Football Rules, okay!

[BonnieShels]

I could have sworn there was a thread on it already but I can't find it but the IFAB are to clarify the offside rule this week.

The emphasis is to revolve about what "interfering with play" is.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/world/2013/0204/366230-offside-rule-set-to-be-clarified-by-fifa/

[DannyInvincible]

I'm of the opinion that any player on the field of play is "interfering" in the sense that, no matter where he is positioned, he will still inevitably influence the decisions and movement of both his team-mates and his opponents, who are all part of play/the game.

To use an example, Defoe may not have touched the ball here, but he was still in an offside position and influenced Johnny Evans' movement for the ball which led to Evans scoring an own-goal:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psSOzPYaETI

The goal stood after the linesman initially flagged it as off-side, but I don't know how one could claim Defoe didn't interfere with play there. Possession of the ball isn't the only element of play in a game of football.

[BonnieShels]

I completely agree.

The rule just needs to be simplified and left at that. As soon as it's implemented thusly you won't have players hanging in "offside" positions and "not interfering with play"

"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."

Leave no room for interpretation and just leave it at that.

[BonnieShels]

Came across an interesting factoid tonight whilst amongst other things checking out things on David Ervine which lead to this...


In 1890, Mr. William McCrum from Milford, Co Armagh, Ireland gave football the penalty kick, arguably world sports' most dramatic rule.

McCrum's idea for penalising foul play around goalmouths rocked the Victorian establishment that ran football. The English FA regarded it as a contradiction in terms: only gentlemen played soccer and gentlemen didn't cheat, while the press angrily condemned the "Irishman's motion" as a "death sentence" for the game.

Although an Irish League founder and one of their key administrators, the young goalkeeper got little or no credit and the penalty rule passed into history as a happy accident. But then who could have foretold just how important the kick would become, going on to decide the outcome of some of the world's greatest cup competitions.

http://homeofpenaltykick.com/

So it seems the penalty kick is an Irish invention.

Pity we're crap at them.

[DannyInvincible]

Wasn't that mentioned in 'Green Is the Colour', or was that something to do with the introduction of the off-side rule also being heavily influenced by the exploits of some free-scoring, mooching Irishman?

[BonnieShels]

It might have been offside. I'm sure I never have heard of the penalty-kick story.

My brother has the dvds so I'll check em out if no one beats me to it.

[DannyInvincible]

Indeed, McCrum's penalty kick proposal was mentioned in the first episode of 'Green Is the Colour' at 23:55:


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xrdv3x_green-is-the-colour-episode-1_sport#.URJJfaVOymM

I also spotted in this image of a working-class Belfast street what appears to be an Irish tricolour near the top-right amongst a sea of Union flags waving from individual houses:

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc12/poguemahone85/bfaststreet_zps25e92978.png

Not sure what year it was, but thought it interesting nonetheless.

[BonnieShels]

It could be a French flag.

Re McCrum, I totally forgot about that. Cheers.

[DannyInvincible]

It might have been offside.

Billy McCracken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_McCracken) was the player I was thinking of, although he was a cunning defender rather than a mooching forward: http://thatsireland.wordpress.com/2007/06/16/the-irishman-who-invented-the-offside-trap/

I'll retract my scurrilous and sloppy accusation!


Nobody understands the offside law, except you, the other fans of your team, and Billy McCracken, the Belfast man who pioneered the offside trap. In 1908 he had demanded that Irish internationals get the same £10 match fee as their English counterparts. The Irish FA banned him for life, but relented twelve years later. By then his tactical brain was changing English football.

The First Off-Side Rule

Football and rugby evolved from similar rules. Players always had to stay behind the ball, or else they were ‘off their own side’. You can still see this in rugby, as players form a diagonal line running forwards while passing the ball sideways or backwards along the line.

Early football was like this. One player dribbled the ball forwards and, when he could get no further, he passed it sideways or backwards. This law stifled the game, and it was relaxed in 1848. Now a player could move ahead of the ball, but only if there were at least three opponents between him and the other goal-line.

The First Off-Side Trap

Sixty years later, as football returned after the First World War, Billy McCracken perfected the off-side trap while playing with Newcastle United. He and his fellow full-back would move forward diagonally, with McCracken ahead of his team-mate.

When an opponent passed the ball to a striker, McCracken would rush past the striker, leaving him in an off-side position. Even if the trap was mistimed, the striker still had to beat the other full-back and the goalkeeper.

The trap infuriated opposing fans, who jeered McCracken and pelted him with fruit and, once, a pipe. But it impressed opposing defenders, who copied it. The tactic became widespread, forcing a change in the law.

The New Off-Side Rule

From 1925, a player only had to keep two opponents, not three, between him and the other goal-line. The off-side trap was now more risky, as if it was mistimed the striker now had only the goalkeeper to beat.

Defenders now had to play more square to each other, and stay closer to their own goal. Attackers could now play longer through balls. The impact was immediate, as goals increased by almost a third the next season.
This was the biggest change to the off-side law until 1977, when the International Football Association Board officially removed the hyphen from the word, changing it from ‘off-side’ to ‘offside’.

He was mentioned towards the end of the radio snippet AB posted in the eligibility thread: http://www.rte.ie/sport/player/813/367857/

[BonnieShels]

Goal-line tech to be in place for WC2014

http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/international/2013/0219/368555-fifa-confirm-goal-line-technology-for-world-cup/

[gormacha]

"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."

Leave no room for interpretation and just leave it at that.

So, back to the "old" rule then, effectively? And I assume you mean two defenders?

[BonnieShels]

So, back to the "old" rule then, effectively? And I assume you mean two defenders?

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

The goalkeeper is a defending player don't forget.

[DannyInvincible]

I think reverting back to the old law is a preferable course of action. Every player on the field is interacting with play/the flow, direction and movement of the game in some form or another, whether he's in possession of the actual ball or not. The Defoe-Evans example demonstrates this perfectly. As much certainty as is possible in the application of the rule is what is required.

[osarusan]

a) Interfering with play: This involves touching the ball, whether the touch is deliberate or accidental

b) Interfering with an opponent: This involves verbally distracting or distracting the opponent in any other way, being in the way of an opponent or obscuring the opponent's vision

c) Gaining an advantage by being in that position: Playing the ball from a rebound or deflection off an opponent or the goal posts/crossbar

FIFA have clarified what A means:


the International Board has provided detailed definitions of the ways in which a player may become involved in active play (Law 11, International Board Decision 2). On August 17, 2005, a Circular from the FIFA further clarified some of the confusion regarding whether "touching the ball" was a requirement for "interfering with play" (emphasis added):
A player in an offside position may be penalized before playing or touching the ball if, in the opinion of the referee, no other teammate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.
If an opponent becomes involved in the play and if, in the opinion of the referee, there is potential for physical contact, the player in the offside position shall be penalized for interfering with an opponent.

[DannyInvincible]

Does that mean the Evans' own goal should have been ruled out then? I'm still not sure.

The fact it's left to "the opinion of the referee" is where the uncertainty lies. He has to subjectively presume or prejudge a potential event that has yet to occur. Reversion to the more objective old rule would leave no such room for ambiguity.

I still have a fundamental problem with FIFA's definition of "interfering with play", as I've outlined above. It doesn't make logical sense, for me anyway, in that a game of football is contested between two sides of eleven players for 90 minutes. All players on the field of play are involved, or interfering, at all times - not merely those touching the ball - be they dictating the movement and positioning of their own team-mates or the players of the opposing team. However, them's the rules.

[osarusan]

Does that mean the Evans' own goal should have been ruled out then? I'm still not sure.

In my opinion, yes. There was the potential for contact with the ball, and his proximity to the ball influenced (interfered with) Evans' actions.

It was Cisse and not Defoe, btw.

[DannyInvincible]

Sorry, not sure where I got Defoe out of.

Anyway, I agree with you, but that clearly wasn't the opinion of the referee, so that makes it impossible to judge whether or not the "correct" decision was made. There's no strict rule to which we can return in order to shed light on what would have been the "correct" decision; we just have to accept the subjective opinion of a referee. FIFA can attempt to clarify matters all they like, but do you see the problem with that and the vacuum of uncertainty it generates?

[osarusan]

I honestly think the most likely reason for the goal is that the referee forgot the clarification of the rule meaning that a player didn't need to touch the ball to be considered interfering with play.

[DannyInvincible]

Hmm, I dunno. He consulted the linesman at the time before over-ruling his flagging for offside and had about three of four players badgering him. You'd think some interaction there would have either touched on the clarification or triggered his memory. His job is to know the laws of play, after all.

[geysir]

No. If there are 2 defending players between him and the goal line he is onside.
The goalkeeper is a defending player don't forget.
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.

[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!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxVtScYFT6c&feature=player_embedded

[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/blog/2010/apr/13/the-question-why-is-offside-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:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dnx16-tEF4

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/international/2013/1120/488074-referees-to-be-armed-with-aerosols-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 (http://foot.ie/threads/190614-2014-World-Cup/page34?p=1761558#post1761558), 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:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ-7kX834pI

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 (http://foot.ie/threads/190614-2014-World-Cup/page34?p=1761567#post1761567) (from Law 12 (http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct.aspx)), 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 (http://foot.ie/threads/190614-2014-World-Cup/page34?p=1761567#post1761567) (from Law 12 (http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct.aspx)), 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/worldfootball/clubfootball/01/37/04/28/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.

[DannyInvincible]

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.

So, getting just enough of a touch of the ball is the significant factor for you? What constitutes getting "just enough" of a touch though? Just enough to result in dispossession? Could Zabaleta have touched the ball in another scenario on another day but still given away a foul? Do you see any circumstance where a foul might be given in spite of a touch on the ball (ignoring possibilities where tackling players have threatened injury through their carelessness, recklessness or excessive force)?

[Roberto]

I think this is a very good issue you raise. On a very similar theme I've always being curious about the following type of sliding tackle in the box. A defender slides in and gets a touch on the ball that nudges it away from the attacker. However after touching the ball and following through he secondly clips the foot of the attacker bringing him down (i.e. the momentum of the tackle saw him make contact with the ball first and then make contact with the player). In this case should it be a penalty eventhough he touched the ball first? You could argue that even though he touched the ball first by making contact with the attacker with the follow through he prevented a clear goal scoring chance? Does that make sense?

[osarusan]

I think that the trouble stems from (what I imagine is) the presumption that there are two outcomes to a tackle: the tackler either gets the ball and averts the danger, or doesn't get the ball and brings down the attacker.

Usually, it is one of the two that happens, and it's generally fairly clear which it is.

The issue is when the tackler gets the ball, but the contact is not significant enough to avert the danger. Zabaleta'a tackle is a pretty good example of this. In the case of Zabaleta'a tackle, the change of direction or pace of the ball was pretty negligible, and the attacker would have been in virtually the same position after the tackle even if Zabaleta hadn't got a touch on the ball.

So, has Zabaleta been careless or not? His aim when making the tackle was presumably not just to make the faintest of contact with the ball, but to avert the danger, so you could argue that he failed in his aim, and the only thing that really averted the danger was bringing down the player.

But, as I said in the other thread, the idea of determining whether 'the tackler's contact with the ball resulted in the goalscoring opportunity being averted to a satisfactory degree' (or some other wording with the same theme) is a nightmare to legislate and interpret, and would result in a greater number of contentious incidents than what seems to be the current interpretation of the law.

[DannyInvincible]

I think this is a very good issue you raise. On a very similar theme I've always being curious about the following type of sliding tackle in the box. A defender slides in and gets a touch on the ball that nudges it away from the attacker. However after touching the ball and following through he secondly clips the foot of the attacker bringing him down (i.e. the momentum of the tackle saw him make contact with the ball first and then make contact with the player). In this case should it be a penalty eventhough he touched the ball first? You could argue that even though he touched the ball first by making contact with the attacker with the follow through he prevented a clear goal scoring chance? Does that make sense?

I hear you. I'd pose a similar question. The example you raise is practically very similar to the Zabaleta incident. Zabaleta touched the ball and then undeniably tripped up his opponent. However, it must be noted that the idea of denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is, as far as I understand, relevant only to deciding whether or not a challenge already adjudged to have constituted a foul is deserving of a red card. Rather than thinking of whether Zabaleta denied such an opportunity in order to answer the question of whether a foul occurred, I'd maybe ask something along the lines of: "Did he illegally dispossess the player?"

[Roberto]

I hear you. I'd pose a similar question. The example you raise is practically very similar to the Zabaleta incident. Zabaleta touched the ball and then undeniably tripped up his opponent. However, it must be noted that the idea of denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is, as far as I understand, relevant only to deciding whether or not a challenge already adjudged to have constituted a foul is deserving of a red card. Rather than thinking of whether Zabaleta denied such an opportunity in order to answer the question of whether a foul occurred, I'd maybe ask something along the lines of: "Did he illegally dispossess the player?"

I suppose it's here where the referee has to use his discretion. As Osarusan says there are usually 2 outcomes to a sliding tackle in the box, i.e the ball is won or a foul committed. The difficulty is when you have a combination of both and in this case you are relying on the referee making a correct call (and in fairness he'll get it wrong sometimes) i.e. was the tackle careless/reckless or a genuine attempt to win the ball.

[Roberto]

Ps For what it's worth I would have given a penalty in the Zabaleta case as I believe the tackle was in the 'careless' category.

[DannyInvincible]

What about it specifically would you deem "careless"?


I think that the trouble stems from (what I imagine is) the presumption that there are two outcomes to a tackle: the tackler either gets the ball and averts the danger, or doesn't get the ball and brings down the attacker.

Usually, it is one of the two that happens, and it's generally fairly clear which it is.

The issue is when the tackler gets the ball, but the contact is not significant enough to avert the danger. Zabaleta'a tackle is a pretty good example of this.

There is another possible (and frequent) outcome; the tackler gets the ball (and might well even avert the danger) but he also brings down the attacker. You could say that also occurred during the Zabaleta incident. Will that always be a legal tackle, as far as you are concerned?

[osarusan]

There is another possible (and frequent) outcome; the tackler gets the ball (and might well even avert the danger) but he also brings down the attacker. You could say that also occurred during the Zabaleta incident. Will that always be a legal tackle, as far as you are concerned?

I thought it was implicit in the first of my scenarios that the tackler brings down the attacker after getting the ball and averting the danger.

If the tackler gets the ball first, and the tackle itself isn't considered reckless or dangerous, then that will be a legal tackle in my opinion.

[Roberto]

What about it specifically would you deem "careless"?



There is another possible (and frequent) outcome; the tackler gets the ball (and might well even avert the danger) but he also brings down the attacker. You could say that also occurred during the Zabaleta incident. Will that always be a legal tackle, as far as you are concerned?

I have looked at it again. In MY opinion Zabaleta took a bit of a 'lunge' and must have been aware the attacker was virtually on top of him. As I said previously when the tackler takes both man and ball it is very much at the discretion of the referee. This referee used his discretion not to award in this case whereas another referee may have given the penalty.

[DannyInvincible]

The IFAB are set to trial an "AB-BA" penalty shoot-out format modelled on the tie-breaker in tennis: http://www.espn.co.uk/football/blog-fifa/story/3073946/ifab-to-trial-penalty-shootout-formats-modelled-on-tennis-tiebreakers


Football's global rule-making body is looking to make penalty shootouts even more unpredictable by adopting the format used for tiebreakers in tennis.

Teams currently alternate in shootouts, but the International Football Association Board (IFAB) said on Friday that research shows the first team taking kicks has a 60 percent chance of winning.

IFAB is seeking trials in the lower-levels of football with a new pattern that would see the order mixed up between teams A and B to AB-BA-AB-BA-AB. This mirrors tennis, where after the first point in tiebreaks, the opponent then serves the next two points and so on.

"We believe that the ABBA approach could remove that statistical bias and this is something that we will now look to trial,'' Scottish FA chief Stewart Regan said after Friday's IFAB meeting. "It would mean the first 10 kicks are taken under the ABBA system and then when it gets to next-goal-wins then it would revert to alternate penalties.''

There is a more immediate change coming on regular penalties in matches starting in June, with yellow cards no longer awarded for "stopping a promising attack" if there was a clear attempt to play the ball.

Another change could be seen later this month in the quarterfinals of the FA Cup, when teams will be allowed to make a fourth substitute in extra time.

A fourth substitute may also be introduced for extra-time at some point, whilst yellow cards will no longer be awarded for "stopping a promising attack" if there was a clear attempt to play the ball from June onward.