Thanks for the link. One of the new interpretations that interests me is: Law 12 Question 21 If a goalkeeper is bouncing the ball, may an opponent play the ball as it touches the ground, providing he is not guilty of dangerous play? Yes
How about 12, Q 37. Q: Is it legal to challenge a player with the ball who is being fairly challenged? A: Yes. Provided the challenges were legal. Let the "smashing" of the opponent between defenders begin. For those of us in the USA this is a direct contridiction of ATR 12.5
Do you mean the question "Is it permitted for two or more players to challenge an opponent at the same time?". I have always believed yes as long as the two challenging players don't sandwich the opponent.
I've always allowed it. Personally, I've allowed players to be sandwiched, only because I haven't yet been convinced that it's breaking any laws. Of course, if the defenders charge the attacker carelessly (as is likely if the sandwich is deliberate) then it's still a DFK. Also, with 6 legs in a small space there is a reasonable chance of a careless trip occurring, and this will still be penalised. I don't think this changes anything (well, not for all referees, it just depends on your previous interpretation). I'm more concerned about the goalkeeper one - they seem to have gone back on convention, logic, and the previous Q&A here. I can just imagine the abuse that a parks level ref is going to cop if he allows it to happen (which he now has to)...
In a playoff game I looked over and saw the AR on the phone. Being a defender concerned about the proper application of the offside law (in our favour, anyways ) I promptly (and loudly) informed the referee. Turned out the guy was in charge of the Cape Cod Canal operations and was on-call 24x7. I don't know that the call had anything to do with that, but it does put things into perspective. I cannot imagine that I would ever caution an amateur player on the bench for smoking or talking on the phone nor anyone doing either during the interval. OTOH, we have had cases of coaches getting information via phone from spotters at other locations at the field. The local youth league had to write a special rule to prevent this.
I saw a very young ref working a u8 game while carrying a cell phone. Seems he had no watch and his dad's cell phone had a clock so that was how he timed the game.
In many games I have played in coaches and players have been on cell phones while on the bench, just talking in normal conversations and I see nothing wrong with that.
[sarcasm] In the highly competitive world of youth soccer where every moment from U6 through U19 may decide a child's free-ride through college and life we have to take precautions that the over-coaching arms race has reasonable limits. We cannot allow the team with the best technology to win. [/sarcasm] More to reality, some leagues have rules limiting the number of bench personnel. Cell phones would be one mechanism for augmenting the coaching staff in an instantaneous manner, not to mention a way for a suspended coach to give input from the spectator's area.
I once participated in a match that was in the crapper before it started - head coach of varsity on the jv bench, and his cell fone rings. Was his wife. Yet it got him a yellow and a real chance to be p*ssed. Varsity match was a mess from the get-go..... I think that it's one of those things that has to be enforced because of a few stinkers that will sink to coaching over the phone. I know that the head coach that I assist often gets work-related calls during the match - he reluctantly takes them. I am also in a critical position in my work, and have gotten calls during the match. I HATE taking them, but I get paid infinitely more to be an engineer than a hs coach (salary versus $0.00). We both disappear as best we can, and talk with our back to the field. But I suppose we could get a caution for otherwise innocent behavior. I dunno how you would tell if a coach is using the cell phone to coach, or is just taking an emergency call from his wife who has car trouble. I would tend to leave it be under normal circumstances, but in higher level matches, maybe even state cup level playoffs, I would probably determine from the competition authority what the ground rules are and go with that. I hate ones like this...a real easy way to take otherwise smooth seas and create a real tempest.
#22 of Law XII seems to be the most troublesome. This calls into question exactly what "possession" by a goalkeeper is: 22. After taking possession of the ball, a goalkeeper allows it to lie on his open hand. An opponent comes from behind him and heads the ball from his hand. Is this permitted? This is permitted since the goalkeeper does not have full possession of the ball and the action of the opponent is not dangerous.
#38 and #39 from Law XII also appear somewhat controversial (39 less so than 38, but the play from the Sweden/Bulgaria EURO 04 match should be recalled): 38. A defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area but finishes inside the penalty area. What action should the referee take? He would award a penalty kick. 39. A player plays in a dangerous manner raising his leg when the opponent tries to head the ball and makes contact with the opponent’s head. What action should the referee take? He would award a direct free kick or penalty kick.
12.38 - In this instance the hold began outside the PA and continued into the PA. Law 5 tells us to punish the more serious offence and I would take that to mean award the higher punishment, which in this case is a PK. Don't confuse this with a trip outside the PA where the victim falls into the PA. That was a foul committed outside the PA. 12.39 - This is a trick question. A dangerous play is non-contact. Once contact is made it becomes a penal foul. Since the lifted leg made contact, this becomes a kicking foul and the DFK/PK is the correct answer.
This question and the one allowing an opponent to play the ball while the keeper is bouncing it were the two most troublesome to me, along with now allowing a sandwich. Do we have to go by these new policies now or wait until the USSF memo comes out?
That depends on what level of match you are doing. International match wearing a FIFA badge, it was in effect 1 July. Youth or amature in the USA wearing a USSF badge you do not change anything until your sanctioning body (USSF) posts its memo. An example USSF has already published a memo regarding the "shirt removal" so that is what you are to enforce.
Right, but this implies that each moment of a prolonged hold is a separate offence. I've always understood (or been taught) that if a holding foul begins, you can attempt to play advantage and if the advantage does not materialize you bring the free kick back to the point where the hold originated. Going by the logic put forth in the new Q&A, referees should almost never whistle for initial holding fouls but should wait to see how far an attacker can progress while being held and then give a free kick (or PK) at the point the end up at. This is worrisome to me and seems like it will create more retaliatory elbows and strikes. Again, I understand the difference between a dangerous play IFK and a penal foul DFK for 'kicking'. But witness the Bulgaria/Sweden match from EURO 2004 and see the thread related to that play on this board. In practice, especially in the area, referees don't give DFKs or PKs when a defender raises his boot in a dangerous manner and then makes contact with an attacker's head. There has always been a fine line here and I think the referee's discretion is paramount. If a player raises his boot in a controlled, yet dangerous manner and makes contact with an opponent, I believe he hasn't really "kicked or attempted to kick" his opponent (especially if he makes contact witht he ball first) and is only guilty of dangerous play. However, if a player carelessly or recklessly raises his boot and misses the ball completely, thereby kicking his opponent, the DFK or PK is in order. This Q&A takes away that discretion from the referee and turns a "high boot" dangerous play foul into a DFK or PK whenever contact is made. In theory or principle you may agree with that, but do we actually want to see it in practice on the field?
I guess I DO want to see it on the field. If a player is making such a dangerous play that there is contact, it should be a direct free kick. I think too many refs chicken out in the box and call "dangerous play IFK" rather than a PK for these type of plays, and the defenders are relying on the refs bailing them out because it happens so much. The game will evolve as the players adapt, and there will be less "high boots" as the punishment will have become too severe (at least in the box) to chance it.
The simple act of raising a boot is not inherently dangerous. It is the surrounding circumstances that create the danger. If I raise my foot up high, and then you run into it, is it still my fault there was contact? If the interpretation becomes "yes" then we will see attackers try and draw contact when somebody is kicking high. In a game played only with the foot, I find it hard to justify punishing somebody for kicking the ball.