Not from my reading. It seems like the referee is, in principle, still part of the field. Except in the cases outlined. Of course, outlining all those exceptions pretty much defeats the purpose of having the principle in the first place. But absent explicit language addressing the concept you’re referring to, I don’t think we can presume anything there has changed.
Completely ageee with MR. But I think the default in the real world is going to quickly become that refs stop play from an abundance of caution/fear that it might have met the criteria.
Did they even proof this document? In the "Explanation" for the new substituted players leaving by nearest boundary line: A player who infringes the spirit of this Law should be sanctioned for unsporting behaviour i.e. delaying the restart of play. Uh... so which is it? USB or DR?
As quick as I am to criticize the consistent poor drafting by IFAB, this one doesn't actually bother me too much. While DR is set out specifically in Law 12, it really is a kind of USB--really most of the caution categories beyond USB are specialized kinds of USB that are directly called out. So especially in the explanation, this one doesn't bother me.
Goal Kick strategy can now be: Goalkeeper flips ball into the air with his/her foot. Nearby defender heads ball (or knees ball in age groups where heading is disallowed) Goalkeeper picks up ball with hands and (U11 and above) drop-kicks it down the field.
I didn't see a change allowing circumnavigating the backpass to a keeper law? Isn't that still illegal? Seems like one of the UB cautions listed is still there.
Agree. This would be clear circumvention. I've seen this suggested elsewhere, but I cannot fathom how something that is circumvention in open play would be anything different just because it starts with a FK/GK.
Today, at the taking of a goal kick, you can legally kick the ball in the air to a teammate outside the penalty area who could then head the ball back to the goalkeeper and legally handle the ball. Why is it any different when the players are closer? Who's circumventing the laws? In a normal circumventing situation, the same player flips the ball up and then heads it to the keeper. Here, one player kicks/flips the ball, and another heads it. No circumvention.
Almost afraid to ask this... I thought the circumvention was if the same player used their foot to put the ball in the air then headed it to the keeper. But, a mid could kick it in the air to their fullback who could head it to their keeper who could legally pick it up.
I think you are both wrong, those are clear examples of unsporting behavior. UB: uses a deliberate trick to pass the ball (including from a free kick) to the goalkeeper with the head, chest, knee etc. to circumvent the Law, whether or not the goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands
If a referee thinks you are trying to get around the foul of "backpass", no matter if it starts with a mid-fielder who passes to a defender who heads it, it is a foul. This is the law that gives an IDFK if the keeper touches the ball with his hands after: it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate
The biggest issue as far as I can see is going to be the definition of "close/near" with respect to handball, since if "the ball touches a player's hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near" it is NOT handball. This seems to be aimed at the issue of reaction time and "ball-to-hand" vs. "hand-to-ball" but does nothing to clarify the standard, and if anything, muddies it even further.
For Pete’s sake. This is EXACTLY the kind of play that was put in to try to stop. (You can argue “trick” is a poor choice of words, but this is IFAB. ) the GK can’t handle the GK/FK if it is kicked directly to him. The flick up is a trick to get around that. Do you really need IFAB to publish something to recognize that?
I have come to the conclusion that people will literally find ANY excuse not to call the “backpass”. Nothing short of a burning bush relaying a message from God will convince them. And even them it’s about 50/50.
I think it’s very easy to tell when a team is trying to waste time by doing a back pass vs a kick that happens to go to the keeper. 99% of the time it’s the latter
My understanding is the "by a team-mate" is somewhat intentionally singular. A player receiving a ball that was kicked by anyone else then deliberately plays it to their GK using head/chest/thigh and without that player's foot being involved at any point is legal for the GK to pick it up. I miss the Jim Allen USSF site from several years ago - this particular scenario was spelled out. I haven't seen anything officially published since to the contrary, but would certainly be open to it.
I could see how that may have been an interpretation, but the intent of the law was to prevent time wasting
Jim Allen actually addresses this and agreed it could be an offence for multiple players to be involved if the referee thought it was a form of circumventing the law.
And we would still have refs ignore it. The other issue is that people tend to forget that there was another reason for the change beyond time wasting. That being IFAB/FIFA wanted to stop having the keeper as an “escape” from having to control the ball when contested. (Play it back to them in order to avoid pressure)
No, this is circumventing the laws. Verratti got a YC last year for having a ball played to him and trying to do this:
Although I think this argument is about something we'll never actually see as a tactic, so is a bit of a waste of time, I'm probably going to surprise you by disagreeing here... Under the current Laws, if a goalkeeper takes a goal kick in the air, it goes 20 yards, and a defender heads it straight back to the penalty area for the goalkeeper to pick up, do we have a violation of the trickery clause? If the right back, deep in his own defensive end, is under pressure and crosses it to the center back, who then heads it to the goalkeeper, do we have a violation of the trickery clause? Once the ball is put into play legally and it takes a second person to get the ball back to the goalkeeper, I'm with @RichM here; it becomes very difficult to then punish trickery. After all, the punishment is to the player who committed the trick (remember it's punished regardless of whether or not the goalkeeper handles the ball). So who would you punish in the hypothetical situation? You can't punish the goalkeeper for simply taking the goal kick prior to the defender heading the ball. And you can't punish a defender for, you know, heading the ball. At least I don't think you can. Again, I think we've already spent more type on this than necessary, relative to the likelihood of ever seeing it. And I'm also not that concerned that the IFAB apparently created this little loophole there (first because I don't think anyone will do it, but second because the prevention on the backpass was always about timewasting and/or alleviating defensive pressure... when the goalkeeper already has the ball for a goal kick, he's "wasting" no more than 6 seconds with this ploy which isn't a whole lot in the grand scheme of things). But, I'm convinced this cannot be punished as trickery if it ever happened.
Going to disagree with you again here. The language of the Laws matter, particularly around misconduct. Reports get appealed when the wrong code is used at certain levels. You can say practically that almost any sort of yellow card is truly "unsporting behavior," but the fact remains there are two distinct categories. It's lazy to write this the way the IFAB did and potentially confusing when translated. Also, simply from a technical standpoint, we've seen USSF exam questions that ask, for example, which code to use when an attacker provokes a confrontation inside the goal after his team scores a goal. If 2% of your test score can rest on answering that sort of question correctly, the language in the Laws themselves better be clear.
But that was the whole point of adding the trickery clause wasn’t it? To put a stop to the “creative” and often nonsensical ways players were using to try and still get the ball back to their keeper for them to handle it. I think part of the problem is we have lost sight of how rampant an issue this was prior to the change. We’ve had nearly 30 years of soccer where this wasn’t an option for defenders and keepers and it has removed perspective. Now the argument by some people is that the punishment is too harsh but it solves the problem didn’t it? I could maybe see modifying the restart for this (IFK from the penalty spot?) but keep the offence as is and even make it more objective like the iron triangle tried to do. Long story short I don’t think we need to start allowing players to try and figure out ways around this restriction. That’s not the point. The restriction is there for a reason and it should be respected.