Awwwww Ref - Know The Laws
I remember that FIFA put out a directive a few years back that essentially said it's OK for players to stand in the offside position on free kicks as long as they did not actively seek to get involved in the play before moving back to an on-side position (or something to that effect). The whole thing turned into a complete mess and managers were very unhappy with how it was used.
I thought the whole idea was abandoned soon after, but after seeing the Birmingham v. Liverpool highlights it may not have been. I'm sure our refs will know (as well as clarify what the directive actually said).
That IS an offside offense, as he has gained an advantage from being in an offside position, deflections don't count as the defending team 'playing' the ball.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imj-cHdCDC8&feature=related
As for Off Side, he is played on by the retreating defenders isn't he ?
I remember that FIFA put out a directive a few years back that essentially said it's OK for players to stand in the offside position on free kicks as long as they did not actively seek to get involved in the play before moving back to an on-side position (or something to that effect). The whole thing turned into a complete mess and managers were very unhappy with how it was used.
I thought the whole idea was abandoned soon after, but after seeing the Birmingham v. Liverpool highlights it may not have been. I'm sure our refs will know (as well as clarify what the directive actually said).
That IS an offside offense, as he has gained an advantage from being in an offside position, deflections don't count as the defending team 'playing' the ball.
He has indeed
I remember that FIFA put out a directive a few years back that essentially said it's OK for players to stand in the offside position on free kicks as long as they did not actively seek to get involved in the play before moving back to an on-side position (or something to that effect). The whole thing turned into a complete mess and managers were very unhappy with how it was used.
I thought the whole idea was abandoned soon after, but after seeing the Birmingham v. Liverpool highlights it may not have been. I'm sure our refs will know (as well as clarify what the directive actually said).
That IS an offside offense, as he has gained an advantage from being in an offside position, deflections don't count as the defending team 'playing' the ball.
He has indeed
They should, but if the shot comes from a way out, the linesman is either looking where the shot has come from and therefor isn't 100% on where the attackers are, or is looking at the attackers and isn't sure when the shot was taken so it's quite tricky.
They should, but if the shot comes from a way out, the linesman is either looking where the shot has come from and therefor isn't 100% on where the attackers are, or is looking at the attackers and isn't sure when the shot was taken so it's quite tricky.
Neither - the AR will (should) be looking at where the 2nd last defender is (and any attacking players position in relation to this)
So yes - shots from a distance can be tricky
Which leads me to an incident from last Saturday. Let's say a centre-back in the box gets hit on his thigh by a cross, but because he's crap he doesn't control it and ball bounces of his out-stretched hand and the penalty is given and much controversy ensues (along the lines 'he didn't do it on purpose'). I thought it was a fair call. Any thoughts?
� The movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
� The distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
� Position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement...."
If only all incidents happened at those kind of distances, eh?
Actually, I've thought about this more, and think that although the laws seem to be poorly written, they don't necessarily require clear intent to handle the ball for a foul to be given. Consider the following scenario: an attacking player is preparing for a shot/cross and the defeder comes in to block with arms raised/outstretched in order to get better balance (or if they're realy cynical, make themselves bigger and take chances on the handball call). In this case, surely the first movement is from hand towards the ball, even if ere is no clear intent to play the ball with the hand? I think at any rate this call would have to be made, otherwise the game would degenerate into rugby-type charging down.
Yep. That's probably why there's so much controversy around handballs pretty much everywhere.
Yep. That's probably why there's so much controversy around handballs pretty much everywhere.
Yep, in the example I gave above if the ball didn't hit the hand, it would have gone to the opposition striker who would have had a decent chance of scoring.
1: As I understand, the laws of the game are being completely re-written from front to cover this year for the first time in its existence to make it a bit more 'current' (thats my word). I'm guessing that it will be written in modern terms and a bit more understandable.
2: One of the things that referees are now asked to be mindful of in a handball situation is the natural stance or 'mass of a player'. For example, players don't run around with their hands up near their heads so if there is contact with the ball on the arms up near head height, handball is a consideration because its not a natural position for the arms to be in. Same goes if a player has his arms out (almost like a seagull for imagery sake). Thats not natual for the arms/hands to be there so consideration is given to handball. The player has made himself larger by having his arms there very much what you touched on EG
1: As I understand, the laws of the game are being completely re-written from front to cover this year for the first time in its existence to make it a bit more 'current' (thats my word). I'm guessing that it will be written in modern terms and a bit more understandable.
2: One of the things that referees are now asked to be mindful of in a handball situation is the natural stance or 'mass of a player'. For example, players don't run around with their hands up near their heads so if there is contact with the ball on the arms up near head height, handball is a consideration because its not a natural position for the arms to be in. Same goes if a player has his arms out (almost like a seagull for imagery sake). Thats not natual for the arms/hands to be there so consideration is given to handball. The player has made himself larger by having his arms there very much what you touched on EG
Here is another Jag and others,
On Saturday about 5 minutes before put game started the ref was checking our boots and told me that I had to change the colour of my socks. I was wearing yellow socks at the time because I was wearing a yellow goalkeeping top. I was told that I had to wear the same colour as my team (orange).
There was no class of colours again the opposition or anyone else. Is this ruling correct? I had a look on the FIFA website and could only see this under law 4.
"each goalkeeper wears colours that distinguish him from the other players, the referee and the assistant referees"
Ha Ha. I remember this one flaring up big time a few years back in Welly.
Here is another Jag and others,
On Saturday about 5 minutes before put game started the ref was checking our boots and told me that I had to change the colour of my socks. I was wearing yellow socks at the time because I was wearing a yellow goalkeeping top. I was told that I had to wear the same colour as my team (orange).
There was no class of colours again the opposition or anyone else. Is this ruling correct? I had a look on the FIFA website and could only see this under law 4.
"each goalkeeper wears colours that distinguish him from the other players, the referee and the assistant referees"
Ha Ha. I remember this one flaring up big time a few years back in Welly.
Strangely enough the color of socks is incredibly important. The referee for the most time has his eyes on the ground looking at the way players use their feet/legs to win the ball in challenges, therefor the only way to differentiate between the players is the sock colour. Having a keeper where different the same socks is NOT in the laws however it does make the referees job easier if their is a goal line scramble or the like.
"The colours worn by the goalkeeper must be noticeably different from those worn by the outfield players of his own team. Furthermore, the goalkeeper colours chosen for a particular match must also be contrasting to the kit worn by the opposing team, as well as that of the referee and assistant referees (see Laws � Law 4, The Players� Equipment, Goalkeepers)."
Now this question is quite ironic this as it was debated the other night and I asked the same question. The debates centered around the term 'Colours'. It was taken as being a plural term meaning more than one item (This was before we found the above article. This was found after the discussion)
My personal preference (and this is not gospel, just my preference) is that I wont allow a keeper to wear the same socks and shorts as the opposition but don't have too much of an issue if he wants to wear the same colour Socks/Shorts as his team. It all comes down to managing the situation, what level you are at, how many goalkeeper outfits there are and making sure you can clearly identify the keeper from other players. Sometimes you have to make do with what you have and roll with it as long as you can identify the keeper.
I happen to have the above regulations because I've got a truck load of FIFA material from their website. At international level, all keepers are required to be in totally different colours top to bottom.
Apparently yes, but only in international football.
Here is another Jag and others,
On Saturday about 5 minutes before put game started the ref was checking our boots and told me that I had to change the colour of my socks. I was wearing yellow socks at the time because I was wearing a yellow goalkeeping top. I was told that I had to wear the same colour as my team (orange).
There was no class of colours again the opposition or anyone else. Is this ruling correct? I had a look on the FIFA website and could only see this under law 4.
"each goalkeeper wears colours that distinguish him from the other players, the referee and the assistant referees"
The basic compulsory equipment of a player comprises the following separate items:
� a jersey or shirt � if undergarments are worn, the colour of the sleeve should be the same main colour as the sleeve of the jersey or shirt.
� shorts � if undershorts are worn, they are of the same main colour as the shorts
� stockings
� shinguards
� footwear