This was brought up in another forum I’m on. We debated it for a while before I pointed out the “throwing an object” section and we went directly to David Elleray for clarification. He responded that this does “override” the handling exception for the keeper as it isn’t one of the directly free kick fouls but a separate offense in and of itself. The circular was published shortly after we got his response. Edit: many people always felt the keeper shouldn’t get a free pass for throwing something at the ball. Just because it was a form of handling, something about it always felt extra “wrong”.
Not a change, but as long as we're parsing peculiarities of the LOTG ... what the heck does this provision mean? "If a referee signals a goal before the ball has passed wholly over the goal line, play is restarted with a dropped ball."
Since you asked for it to be parsed... A signal is defined in the LOTG as "Physical indication from the referee or any match official; usually involves movement of the hand or arm or flag, or use of the whistle" In law 5, there is not an official signal for goal, despite most of us pointing to the center circle. This means the whistle must be the signal that is being referenced in law 10 (as common sense would indicate). If you blow the whistle before the ball crosses the goal line and an offense has not been committed, a dropped ball is technically the correct restart.
Isn't it already covered by: If the referee blows the whistle in error and play stops, play is restarted with a dropped ball.
Indeed but this particular specific addition may be a result of the VAR/GLT, which could potentially come into play of a Referee awards a goal and should not have.
Don't overthink this. It''s redundant with what @Sport Billy posted. But its redundant to make clear that you can't just weasel your way out and let the goal stand. (As a ref did in an MLS game a few years ago.)
Wasn't that different, i.e., whistling for a foul and then upon seeing the ball enter the net, wrongly letting the goal stand? I get that, that's easy (and why I have a very slow whistle in the area). I'm just flummoxed by the notion of "signals a goal before the ball has passed wholly over the goal line..." Oh well, never mind. Just one of those things that makes me say "Hmmm..."
You're still just overthinking. Ball is rolling along GL, ref blows whistle, then a player kicks it in. Then the ref realizes (or AR advises him) that the ball was still on the line. This language does nothing other than give a (redundant) specific example of the general rule.
We must stringently uphold the right of the ball to repose along the goal line, to do less would be imperious and unchivalrous.
The 2018/19 version of the good book has been published by IFAB. We knew what the changes were a couple months ago, but a couple things jumped out at me. Law 4 has significantly grown in word count. What was the well known 7+7 for misconduct before becoming 6+7 (or 7+6) has ballooned to 8+8. The VAR related cautions are separate cautionable offenses instead of being folded in with UB or dissent. Also entering the video operation room is a straight red. I guess it would be hard to fold that into an already existing offense. There's 7 or 8 pages of VAR protocol after law 17. I'm sure all journalists writing about the World Cup will read it before writing something absurd this month. Heh. http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/763/165305_310518_LotG_18_19_EN.pdf http://www.theifab.com/document/laws-of-the-game
And is "pulling" one of the fouls that can trigger a PK if it starts outside the area and continues into it, or is that now reserved for "holding?"
You’re all reminding me of a conversation in another forum I read that had IFAB indicating the backpass only applied to contact with the keepers HANDS. Not arms. Which they then retracted when someone asked the same question...
It would be more accurate to say they went with the standard IFAB policy of saying we need to read the laws and follow them exactly. Then when they get more backlash or time to think, they tell us that we should understand the spirit of the law and that not everything can be explicitly put in the laws. All while never changing the verbiage for further clarity.