. To me, this change or the whole philosophy behind it is just another piece of pandering to the professional game and not the spirit of the game as a whole. Same as the “triple punishment” nonsense. It’s a change that puts all the fault and none of the praise on the referee to make the call.