The agenda from last weeks FAP & TAP (amazing acronyms...) boards was released giving us the first peek of the proposed LOTG changes for next year. http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/779/080446_261018_TAP_FAP_agenda_Nov_2018_v1.0.pdf The possible changes that we know of are: A substitute being required to leave the field at the nearest boundary Yellow and red cards for team officials Defending teams being allowed to play the ball within the penalty area on goal kicks and free kicks Possible changes/rewrite of the handling law My thoughts are that I hope the substitute change would be written as an option for leagues since I'm not interested in tracking ten small children leaving the field in eight different places. The yellow and red cards for team officials seems like it's probably gonna happen. I really like the proposed change on goal kicks and free kicks inside the penalty area. I'm assuming the other team will be required to stay out of the PA until it's played a 2nd time or the ball leaves. As for handling. It seems like "fix handling law" is this years version of "triple punishment is unfair" in terms of what media and other officials within football are talking about. My guess is that the law will be changed to match the guidance from FIFA to it's referees. I think most of us can agree that the language of Law 12 doesn't really match how we're told to call handling.
From a league standpoint, I love #1; from a referee standpoint, like #2 since it sends a clear message to everyone; #3 makes sense; TBD on #4
I like 2, 3, and 4, and even if they did implement #1 I'm pretty sure the local youth leagues would override it in their ROCs.
That's why I think it would be written like sin bins and VAR where leagues need to opt-in not opt-out.
Mandating #1 is going to create way more headaches than I think people envisage. Because if you mandate that a player leaves the field at the closest boundary, you must have an accompanying sanction if they don't. And since play is already stopped at that point, the only possible accompanying sanction will be a caution. Not leaving the field of play at the nearest boundary will become misconduct, presumably for delaying the restart of play. That's all well and good. But how technical are referees going to get and how often will that card be given? If the card isn't regularly given, what's the point? Putting this on the books and not enforcing it will actually lead to more abuse. But if the card is regularly given, just wait for some very technical/controversial 2CTs when an annoyed or petulant player is subbed off. And wait for debates about what the closest boundary line is. It sounds great. But it just might be a recipe for disaster.
I tend to agree with this. But does anyone have any info on the actual experiment(s) that actually took place? (Same on cards and the PA ball in play issue?)
Sounds like the IFAB is again trying to justify their bloated salaries with nonsensical and unnecessary changes to the Laws. #1 seems to be a recipe for disaster especially in hostile stadiums. Sergio Ramos having to leave behind the goal line at the Nou Camp while on a caution? One fan throws a cup or projectile he picks it up and shows it to the referee and says I'm not leaving on this side. Then Barca players go and mob him mandating to leave on that side. #2 I don't understand this either. Who has a problem with the way it currently is? Also it can work well on professional games, but how on earth do you document this and implement this on amateur games? #3 This seems practical and it is probably about time and will end amateur players yelling "it's not a goal kick!" when you order a retake for an IFK or DFK coming out in the penalty area for the ball not leaving the penalty area.
#1 is a perfect example of how all of us see and change and think "I completely understand why they want to implement this." while simultaneously thinking "This will be an unmitigated disaster at almost every level." Yes, it will potentially reduce time wasting. But what about U10's basically being unsupervised children with potentially unknown strangers on that side? Teenagers subbing off next to the obviously drunk father from the other team that starts a fistfight? College matches in general. And when do we restart play? Do we restart play while the player is walking behind the opponent's goal? When the keeper says "He was cursing at me!" how on earth are we supposed to police that? I personally don't see myself having AAR's on any match I ever do, so that's out. I dig #2, though. I've seen time and time again that officials deal with team official dissent in high school games quicker because they have a better way to categorize it. It also reinforces something that every referee should be doing to begin with: confirming that all team officials are on the roster. I had a friend who works for a state association where a referee dismissed someone they thought was a coach. Wasn't on the roster, wasn't told he couldn't be in the TA. Who serves the suspension now? The suspension was vacated since it was "the referee's error in allowing him there". For #3, thank goodness. The only thing that happens when this is violated is players are confused "No! That's only on GK's!" And I've never actually had an attacking player violate the rule. Knowing my luck, that will happen this weekend.
Pretty much the first scenario that also popped into my head. The potential for gamesmanship and strife around substitutions will increase. And it will be particularly bad in heated matches. Substitutions are a point that can actually help a referee and take the air out of some games. Not quite so much if this goes through. IFAB is taking a relatively benign and common situation that occasionally results in timewasting and instead creating six potential flashpoints per match. The simpler solution here is to have referees actually account for time lost through slow substitutions. But that’s not good enough, it would appear.
Having done games this fall under strict USSF rules, USSF with the ability to card, and high school rules this fall, I have to say I’m all in favor of cards for coaches. When I carded coaches, everyone knew what was occurring. There is no ambiguity. Many youth coaches don’t get the “ask/tell/dismiss” at all. When they are then dismissed, they act like they haven’t been warned. Simply put, people around soccer understand what a yellow card means. Showing one to a coach seems logical.
1. I agree with pretty much everyone here. Good motive for change, not sure is the proposed solution solves the problem. 2. I am not really in favor of this. For multiple reasons but most importantly I don’t want to have to “categorize” what irresponsible behavior is. If they can pull this off without causing us to have to debate which category of misconduct the endless list of stupid behavior coaches sometimes do, I’ll accept this. 3. It will be interesting to see. Will certainly help the u-littles that can’t kick that far anyway. 4. I shudder to see what comes of this.
#1 I guess I am alone in seeing zero reason for this and many reasons against. First of all, what is the issue? Some guy at the pro level who shuffles off with legs that can barely move? Who cares?! The solution is written right there in the Laws. Furthermore, say it take him 20 seconds to make it to the side. How much time is lost? Not 20 seconds, just the 10 seconds compared to the player who jogs off. On the other hand, who wants a player walking around the perimeter of the field for the next minute? Not me. Why do I or my ARs need that distraction? If they make this rule, they need to mandate that the substituted player immediately don a Signal Yellow pinnie. Then I am good with it. Actually, I am not. Just add the 10 seconds. #2 Yay. #3 Yawn. #4 I too shudder. What are they thinking? No, really. What are they thinking?
I'm not going to shudder about #4 until I actually see something proposed. I'm guessing that anything about "handball" is tabled for a year or trivial in nature. (But I'd also note that the agenda entry isn't just handball, it is "Other proposed Law changes, incl. handball." So who knows what could be lurking within that--I'd also guess that we get at least one new experiment flowing from the meeting. And on 2, I really don't get the hand wringing of how to characterize cautions to the TA--USB and dissent are both very, very broad.
Pretty much. The more I think about it, the worse it gets. At the professional level, you're going to be requiring people to walk through opposing technical areas and in front of hostile opposing fans, as RS91 noted. You will then also have the farcical situations where a player is 3/5 across the field and technically the non-bench side is closer, but he starts to move toward the bench side... once a referee could intervene he's probably halfway from both points, so then any intervention is only adding to the wasted time. And yes, I know, I know... common sense can prevail in many of these cases. But once you employ common sense for one case and ignore the requirement, how can you justify enforcing it at all in the other 5 substitutions? And once players and teams see that referees won't rigidly enforce this in all situations, the mask comes off and it will increase gamesmanship. I hadn't even really contemplated the ramifications for lower level youth. First off, you're just handing a tool to over-officious referees to be technically correct but oh so terribly wrong from a practical sense and that's never a good thing. But more to the point, the Law will require youth players (I'm thinking teenagers) to exit near opposing parents or, in tournament settings, near opposing teams. I know the Laws are written for the professional game, but I don't imagine IFAB would put a particular type of misconduct like this as something that is carved out for youth and other levels.
Australia's top league, where this has been implemented for over a year now, simply reports them as "Caution - Irresponsible behaviour" and "Sending off - Irresponsible behaviour". As in, they've, for the trial, added a new form of caution and sending off that only applies to team officials and goes in line with the rest of the Laws.
I had one situation this year, as AR1, where a substituted player exited the field at the nearest boundary. He was an attacker in the corner of the field farthest away from his bench, and completely exhausted by the time a sub came on. That means he did a very slow walk behind the opposition goal and past the opposition bench to get to his own. I felt like it was my job to watch for an offence during that walk, in addition to my normal duties. Very distracting for the couple of minutes it took him to shuffle around.
And, can you imagine a villian going off the field in front of the home supporters or vice versa? And, who is going to track that player back to the team area? What if he just stands and watches for awhile? Just have them exit at the half way line. Plain and simple. Now, on to handling.....
That would be about the only way I could see it being acceptable. But even then it’s a little strange to have a send off and caution have the same verbiage. I’ve just never had a problem making it clear what my intentions were to a coach. And honestly if they didn’t get it I was never really bothered by that either. I just don’t want to start getting the same nonsense we have with players where the myth of the second caution needing to be worse than the first.
If it ain't broke... Seriously, I agree with the sentiment that sometimes people are trying to justify their salaries. One shouldn't make laws for the lowest common denominator. 1. If it takes too long...add time. We already add time for other things. 2. I kind of like that cards are for players only. Pointing to the parking lot works quite well for officials/spectators/parents etc 3.Yes..it's always been quirky. So? Leave it alone for Pete's sake. 4. Just some sensible, universal guidance, written into the LOTG would suffice. A substitute being required to leave the field at the nearest boundary Yellow and red cards for team officials Defending teams being allowed to play the ball within the penalty area on goal kicks and free kicks Possible changes/rewrite of the handling law
That was actually pretty clear after the change until they RE-clarified and didn’t really tell anyone.
While this article from the Telegraph is not new, I don't recall seeing it posted here before. (Was linked in the weekly AYSO email.) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...ls-lawmakers-discuss-overhaul-handball-rules/ According to the article, the discussion is about removing deliberate from handling and making it based on unnatrual position of hands/arms. And defining unnatural position to include above the shoulders or beyond 4'o clock/ 8 o'clock from the body. As well as disallowing any goal that rebounds from an attacker's arm/hand. Also, per the article, there is discussion of play being dead at the conclusion of a PK--no rebounds. Neither of these sound like good ideas to me . . ,
To be honest, from a referee's perspective this sounds like a great idea. Eliminates 99% of the potential problems you can have at the taking of a PK and makes it easier for many new (and several experienced) referees who simply don't have all the infringement permutations committed to memory. It makes things so much cleaner. But I think from a global soccer perspective, it's a bad idea. From a philosophical perspective, it's moving penalties further away from all other restarts and putting them further on a pedestal. Isolating them as a one-on-one issue with no follow-up is removing them completely from the context of the game. On a more practical (and more important) level, it eliminates the excitement and occasional frenzied chaos after a save. Though saves with contested rebounds are rare, they are a very exciting element of the game for fans when they occur. This eliminates the possibility completely. It feels like another case of technocrats not thinking about the passion around the game and the big picture. Because this is a great idea to streamline procedures and make things easier for the administrator (referee) of the game. But it comes with a cost that likely either is not being considered or being dismissed.
This is making Penalty Kicks more like Penalty Shots in ice hockey. Next they will be allowing subs on the fly.