Laws Of The Game

[Exiled AusJag]

I've noticed with interest both on this site and the PTFC facebook page some lively debate regarding the laws of the game, the latest being the corner in the ICT game. I've made my opinions as a referee known on that particular match thread.

What is concerning are posters making statements which they believe to be facts concerning the laws of the game, when they are incorrect. This is universal for both fans and even tv pundits worldwide.

These beliefs are founded on old laws which were changed years ago.

This leads to frustration and anger, but if fans , coaches, players etc actually knew the laws, then the dabate would be be even, and their enjoyment of the game would be enhanced, and they could see and understand WHY officials make certain decisions.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Exiled AusJag

[Veejag]

I work with a Cat2 referee and it's been great going in on Monday and chatting to him about various decisions from the weekend. Open to admitting mistakes too, which is refreshing.

[Norgethistle]

I've noticed with interest both on this site and the PTFC facebook page some lively debate regarding the laws of the game, the latest being the corner in the ICT game. I've made my opinions as a referee known on that particular match thread.

What is concerning are posters making statements which they believe to be facts concerning the laws of the game, when they are incorrect. This is universal for both fans and even tv pundits worldwide.

These beliefs are founded on old laws which were changed years ago.

This leads to frustration and anger, but if fans , coaches, players etc actually knew the laws, then the dabate would be be even, and their enjoyment of the game would be enhanced, and they could see and understand WHY officials make certain decisions.

 

Here is the problem the authorities keep tinkering with the rules

[Fearchar]

Are the current laws of the game online? Do they vary according to the national governing body/bodies?

[potty trained]

Same with MOTD2 last night talking about the David Marshall incident. Ferdinand and Dublin coming out with... Well in my opinion the goal should stand etc...

 

Well NO! The laws state if bouncing the ball, he's still in control of it. End if debate.

 

The problem is with the Caley corner, the rules state the goal should stand... However the linesman tells Craigen to get back 10 yards...

 

So, did the linesman tell the Caley player it wasn't taken, to wait for a whistle etc. if the Caley player ignores the linesman then it's no goal.

[Exiled AusJag]

Are the current laws of the game online? Do they vary according to the national governing body/bodies?

 

fearchar, here's the link for you

 

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footballdevelopment/technicalsupport/refereeing/laws-of-the-game/index.html

 

the laws are universal. The only things that differ in different countries and diferent levels are the rules of competition, which are a different entity to the laws

[Willjag]

I'd played football all my adult life and when I took up refereeing and it totally changed my perception of the game. You see the game from a whole new point of view. It's not so much the rules that change but how they are interpreted. FIFA send out guidelines at the beginning of each season and referees of all standards are well informed of any new guidelines as long as they maintain mebership of their assosciation.

 

When I was still refereeing, there were only minor changes each season so it isn't difficult to keep up as long as you know the basics.

 

The BBC commentary team on Sunday post match reckoned that the Assistant knew he had boobed but hoped it would come to nothing. Unfortunately for him, ICT scored though. It took a lot of balls from him to admit he had made a mistake and rule out the goal. It would have been far easier for him to say he hadn't told Craigen to get back and allow the goal to stand.

[jaggybunnet]

 

The problem is with the Caley corner, the rules state the goal should stand... However the linesman tells Craigen to get back 10 yards...

 

So, did the linesman tell the Caley player it wasn't taken, to wait for a whistle etc. if the Caley player ignores the linesman then it's no goal.

 

unless the AR has a massive twitch IMHO you can clearly see him shaking his head to the ICT player, didn't help him not flagging straight away though

[Lenziejag]

Same with MOTD2 last night talking about the David Marshall incident. Ferdinand and Dublin coming out with... Well in my opinion the goal should stand etc...

 

Well NO! The laws state if bouncing the ball, he's still in control of it. End if debate.

 

The problem is with the Caley corner, the rules state the goal should stand... However the linesman tells Craigen to get back 10 yards...

 

So, did the linesman tell the Caley player it wasn't taken, to wait for a whistle etc. if the Caley player ignores the linesman then it's no goal.

 

 

It looked to me that draper said to the linesman that he had taken the corner. The linesman shook his head. Draper ignores him and tells Doran that he has taken the corner. Meanwhile the linesman tells Craigen to get back and Doran starts his wee dribble and poor wee Terry is nearly greetin in his tea.

[Willjag]

EAJ, in case you haven't noticed my post elsewhere, play was restarted with a free kick to the real Jags. Should the corner kick not have been re-taken?

[1 John Lambie]

EAJ, in case you haven't noticed my post elsewhere, play was restarted with a free kick to the real Jags. Should the corner kick not have been re-taken?

 

But the linesman said that Draper touched the ball twice thus making it an illegal way to take a corner which presumably makes it a free-kick to Thistle. Either way the linesman fcuked but at least admitted he had once the ball hit the net.

[Winter of '63]

EAJ, in case you haven't noticed my post elsewhere, play was restarted with a free kick to the real Jags. Should the corner kick not have been re-taken?

I would be interested in EAJ's view on this.

 

In his after match interview, Terry Butcher said that the referee had told him that the goal was disallowed because the player taking the corner had played the ball twice. Is that why the restart was a free kick to us?

 

Draper clearly did play the ball twice - once to steady the ball in the quadrant, then the sly kick to move it a few inches. If you are trying a fly move to catch the opposition out, surely the laws have to be applied strictly? Maybe, the Assistant Ref assumed that the corner would then be taken "properly" by another player and told Craigen that it was not in play.

 

Another question - would Craigen have been entitled to make a challenge immediately after the first touch or does he have to keep 10 yards away until the second touch or the ball has travelled its circumference?

 

A lot of strife would have been avoided if the Assistant Ref had flagged immediately. However, it does look as if he hadn't moved from his position when the corner was taken despite play continuing for a few seconds - could he have spoken to the ref on the mic?

Edited October 21, 2013 by Winter of '63

[Lionel J. Botch]

The decision was the ICT player played the ball again without being touched by another player, thus an indirect free kick to Thistle. It is exactly the same situation if a player takes a penalty, it hits the upright and he hits in the rebound. Result being he has played the ball twice without being touched by another player, indirect free kick awarded.

 

The thing is, the officials are miked up these days, there could have been a conversation taking place whilst the game is going on. By the time a decision is made the ball us in the net.

 

Should the goal have stood? No. The assistant clearly tells JC to move back 10 yards, thus the ball is not in play. Had JC been allowed to tackle for the ball, who knows what the outcome would have been.

 

 

[wes]

Although it is the correct outcome and there are quite a few faults, the penny has dropped with what the linesman meant by the player playing the ball twice.

Draper comes along and taps the ball and tells the linesman he has taken the corner.

Linesman says no you haven't.

Draper tells Doran to play the ball.

Linesman tells Craigen to retreat 10 yards (as the corner has not been taken).

Doran then plays the ball twice, which in the linesman's view was the offense.

Linesman should have put his flag up then, but who knows, maybe he told the ref through the intercom they have between the officials.

Anyway the right decision by possibly the wrong means.

Roll on next week, phew!

[Exiled AusJag]

I would be interested in EAJ's view on this.

 

In his after match interview, Terry Butcher said that the referee had told him that the goal was disallowed because the player taking the corner had played the ball twice. Is that why the restart was a free kick to us?

 

Draper clearly did play the ball twice - once to steady the ball in the quadrant, then the sly kick to move it a few inches. If you are trying a fly move to catch the opposition out, surely the laws have to be applied strictly? Maybe, the Assistant Ref assumed that the corner would then be taken "properly" by another player and told Craigen that it was not in play.

 

Another question - would Craigen have been entitled to make a challenge immediately after the first touch or does he have to keep 10 yards away until the second touch or the ball has travelled its circumference?

 

A lot of strife would have been avoided if the Assistant Ref had flagged immediately. However, it does look as if he hadn't moved from his position when the corner was taken despite play continuing for a few seconds - could he have spoken to the ref on the mic?

 

The restart was an IFK because the ball was played twice from the corner before another player had touched it.

 

There are a few of problems as I see it.

 

When the corner was 'taken' and the AR was told thats what had happened, in law the ball had been kicked and had moved so was therefore in play. The ball does NOT have to travel it's circumferance or leave the arc.

The ball having to travel it's circumference changed so many years ago I can't remember when it last applied.

 

If the AR had deemed the corner had not been taken, then then he would have been correct in ordering Craigen back 10 yards, but should have flagged IMMEDIATELY the ball was played a second time. He would possibly also have told the ref as well through the mike.

 

If he had thought the corner was taken correctly, then he was wrong to order Craigen back. If he had been allowed to challenge then who knows what the outcome would have been. He would have been allowed to challenge as soon as the ball was in play. He doesn't need to wait for another player to touch it.

 

If a team is trying a move to catch their opponents out, as long as it's within the laws of the game, play can't be pulled back just because it doesn't SEEM right. We see that type of thing happening so often when a team takes a quick free kick, and if they stuff up, then that's their problem.

[Willjag]

But the linesman said that Draper touched the ball twice thus making it an illegal way to take a corner which presumably makes it a free-kick to Thistle. Either way the linesman fcuked but at least admitted he had once the ball hit the net.

The assistant hasn't directly said this 1JL. This is second hand. Never ever trust what players say that officials have said!

[Willjag]

Thanks for the response EAJ.

 

Can you clarify why that is viewed as an offence rather than as a mistake that should be rectifed by the same team? (i.e. what's the official ruling)

[MerryHell]

Although it is the correct outcome and there are quite a few faults, the penny has dropped with what the linesman meant by the player playing the ball twice.

Draper comes along and taps the ball and tells the linesman he has taken the corner.

Linesman says no you haven't.

Draper tells Doran to play the ball.

Linesman tells Craigen to retreat 10 yards (as the corner has not been taken).

Doran then plays the ball twice, which in the linesman's view was the offense.

Linesman should have put his flag up then, but who knows, maybe he told the ref through the intercom they have between the officials.

Anyway the right decision by possibly the wrong means.

Roll on next week, phew!

 

Pretty much how I see it from TV.

 

Really, it's the AR that's fcuked up - don't think there's anything wrong with what ICT did, but the AR clearly shakes his head and tells Craigan to retreat. Why he then doesn't raise his flag until the ball is in the net is beyond me. Being miked up is no excuse - sure they don't agree every offside or throw in with Ref before flagging.

 

Whatever, I'm sure it'll feature in The Guardian's 'you're the ref' (or whatever it's called) before too long.

[H Wragg]

Whatever, I'm sure it'll feature in The Guardian's 'you're the ref' (or whatever it's called) before too long.

It's a clear cut case of 'goal' until you bring in the linesman's actions, which makes it all the more galling that that was the part of the incident that the half time analysis yesterday and the 'post mortem' on SSN this morning completely ignored.

[Exiled AusJag]

Thanks for the response EAJ.

 

Can you clarify why that is viewed as an offence rather than as a mistake that should be rectifed by the same team? (i.e. what's the official ruling)

 

An offence is a breach of the laws of the game, resulting in a free kick, penalty kick, or a throw in to the opposition, and if severe enough, a red or yellow card.

 

If a player makes a mistake that doesn't breach the laws of the game, then no action is taken. e.g. if he mis hits a free kick, then play continues, no offence has been committed.

 

If the ball slips from his hand when taking a throw in, and as a result it's thrown incorrectly, then the throw is given to the other side. The player in this instance has the responsibilty to take the throw properly. At a dead ball, usualy a free kick, but also a throw in, corner kick, goal kick, penalty kick, if the player taking the kick/throw touches the ball a second time once the ball is in play (see the relevant laws for a throw in, goal kick, free kick to the defence in their own penalty area, and penalty kick, as well as free kicks in the rest of the field) after he's taken the kick/throw, even by mistake, then an indirect free kick is awarded to the opposition. In these two instances a breach of the laws has taken place.

[Exiled AusJag]

When the corner was 'taken' and the AR was told thats what had happened, in law the ball had been kicked and had moved so was therefore in play. The ball does NOT have to travel it's circumferance or leave the arc.

The ball having to travel it's circumference changed so many years ago I can't remember when it last applied.

 

I knew I'd find it. This law changed in 1997

 

http://www.fifa.com/newscentre/news/newsid=70199/

[Winter of '63]

The restart was an IFK because the ball was played twice from the corner before another player had touched it.

 

There are a few of problems as I see it.

 

When the corner was 'taken' and the AR was told thats what had happened, in law the ball had been kicked and had moved so was therefore in play. The ball does NOT have to travel it's circumferance or leave the arc.

The ball having to travel it's circumference changed so many years ago I can't remember when it last applied.

 

If the AR had deemed the corner had not been taken, then then he would have been correct in ordering Craigen back 10 yards, but should have flagged IMMEDIATELY the ball was played a second time. He would possibly also have told the ref as well through the mike.

 

If he had thought the corner was taken correctly, then he was wrong to order Craigen back. If he had been allowed to challenge then who knows what the outcome would have been. He would have been allowed to challenge as soon as the ball was in play. He doesn't need to wait for another player to touch it.

 

If a team is trying a move to catch their opponents out, as long as it's within the laws of the game, play can't be pulled back just because it doesn't SEEM right. We see that type of thing happening so often when a team takes a quick free kick, and if they stuff up, then that's their problem.

Thanks for that EAJ. My initial thought was that the double hit was by Draper but as Wes mentioned on this thread, it was actually by Doran. The AR clearly didn't regard Draper's tap as a properly taken corner, told Craigen to get back 10 yards then made the correct decision when Doran ran with the ball from the corner - should have put his flag up immediately though.