Wouldn't this make defenders want to grapple more. If you grab them before the corner then they'll probably grab you back and then if they score...
You figured out in like 4.7 seconds what apparently none of the brainiacs at IFAB could come up with.
Also means we will probably see the ref intervene on almost every corner. Should help pace of play a ton.
I think with the better VMO/CR pairings, this will mean nothing barring an extraordinary situation. I think with weaker VMOs or a pairing that has imbalance, you could see something crazy. This could create the kind of disaster that VAR is designed to prevent.
I do love how they continue to think the mouth covering = red card will work and that any referee will actually produce one. I mean referees are ignoring the most basic and obvious violations in the technical area by managers on a weekly basis. Yet, suddenly those same referees are gonna give a red card for abusive language in the ********ing World Cup. Good luck!
Well, also, they don’t actually want the red card for any mouth covering. That would be a disaster. If a referee does this and there isn’t overwhelming context that the covering was an attempt to conceal racial abuse, the referee’s international career is cooked. They want the red for mouth covering on actual racial abuse. So they want this to be a tool for referees to show a red card for racial abuse based on context instead of going through the protocols and reporting it to the bureaucracy. That’s it. That’s all this is. It’s a way to try to force referees to be the bad guys, so to speak (or to give them a tool to make an educated guess, if you’re being generous).
Obviously, I didn't mean all mouth covering = red card. I meant in the context of any hostile/non-friendly interaction. Take the instance of what started this. Vini said it was racial abuse, the Benfica player said it wasn't. What should the referee have done there? Produce a red card under the protocols? No referee will ever hear the racial abuse so it is still reading the context and taking one player's word over another. I get that it is to be a deterrent to players from covering their mouths when engaged in confrontational arguments with opposing players and set the player up so to speak. But it will still turn into a he said she said scenario and put the referee into an impossible situation. A player will say he "said X and covered his mouth you have to send him off." Opposing player goes, "no I didn't."
Well, I hate the rule but I have to push back on you here, because clearly the point of the rule is to allow referees to produce the red card without deciding whether racial abuse occurred. The idea is that if the interaction is confrontational and a player decides to cover their mouth to say something, it is assumed, for the purposes of this law, that abusive language was used, without any audio proof being needed. The only elements needed to find a player guilty of this red card offense are 1) deliberately covering their own mouth, and 2) talking in a confrontational manner to an opponent. Now, #2 does open up a whole can of worms that obviously no one important has thought very much about, but there is no element of a referee having to determine whether or not racial abuse was spoken. The reality is that this will only ever be enforced via VAR, and only if a player reports that their opponent said something racially abusive or something else of that severity. But that also opens up the other can of worms of "what if a player covers their mouth and says something non-abusive and a cunning opponent decides to fabricate a claim of racial abuse"... Obviously the main critique is "well then he shouldn't have covered his mouth if he didn't want people to believe the worst." But that falls flat for me because players genuinely do take this action instinctively, all the time, when speaking to teammates and coaches and friends as well as to enemies.
I’m not entirely convinced that this was really adopted to be used as opposed to being adopted to be able to say “see, we’re doing something about it!” without actual concern about the real world use or implications.
Right. I'm not saying you were saying that. What I was saying is the rule is being broadcast as an "all coverings are red cards" and that's what is technically being said in public. So, well, that's what the public expectation is. But there's no way that's what IFAB or FIFA wants. They created a blanket rule so that the referee should (or "has to," even) give a red card on the field for the face covering IF the context clues illustrate it was likely racial abuse. In tha past, without hearing the abuse first-hand, you'd have to go through the protocols and kick it up to the authorities to deal with. Now, essentially FIFA wants the referees to bear the burden by guessing there was real racial abuse despite not hearing it. That's what this is about. I think in the rare, rare case (because these cases are already rare) where you get racial abuse at this World Cup with a face covering, you will actually see a red card. But it's so unlikely to happen. I actually think it's more likely that a referee mistakes or misinterpets context clues and gives a red for a face-covering under the blanket edict, which would be technically correct but also the end of that referee's tournament. To be clear, I think neither scenario is actually likely at all. And all of this is literally fan-service to cover the asses of bureaucrats so that they don't have to deal directly with tough problems themselves.
Sorry to sound conspiratorial, but that's exactly what they want you to believe. If you think anyone will be happy if a red card is given for this act without clear contextual evidence that racial abuse occurred, I don't know how to convince you otherwise. It would be an absolute nightmare for FIFA. I guarantee referees are being instructed to use this rule to give red cards for presumed racial abuse when they could not previously do so because they did not hear the abuse themselves. That's it. That's the whole ballgame. The idea of likely racial abuse leading to no on-field punishment and the charades around the protocol (and sometimes the manager subbing his own player) is the unsavory scenario that FIFA and IFAB are trying to get rid of. Something bad happened on-field, people are reacting angrily, and all signs point to racial (or some other sort of discriminatory) abuse? Great. Red card now. Referee doesn't need to hear it. That's it. If you want to pushback by playing semantics with the word "decid[e]," fine. The red card will technically be for the face covering and not racial abuse in a report. But in the real world, I guarantee FIFA only wants a red card shown if a referee has "decided," based on context, that abuse occurred.
Worth pointing out that all of this goes away entirely if real racial abuse was said by a player without covering their mouth without it being heard by a match official. In that case, the referee’s hands are tied just as much as before.
I take it, given overall behavior the last decade-plus, players are genuinely afraid of lip-reading. Players often cover their mouths in what are clearly benign (or at least not abusive) discussions. Perhaps this changes that dynamic.
Not exactly a Law change, but FIFA is rolling out new automated OS tech designed to help ARs confirm OSP I. Real time to limit delayed OS flags. https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c232d34kkyzo
From the article: Fifa also confirmed that life-like, AI-enabled 3D avatars of every player will be created to make more accurate decisions. This will mean creating a digital scan of all 1,248 players in the 26-man squads of the 48 teams. Each player will enter a chamber to be scanned, a process that should take just one second and only needs to be done once during their pre-tournament photo shoot.
This has come up before. And I’ll make the same point I made before. If we are making decisions down to the mm level… are we sure bodies don’t change that much given water loss and other factors? It seems trivial and silly, I know. But if you’re using technology to advertise an exacting standard, wouldn’t it make sense to scan everyone every game, at least? If it only takes one second?
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c232d34kkyzo We also have to make sure we get every out of bounds call correctly as well. Heaven forbid a ball goes out of play by an inch and a team scores a goal.
Boots on or boots off? Long studs or short? The Laws are interested in if there was an "unfair advantage" gained are they not? To your point, I think, does a few mm or even a few cm create a situation of an unfair advantage?
Well, given we have had GLT for some time now, this one actually seems a no-brainer to me. But again, the fundamental responsibilities of an AR are eroding before our eyes. I can't remember what thread I put this in, but with boundary and offside decisions being kicked 100% to technology, ARs are going to become more like deputy referees who truly just assist with match control. And when that happens and specialization of offside isn't the primary task... it is not going to make sense to have separate CR and AR tracks at the professional level. But I bet old habits will die hard.
The official IFAB phone app has the new LOTG and man, seeing the “law changes” section all laid out, it is quite jarring how many major changes there have been in just one year
I know it’s insane to say, but I would not be surprised in the slightest if soccer at the professional level eventually becomes a dual system but the refs run a diagonal within each half of the field rather than the dual system positioning used now.