What bugs me is that a single event can be "usually an offence" and "not usually an offence." Consider a few examples. I had a U14G friendly back in May. Attacker hits a low cross in from the left. Defender is trying to clear the ball. She gets a foot to it, but it bounces up and hits her arm, which is way up over her head. I blow the whistle, PK. I sure hope I'm still supposed to call that a PK. The arm is above the shoulder and making the body unnaturally bigger, but the ball is also hitting the hand directly from the player's own foot. Here's a more typical case: say it's a U11 game, not a terribly high skill level. Player is receiving a pass near midfield, but takes a sloppy touch. Ball pops up, hits his arm (which is slightly away from his body in a natural position), and then settles back to the ground and the player can play the ball and continue. That's the sort of thing I always call handling, regardless of skill level (it's just much less likely to happen with older, better players). The player's poor touch probably would've caused him to lose possession, but the ball hitting his arm helped him keep the ball. In my pregames I usually tell my ARs that plays like that are things I'm looking to call and want them to call if they see it. I can understand IFAB not wanting handling called when a ball deflects off an opponent and there's no time to react. But if a player deliberately plays the ball with his foot and the ball goes up and hits the player's own arm, is that a handball offense or not? I lean toward saying yes, unless the arm is right up against the body. Thankfully there's a meeting of our local refs' association next week, so I'll at least be on the same page as some of the other refs around here, but I'd appreciate any insight y'all have.
This is exactly what the law is saying do not call a foul. They show videos of this happening to professional players and say no foul. So definitely not a foul at U11.
As far as I understood, the ball deflected from ones own foot could still be handling depending on the position of the arm it struck. I thought of it as something of a “weighting system” and if the arm is SO wide, it’s sfill handling despite the auto-deflection.
Eastern PA Youth Soccer made a website that is being pushed to us referees as an explanation of the rules. Here is a bit about the buildout line: So, while technically correct, I think it's an unfortunate wording of "it does not affect the buildout line" as now players can cross it before it clears the box. But technically it is still "when the ball is in play". http://www.epysa.org/membership/201920_laws_of_the_game_changes_and_clarifications/
I think what they are saying is that the rules for the buildout line have not changed. What has changed is when the ball is in play.
We alluded to this earlier, but has anyone seen definitive instruction on when a handball that scores a goal is supposed to be sanctioned with a yellow card now? In the past, it was automatic. But that was under the premise that all such punishable handballs were deliberate. Now we are going to have totally accidental handballs that cause goals to get punished with free kicks. But what about misconduct? Have two separate categories of handling been created? I ask because this is one of those situations where players KNOW it’s supposed to be a yellow card. If this gets inconsistently applied, that’s a big problem. And if there is no new distinction, I can’t wait for the first professional player who accidentally scores a goal with his hand but gets sent off with a 2CT instead.
I know this doesn't really answer your question, but yesterday there was a goal disallowed in the Manchester City - Tottenham game because of an accidental handball and no yellow card was shown.
Right. That’s been discussed in the EPL thread. And that wouldn’t apply because that handball led to someone else scoring, which was never misconduct even if it was deliberate. Thinking strictly about the “score with your hand and you get a yellow card” provision. Ball hits hand, ball goes into net, referee catches it. That’s always been a yellow card because the handball had to be considered deliberate to be punished at all. Now things have changed. Since the wording of the misconduct has not changed, one could surmise that non-deliberate handballs that score goals will not get yellows. But the lack of any clarity from IFAB could just mean they were sloppy here (again!). Also, even if the lack of a change to the misconduct language was intentional, not publicly announcing the distinction is a big problem.
UEFA have officially and explicitly stated that inadvertent handling offences which negate the scoring of a goal, will NOT be sanctioned as misconduct. The goal should simply be disallowed.
It's kinda sorta similar to the distinctions we now have to draw on DOGSO fouls in the PA, isn't it ...
Sort of, yes. And don't get me wrong, it's the right decision. But the lack of instruction or effort to make this explicit in the text is not smart. This is one of those few things that everyone (correctly) "knows" at most competition levels. You score a goal with your hand, you get a yellow card. Common sense says that shouldn't be the case anymore, but common sense is in short supply with some referees and a lot of players so it needs to be spelled out.
In my Maryland recert, we were told that even though the ball is in play when it's moved, the other team can't cross the build out line until the ball leaves the penalty area. So in theory, the keeper can kick the ball to the defender inside the box, and he can hold it for the rest of the game while the other game has to stay behind the line.
Doesn't UEFA, for all intents and purposes, write the Laws? I know there are other factors and influence, but it seems like UEFA is the one that runs the show when it comes to Law changes. There are a total of four member associations that were grandfathered in and they are European and that means UEFA essentially holds four of the votes when it comes to Law Changes. FIFA has the other four. All of the major changes have UEFA's fingerprints over them. The DOGSO law change was brought about because UEFA didn't like goal keepers getting sent off early in high profile champions league games. There was major debate about what to do when a defender goes to ground and slide tackles in the penalty area. South America and others wanted a penalty for the defenders supporting arm making contact with the ball. UEFA didn't. UEFA's interpretation won in the Laws. Even the looser standard of officiating at FIFA international tournaments seems to be influenced by UEFA.
While I agree that the major law changes emanate from Europe, there just seems to be a lot more professionalism and foresight within the actual body of UEFA as compared to IFAB/FIFA.
https://theifab.com/document/circul...Uj6QoPQGzN2TkKCNvIOEx0HHYGLKrdUmANKXOueJS4aiY There is a new circular out with clarifications for 5 law changes and VAR protocols. It is almost like they didn't think it through...
So, taken in order... 1. IFAB was about to make a strict decision about substitutions and realized there were big potential unwanted consequences so they gave referees a blanket out, referees are now not enforcing it at all, and IFAB is saying "no, sorry, we were serious about this." 2. This one seems obvious, as it's literally just quoting text ("remains in play") that is in the new Law itself. Of course, the implication (and admitted unintended consequence) is that if the ball touches a match official and goes out of play for a corner kick or an attacking throw-in, then the team in question gets that restart. Doesn't seem to fit with the spirit of the change, but oh well, I guess. 3. GK encroachment/WWC/VAR disaster... again. Reiterating that IFAB wants VARs booking goalkeepers for encroachment during penalties other than KFTM. EPL has already said "no." UEFA has effectively said "no." But IFAB is super serious. 4. Calling attention to this seems like a good idea. Referees won't do it, because we are our own worst enemies often, but it's nice in theory. 5. Hahaha. This is great. GK encroachment is super strict and serious but now it sort of doesn't count for PKs that miss the frame or hit the post, because the 'spirit of the game' still counts. 6. My mind is blown. In #5, IFAB just said that referees and VARs can ignore goalkeeper encroachment if it has no clear impact and the ball hits the post or goes wide. Now in this section, it says VAR "must inform the referee if there is clear evidence on replay" regarding factual decisions, and explicitly cites goalkeeper encroachment. The circular is literally contradictory from point 5 to point 6. Everything else in point 6 makes sense, though it's a slap at the practice Drew Fischer and a few others have employed. And those referees live in the real world where selling the call can be a critical tool. They also work for employers who like it occasionally. So ultimately this seems like a lot of wasted words.
I just want to go on record that I was the first one to rename Law 18 - Common Sense to Law 18 - Unintended Consequences.
At least they didn't insult our intelligence and say the "2019-2020 Law changes have been a success so far and well received by everyone..." Just quite staggering. In the entire 100+ history of the Laws there might have been one prior addendum/clarification in the middle of season? When the backpass Law came about? We're barely three months into the new changes and they've already send out three. I'm pretty sure we are going to see another in regards to the accidental handling. There can only be so many goals disallowed as a result before some change is made. As @MassachusettsRef ref said, mostly wasted words that no one is really going to follow or listen to. They just keep doubling down on the sub leaving at the nearest point even though I don't think anyone was asking for that. I have no idea what is going to happen with the keeper encroachment, something has to give. My guess is what UEFA and the EPL want, they will get it. The point about the VAR emphasis is great in theory, but VAR has been in MLS now for almost three seasons and no one on this forum still has the slightest clue as to what clear and obvious on a week to week basis. Neither does PRO as they change their opinion every week. I do like them trying to eliminate the practice of going to review for the sake of review or referees initiating reviews on their own, but who is going to listen? How do you even enforce that? I am surprised they didn't say anything about doing OFRs where you don't need to like when it comes to offside or ball in and out of play or location of direct free kick. I wish they would say something about that and not allow leagues like the MLS to go rogue and have their own protocols.
As I understand, this circular is essentially IFAB saying “we’re not happy with how some of the new laws are being interpreted”. I’m unsure why this has to be a big public circular, and why it can’t just be communicated internally to UEFA and the other relevant governing bodies.
"The change to the substitution procedure requires the player being substituted to leave the field of play at the nearest point on the boundary line. This should be strictly enforced unless there are clear safety reasons or the referee allows the player to leave quickly at the halfway line,in which case if the player does not leave quickly, a caution (yellow card) should be issued" Alabama has said no for youth games. All the way up to U19. Even if there aren't "clear safety reasons." We can add time if it is warranted. All my centers are on small-sided fields and I agree with the state on this.