Football Rules, okay!

[BonnieShels]

There was a game some time ago, where the attacker was flagged offside when receiving the ball, he only had one defender in front of him, the goalie had gone walkabout. For a while I was baffled by the decision.
Usually we take it for granted the goalie doesn't matter because for the vast majority (99.9%?) of offside decisions, the goalie is between the attacking player and the goal.

One that sometimes annoys me when you see flags go up for play that is ahead of the second-to-last defender, ie. the ball is played backwards, a la a corner kick.

[geysir]

I'm annoyed (to varying degrees) when any decision goes against my team.

[gormacha]

No. If there are 2 defending players between him and the goal line he is onside.

I misread your post. I thought you said a player would be onside with one player between him and the goal.

[BonnieShels]

I misread your post. I thought you said a player would be onside with one player between him and the goal.

You're grand. I think though that this proves that we need a straightforward rule like what I proposed with no ifs, ands or buts allowed.

As Cloughie said: 'If he's not interfering with play, what's he doing on the pitch?'

[geysir]

I think the changes over the years to the offside rule are grand, they've worked to make it a better game.
It rates next to where we are with the goalkeeper's 6 second rule as a very progressive rule.
I like the way the rule changes are carefully brought into soccer and later fine tuned.
Refs are capable of interpretation, e.g. what's interfering with play, just as they are capable of interpreting what's a dive, dangerous play, hand ball offence etc. It's a ref's job to interpret and for years players ex-players were moaning about referee rigidity, with decisions made based on the letter of the law.
Then they make a mountain out of a molehill over a few decisions that a ref might not have got exactly right.

[DannyInvincible]

Refs are capable of interpretation, e.g. what's interfering with play, just as they are capable of interpreting what's a dive, dangerous play, hand ball offence etc. It's a ref's job to interpret

I think there's a distinction. Those examples you mention involve incidents that can be seen, interpreted and adjudicated upon accordingly after their occurrence. In the case of judging whether or not a player is (potentially) interfering with play/an opponent or gaining an advantage, a referee will often have to fore-see, if such is possible.

[geysir]

Fair enough there are distinctions, but I'd still say what's regarded as interfering or not interfering with play, is a judgement call primarily based on what he sees in front of him, similar to other judgement calls he has to make, but maybe more closer to the judgement call when he plays advantage.

Maybe some refs won't hack it, they're the ones who like everything cut and dried, are so fixated on the letter of rules and regulations, that they would rather drive on for 30 minutes in the middle of the night, than do an illegal u turn across an empty street. They are the type of refs who really píss off the players.

[DannyInvincible]

A colourful analogy, granted, but wouldn't that be corrupt/lax refereeing? Of course, players would favour overly-lenient referees who'd let them get away with what they want. The players' concerns are secondary, however, if pertinent here at all. Who's going to enforce the laws of the game if referees aren't going to do it? The rules are there for a reason; to provide consistency, certainty and clarity in the game.

[geysir]

I have yet to meet 2 people who are the same.
If football pundits (people who review a game) have varying views over a certain refereeing decision that happened, I do wonder about their calls for consistency of refereeing in the game and the validity of that a ref must stick to the letter of the law and that a rule should should leave no ambiguity about how a ref should act in the game, in order to achieve that better consistency of refereeing.
There are plenty of rules which leave no ambiguity, for instance a ref has to decide on whether a foul happened inside or outside the box, there's no room for an interpretation as such, just a judgement call on actual location.
There was much talk about the penalty we got against Georgia at home, afair the ball hit the defender on the shoulder part of the arm, that in itself is not a penalty imo, even if technically the arm goes up that far. What made the ref decide (imo) that it was a penalty, was that the defender moved his shoulder towards the ball.
That was a situation about what a player understood to be fair and what a ref understood to be a foul. Some parts of the game are for the players to understand and other parts are for the refs being better at their refereeing.
Frisk gave us a last minute penalty when Quinn was having his shirt tugged at WC2002, yet in 2013 a Juve defender could roughly bundle to the ground a Celtic forward right in front of the ref and no foul. So yes, some inconsistencies are glaringly obvious and are perplexing.
I'd have an opinion that in general the top refs are becoming better at these judgement calls part of the game, a foul or play advantage / offside/onside decisions,, diving in the box/ reckless or not reckless tackle etc.

[BonnieShels]

We have gone off the topic at hand though. There should be some sort of ambiguity allowed in certain circumstances and for certain infringements but I think that in relation to offside, which is what this initial discussion is about it should be cut-and-dry.

As I propsosed initially:

"Any player (or part of a player) who, when the ball is played toward the opponents goal-line, has only one defender between him and the opponents goal-line is deemed to be in an offside position."

It's too large a part of the game to leave it ambiguous.

[geysir]

Tinkler was always innocent!

[Schumi]

We have gone off the topic at hand though. There should be some sort of ambiguity allowed in certain circumstances and for certain infringements but I think that in relation to offside, which is what this initial discussion is about it should be cut-and-dry.

As I propsosed initially:

"Any player (or part of a player) who, when the ball is played toward the opponents goal-line, has only one defender between him and the opponents goal-line is deemed to be in an offside position."

It's too large a part of the game to leave it ambiguous.

I don't agree. Say a player crosses the ball from the goal line and it's headed into the goal. Should the goal be disallowed for offside because the guy who crossed it is still on the goal line? That seems silly to me.

[BonnieShels]

I don't agree. Say a player crosses the ball from the goal line and it's headed into the goal. Should the goal be disallowed for offside because the guy who crossed it is still on the goal line? That seems silly to me.

No, because he wasn't offside when he played the ball.

I do see what you mean though from the header itself. Hmmmmmmmmmmm...

[BonnieShels]

Read this today whilst actively avoiding work.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blo...ide-law-genius

[DannyInvincible]

Surely nobody, not even George Graham, goes to a game thinking: "Hmm, I hope they play some good offsides today?" Making defenders defend, forcing them to mark or block or intercept or tackle, has to be a good thing.

Whatever Wilson might think, there is something impressive - if not slightly thrilling - about watching Arrigo Sacchi's AC Milan side playing the offside trap to perfection here:



Would it be possible to pull that off in the modern game?

I've often wondered how the game would be played by two teams completely oblivious to it and who'd never seen a game of football in their lives if they were tasked with playing a match against one another with just the laws of the game from which to work in terms of mapping out tactics and strategies. The participants would have no preconceived or ingrained conceptions of the "spirit of the game" or "how the game ought to be played". Would the resulting game resemble how the modern game is played today at all or might we see some completely novel and radical approach never before envisaged?

[BonnieShels]

We're getting aerosols. Goody.

Spray can enters referees' armoury for Club World Cup
A vanishing spray which has been used in South America for several years to stop defensive walls creeping forward at free-kicks will feature at next month's Club World Cup.
FIFA said the spray had been tested at this year's Under-20 and Under-17 World Cups with "very good overall feedback from the participating referees."
Referees pace the regulation 9.15 metres between the ball and the nearest defender before spraying a line on the pitch to mark the correct position of the wall. The line then disappears from the pitch within a minute.
The spray was developed in Brazil, where it was first used, and Argentina and is licensed by the Argentine company 9.15 Fair Play Limit.
"A large majority of the officials considered the spray as a useful and helpful tool," said FIFA's head of refereeing Massimo Busacca.
"The spray has a clear preventive effect. The distance was always respected, so no yellow card for not respecting the distance had to be given throughout the two tournaments played so far.”

http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/inter...-at-world-cup/

[DannyInvincible]

Following discussion in the World Cup thread emanating from Zabaleta's apparently-legitimate tackle on Iran's Dejagah inside the box, I thought it might be worth posting my thoughts here. The post-rate is quite high in that thread, so discussion on particular incidents can easily become diluted or lost behind a wall of new posts on developing events. Plus, Charlie - who's rarely wrong about anything - recommended posting a query on an "ask the ref"-type thread, so I'm bound to get some answers.

Here's the incident in question again:



My immediate instincts told me that deserved a penalty, even if Zabaleta did appear to make the slightest of contact with the ball. He tripped up his opponent in the box and denied his opponent possession and a goal-scoring opportunity as a result. Are such considerations relevant? Or did he make enough contact with the ball to render the tackle legal? Is the question of "enough contact" even relevant? Experts, pundits and commentators often refer to this notion of "touching the ball" as being significant and decisive in terms of making a judgment over whether or not a tackle constitutes a foul. There's no explicit mention of the idea of a mere touching of the ball rendering a tackle permissible in the rules though, so why should we assume its significance? Just how significant is it? Does merely making contact with the ball completely nullify any possibility of that tackle having been a foul? Are there instances where contact to the ball wouldn't be enough to justify the awarding of a foul? osarusan was arguing that the question of carelessness was key (from Law 12), and that by making contact with the ball, a tackle cannot be deemed careless. Surely a tackle can still be deemed careless even if contact is made with the ball? Can anyone shed some legal or interpretive light on these questions?

The substance of the rule is as follows:

FIFA Laws of the Game 2013-14

Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:

• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 - Position of free kick).

Penalty kick

A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play.

[osarusan]

osarusan was arguing that the question of carelessness was key (from Law 12), and that by making contact with the ball, a tackle cannot be deemed careless.

Just to point out, I wasn't arguing that specifically.

I don't know what, if any, definition of 'careless' there is in the laws. It is my speculation on how referees interpret the law, nothing more.

[DannyInvincible]

Just to point out, I wasn't arguing that specifically.

I don't know what, if any, definition of 'careless' there is in the laws. It is my speculation on how referees interpret the law, nothing more.

Apologies. Just on the definition of "careless", there is this interpretive guideline: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/worl...8/law12-en.pdf

“Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution.

Pretty self-evident. Not sure if it sheds much further light on the ball-contact question, to be honest.

[nigel-harps1954]

I've always seen it, that there's careless tackles, and there's careless challenges. You can challenge someone very carelessly without much chance of getting the ball and give away a poor free, like a swipe of the leg, similar to that of Maxi Perriera of Uruguays red card in their first game.
On the flip side, you can tackle someone carelessly where the ball is there to be won and still get a touch on the ball, however poorly timed it may be. I wouldn't necessarily call it a foul.

With the Zabaleta tackle in question, I don't think it was a foul. However slight, he still got a touch of the ball, just enough to take it away from Dejaggah, and I don't see anything wrong with that.