Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Revised "Laws of the Game" - from1 June 2016


The laws have been extensively re-written, for clarification (so it states).

It took me over one hour to read from cover to cover, to identify the difference between (a) clarification (b) minor changes to account for obscure situations (c) major changes affecting games on a regular basis.

I have identified three major changes, which we as supporters need to be aware of, to enhance our knowledge and enjoyment of games.

1. The ball can now be played backwards at the start of the game and restart following goals, half time etc.

2. A defender conceding a foul by a mischallenged tackle in a "goalscoring opportunity" situation shall be cautioned rather than sent off. It remains however that players will be sent off for holding, tripping, deliberate handball etc and tackling when, in the opinion of the referee, there in no chance of a tackle being successful, in a "goalscoring opportunity".

3. A player who is fouled and the opponent receives a yellow or red card, does not need to leave the field of play for and after treatment, if the stoppage is not considered lengthy by the referee.

If others on here spot changes that I have missed, then please add to this thread.
«1

Comments

  • Meant to say "mistimed challenge" in the first line of change number two - sorry.
  • key changes are summarised here https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/jan/08/kickoffs-backwards-rule-changes

    sending offs pre kick off is the other main one
  • edited June 2016
    This is where the powers that be create more grey areas and problems that don't need to be there as much as improving thing.

    3) No one will argue that the law was stupid and needed to change. But what on earth constitutes a "lengthy stoppage"? Again it's subjective and is going to lead to vastly different decisions by different referees, and even inconsistent decisions by the same ref in the same game, causing complaints and confusion. If it's lengthy then it's just common sense the player may have to go off for treatment, but why still have to go off after treatment?
    And why does it have to be a booking? A foul is a foul and players do get injured by fouls that aren't bookable offences. Plus again there's always inconsistencies with refs decisions for the punishment for fouls.

    If it's a foul then the fouled team should not be penalised, simple. If the Ref thinks the fouled player is taking the p then he can deal with that separately.
  • Haven't seen this article, thanks. Hope I have "found" the major changes buried away amongst the many changes to wording!
  • Now read the article. Think I covered the "big three" changes, ie situations that will occur in every game; others to me are less important from a general knowledge point of view because of the infrequency of the occurrencies.
  • You can be sent off before the game starts now too BUT can replace that player with a sub so look still start with eleven players.
  • You can be sent off before the game starts now too BUT can replace that player with a sub so look still start with eleven players.

    Yep
  • DRAddick said:

    This is where the powers that be create more grey areas and problems that don't need to be there as much as improving thing.

    3) No one will argue that the law was stupid and needed to change. But what on earth constitutes a "lengthy stoppage"? Again it's subjective and is going to lead to vastly different decisions by different referees, and even inconsistent decisions by the same ref in the same game, causing complaints and confusion. If it's lengthy then it's just common sense the player may have to go off for treatment, but why still have to go off after treatment?
    And why does it have to be a booking? A foul is a foul and players do get injured by fouls that aren't bookable offences. Plus again there's always inconsistencies with refs decisions for the punishment for fouls.

    If it's a foul then the fouled team should not be penalised, simple. If the Ref thinks the fouled player is taking the p then he can deal with that separately.

    I would offer an opinion in that a foul in a "goalscoring opportunity" has a potential much greater impact upon the game than one that occurs in the middle of the park....and don't shoot the messenger boy (me) !!!
  • You can be sent off before the game starts now too BUT can replace that player with a sub so look still start with eleven players.

    As far as I understand it this is not a new change.

    The ruling about taking a player down verses chopping a player down is going to lead to some controversy.
  • PeterGage said:

    DRAddick said:

    This is where the powers that be create more grey areas and problems that don't need to be there as much as improving thing.

    3) No one will argue that the law was stupid and needed to change. But what on earth constitutes a "lengthy stoppage"? Again it's subjective and is going to lead to vastly different decisions by different referees, and even inconsistent decisions by the same ref in the same game, causing complaints and confusion. If it's lengthy then it's just common sense the player may have to go off for treatment, but why still have to go off after treatment?
    And why does it have to be a booking? A foul is a foul and players do get injured by fouls that aren't bookable offences. Plus again there's always inconsistencies with refs decisions for the punishment for fouls.

    If it's a foul then the fouled team should not be penalised, simple. If the Ref thinks the fouled player is taking the p then he can deal with that separately.

    I would offer an opinion in that a foul in a "goalscoring opportunity" has a potential much greater impact upon the game than one that occurs in the middle of the park....and don't shoot the messenger boy (me) !!!
    But you don't know what's going to happen immediately after the free kick is taken and before the player is waved back on. Especially if it's say a defender who has had to go off a lot further up the field. I don't see what difference to the situation a booking makes?
    I know you're just the messenger mate just bemused that once again the lawmakers take something which should be simple and mess it up by trying to be clever.
  • Sponsored links:


  • I think, DR, we are talking about different changes!

    If we are talking about injuries and leaving the field of play, then I offer the following opinion.

    The law whereby a player had to leave the field of play following treatment for an injury was brought in stop feigning injuries to waste time. It was thought that the disadvantage of team playing with ten men, albeit for a short period, would reduce such feigned injuries. I agree with the actions and logic behind behind them

    The change now recognises that in the case of "real" injury, the team should not be disadvantaged; and I guess the only recognition of a real injury, as opposed to a feigned injury, is the severity of the foul. Again, I agree (now you can shoot the messenger boy) !!
  • Is it still ok to wrestle the oppo at corners?
  • edited June 2016
    On one hand, I can see that whether you pass the ball forwards or backwards at kick off doesn't matter a jot, but what's the benefit of changing it, I wonder?
  • Foot over the line when taking a throw-in .Seen too much of this ,Iceland scored from just that against i think Austria (first goal).
  • On one hand, I can see that whether you pass the ball forwards or backwards at kick off doesn't matter a jot, but what's the benefit of changing it, I wonder?

    The explanation given is that it a player whose team kicks off is often (illegally) in the opponents half of the paly at kick off. This change should reduce the need for that infringement
  • PeterGage said:

    On one hand, I can see that whether you pass the ball forwards or backwards at kick off doesn't matter a jot, but what's the benefit of changing it, I wonder?

    The explanation given is that it a player whose team kicks off is often (illegally) in the opponents half of the paly at kick off. This change should reduce the need for that infringement
    How many times did anyone get pulled up for it?
  • How do you get sent off before kick off? Taking a dump in the centre circle?
  • Off_it said:

    How do you get sent off before kick off? Taking a dump in the centre circle?

    I think taking a dump by the corner flag would be treated in the same way by any competent ref.
  • Off_it said:

    How do you get sent off before kick off? Taking a dump in the centre circle?

    Didn't Robbie Savage take dump in the ref's changing room (in the toilet) and get fined?
  • Off_it said:

    How do you get sent off before kick off? Taking a dump in the centre circle?

    Both sets of players and officials "share" the pitch before KO for warming up. Any major dust up between players could result in violet conduct or a player swearing at a match official. Both scenarios are sending off offences.
  • Sponsored links:


  • violent even!
  • When shaking the refs hand before kick off you could be sent off for calling him a cheating c***.
  • edited June 2016
    I always thought that (probably wrongly) the ref could report any player from kick off until he left the ground. So, when does it start? As he gets out of his car? Or, if he stalls his car at traffic lights on the way to the ground and a player calls him something obscene?
  • I always thought that (probably wrongly) the ref could report any player from kick off until he left the ground. So, when does it start? As he gets out of his car? Or, if he stalls his car at traffic lights on the way to the ground and a player calls him something obscene?

    A referee can report to the FA any incident that he believes brings the game into disrepute, regardless of the place of the incident. However, it would not be realistic or sensible to show a red card to a player in say the car park before/after the game. Thus actually showing cards is only used on or close to the field of play.

    The concept of red and yellow cards, based upon traffic lights (yellow for a warning/caution and red for danger) were first suggested by an English referee in the 50's (?) (I have forgotten his name - Arthur someone) to overcome the language barrier that existed at a time when English was not an international language in football circles (ie when most players only played football in their native country). Using a yellow card was a way of telling a foreign player with no knowledge of the same language as the referee that he has reached his last chance.
  • I am surprised there has been so little comment on 2. So a player is through with a goalscoring opportunity. A defender comes in and makes a "one for the team" challenge which have a 1 in 1000 chance of being successful. He now stays on. This is going to increase the controversy.
  • PeterGage said:

    On one hand, I can see that whether you pass the ball forwards or backwards at kick off doesn't matter a jot, but what's the benefit of changing it, I wonder?

    The explanation given is that it a player whose team kicks off is often (illegally) in the opponents half of the paly at kick off. This change should reduce the need for that infringement
    but unless you're dragging the ball back with your studs I can't see how you can play the ball backwards from KO without putting some part of your body in the oppo's half
  • redman said:

    I am surprised there has been so little comment on 2. So a player is through with a goalscoring opportunity. A defender comes in and makes a "one for the team" challenge which have a 1 in 1000 chance of being successful. He now stays on. This is going to increase the controversy.

    nope, that will still be a red

    there has to be an attempt to play the ball which isn't the case if you're taking one for the team

    obviously this is going to come down to the ref's interpretation though
  • Its about time they changed the Law for taking a shirt off when scoring a goal,should be a straight Red.
  • Rule changes in football are always written in a way that ensures referees maintain their power. That is why they will still decide what is "considered lengthy" provided the offending player receives a card even though the revised law is illogical. Why should a card make a difference ? Afterall, a foul and the seriousness of the resultant injury are not necessarily linked. The foul could be minor but the injury serious and the player is forced to leave the field. On the other hand, the foul could be relatively minor but receive a card because of the so called totting up process allowing the player to remain on the field. It's all totally illogical.

    The law makers in football act in a similar way to cricket where every step to a more logical approach usually includes details that do the opposite (eg 'light' conditions and overs per day etc).
  • Is it still ok to wrestle the oppo at corners?

    Apparently so, judging by this tournament.

    I don't buy this ' it's all part of the game'. It's not, and it must be contravening at least one law, if not more. Just the same as deliberate handball.


Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!