Probably, yes. But if we're talking about a play where the goalkeeper already has the ball at his feet and can't be challenged, that justification doesn't really seem to apply here. I mean, maybe this is the first (inadvertent) step down the path of having "goal kicks" start in the goalkeeper's hands. I've never lost sight of that. My first real experience was WC90 and it's hard to overstate how revolutionary the change was by WC94. But I think that's also part of the point here. The game was revolutionized by simply instating the new rule. Punishment has been rare, really since the get-go, because referees have not punished doubtful offences. Referees don't go looking to punish this now. You could argue, as I'm sure you do, that it's so extreme that referees look for excuses not to call true violations (and to an extent I think that's true). But we've gone from the tactic being a plague on the game wholesale in every match to being an incident we discuss (at the top levels) a few times a season. That would be fine with me. I actually think this is a good idea for all attacking IFKs in the area that are closer than 12 yards to goal. It would eliminate the farcical IFKs from the top of the goal area. Hey, you should write the IFAB on this! Meh. I don't disagree with your sentiment. But I really think we're talking about something that will be so rare and so inconsequential (the goalkeeper already has the ball) that this particular hill is not one to die on.
I remember playing youth soccer 30 years ago and my common tactic as a fullback was to kick the ball to the goalkeeper so he punt the ball up the field. Sometimes I will run into a game (especially in low level high school soccer) where players will think that they cannot pass the ball to the goalkeeper at all. Defenders will be facing their goal with the ball and being challenged by an opponent. Instead of passing the ball to their goalkeeper, they will try to get around their opponent or kick the ball out for a throw-in. I have sometimes asked them why they do that and the response is "I can't pass the ball to the 'keeper." I tell them that they can pass the ball to the goalkeeper; the goalkeeper just can't handle the ball from a kick but they can kick the ball.
Man, I'm on a roll! While I see your point, I''d be more inclined to agree with you if the poor language was actually in the Laws as opposed to the explanation of the change. (I agree with you on it being lazy and sloppy, I just don't think this particular sloppiness is the mos egregious we see from IFAB.) As to your second point about testing, I'd humbly suggest that is more a problem with the testing than the language of the Laws. IMHO what should matter (on a test or on a game report) is recognizing what conduct needs to be cautioned, not technical debates on which box it needs to go into.
I was half-joking, because you said they were low-level players so I figured they didn’t also play futsal. The reason I mention it, though, is that a goalkeeper in futsal cannot touch the ball twice in the same possession ...
Agree completely on the second point. And I also fully recognize it's a USSF problem at its core, not an IFAB one. Fair point on it being in the explanation and not the LOTG itself, but I still think it matters. IFAB is becoming so verbose and detailed with new text, I think it's critical that the body's intent and meaning is crystal clear in everything it produces. If you're going to make everyone learn what you're yammering on about, you better at least understand it yourself!
I'd say those are apples and oranges. In those scenarios the ball is in the open where it can be played, not in a protected PA. Two possibilities: (1) GK rolls the GK to the defender in the PA who flicks to his head back to the GK--clear trickery. (2) GK flicks the ball up to the defender in the PA who heads it back to the GK--this is functionally identical in transforming a ball that the GK cannot handle into one he can without any ability of an opponent to challenge. But I think you're wrong that we'll never see someone try it--if we can think of it, so can players. And IFAB should have, too, and addressed it.
Argh... The below is is probably a signal for me during Fall HS season to avoid USSF matches above travel friendlies & Rec... I knew I'd read that somewhere besides the old askaref site... wrong dang sanctioning body for this thread...
Having had time to read through the detailed changes... The sub going off anywhere change is dumb. It is going to cause more issues than it is preventing. If IFAB is so concerned about time wasting, then maybe referees should be instructed to actually add additional time when this occurs instead of half-heartedly pointing at their watch being all like "yeah, sure I'll add it on." Spoiler alert: He won't. That said, I am looking forward to seeing some DOGSOs from subs who are walking around behind the net as the play comes towards them. Smart they finally allowed a referee to give out a card for an unseen incident even if the play had already restarted, especially for all of us who don't use comm sets. I'm fine with the dropped ball change. I see they are trying to prevent unfair instances where it rebounds from the ref, and not having to manage contested dropped balls will avoid some headaches or the perpetual fear the ball is going to get kicked into my junk or face after I drop it. Handball. Oof. Delaying the restart to show a card: Can't wait until the first time a team takes a quick FK after a DOGSO offence, miss the goal, and then complain why the defender is only getting a caution instead of a red. Fun times for them and us. I love the showing of cards to coaches, and now especially with a specific list of what sanction a particular offence falls under. For the younger refs and those refs in general who are too intimidated by coaches, it is going to be much easier to show a card from a good distance away versus having to go over and talk to them. Though we won't be using these laws in Canada for the upcoming season, I am going to use these criteria when dealing with coaches this season. Taking attackers out of the wall will be easier for us in one regard with fewer shenanigans going on in the wall, but more to deal with making sure they are all a metre away. Hopefully, the change with the keeper needing one foot on the line at a PK now means it'll actually start being enforced versus the current "a couple small steps are okay" mentality. Ball not having to leave the PA is nice, gets the game going quickly and doesn't require dumb retakes. Overall, mostly hits; some misses.
How do these new laws trickle down to youth soccer? What is the process for getting them enacted or revised for the youth game? My kids play competitive but I still referee for our local AYSO, realizing they each may revise them differently... The ball in play in the PA on restarts will need to be tailored to the BOL rules I imagine. Likely the sub rule will not be enacted in youth either...?
Just like before, US Soccer/USYSA/AYSO will publish any youth-specific modifications/initiatives they define. Whether or not they will is a good question. Individual state/league boards can always publish further allowed modifications. Given the referee's flexibility already in its wording: ... maybe it gets enacted as-is along with a youth directive/reminder that local leagues can also modify it as needed for their particular events and/or environments? I would think a league/event would be within the law and it's spirit if they made a local modification, just as an example, that essentially states players are to exit the field on a boundary line that's in the same quarter of the field as their bench (between halfline point and the goal nearest their bench). Avoid shenanigans with the opposing bench and pit-stops at Dad's lawn chair... Again, just spitballing here - we'll see what they say... If I'm Solo on a 9v9 Youth Rec match (usysa) and the league hasn't modified the law themselves, my pregame/inspection might also include a carte blanche, "All subs will jog on and off to the half-line point between your benches so I can keep count... and for safety reasons." That appears to be within the law, but if not clear by next fall I'll bounce it off the state office first.
They (AYSO) are already working on new instructional materials to have the the new laws as part of Fall 2019 season. All AYSO Regions or Areas will (should) have Law Update classes between June and September.
And hopefully they provide clear instruction and updated teaching manuals. LOL. Yeah right. I'm an AYSO ref instructor and have learned that they do nothing right or clear.
Fair point....But they have been getting much better I think. They realize this is a criticism of the past and are trying to get things out much quicker. Of course, they don't have much time...as does anybody, since IFAB don't publish until mid to late may, and they want them in effect in June.
I hope US Soccer puts out a good presentation for these changes. I'd argue that these changes for Fall 2019 are even bigger than the great rewrite of 2016. After all, we all get hit with the ball and call handling offenses in youth soccer.
Glad I'm not the only one. As an instructor (and RRA) I've been appalled at the lack of communication and support. But I'm sure with the money from the increased player fee and volunteer fees going to the national office, we'll see a huge improvement this season.