Football rule changes

[NinjaFletch]

I think the handball law needed to be changed, but doesn't go far enough. If IFAB have recognised that asking referees to judge intent is problematic, then why is it staying enshrined in law for non-goal situations?

I suspect it's because law makers lack the imagination to come up with a solution that doesn't see players penalised for having the ball smashed at them from a yard away, but that's no real excuse.

 

[acnumber9]

The penatly one kind of makes sense. You had your chance and you missed. When the keeper pulls of a great save for it to be tapped straight in, there is no reward.

It doesn’t really. Should we stop rebounds from free kicks and open play as well? After all you’ve had your chance and missed. It’s changing the rule to make it easier for refs rather than better for the game.

 

[JPRouve]

I like the rebound rule, it's basically what happens in Rugby, if you miss a penalty kick your teammates can't just follow the ball and score a try. The sanction is the penalty kick and nothing else.

 

[SqueakyWeasel]

I think the handball law needed to be changed, but doesn't go far enough. If IFAB have recognised that asking referees to judge intent is problematic, then why is it staying enshrined in law for non-goal situations?

I suspect it's because law makers lack the imagination to come up with a solution that doesn't see players penalised for having the ball smashed at them from a yard away, but that's no real excuse.

"Intent" on the defender's behalf should not be the issue IMHO – it's always handball. The only "intent" that is available to be judged by an official is if the attacker has purposely kicked the ball at a retracted arm/hand to win a foul as he has no other options … in which case it's handball but retracted as forced.

 

[jojojo]

I don't like the penalty change. That post save scramble was always a bit of fun. I can see why refs don't like it, but it's not as if they can't get round that. Especially if they're citing the opportunity of VAR when it comes to handball.

The principle behind the handball change feels sound. I guess we wait and see how that'll work in practice.

 

[Siorac]

I don't like the penalty change. That post save scramble was always a bit of fun. I can see why refs don't like it, but it's not as if they can't get round that. Especially if they're citing the opportunity of VAR when it comes to handball.

The principle behind the handball change feels sound. I guess we wait and see how that'll work in practice.

I'm ambivalent about the penalty change.

On the one hand, as you say, it was always good fun.

On the other hand, I think it's fairer this way. A penalty is a MASSIVE chance to the attacking team that they often get for a relatively "insignificant" foul. Getting a second crack at it feels a bit too generous. Though it'd be nice to see stats on how often it happens.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

I like the rebound rule, it's basically what happens in Rugby, if you miss a penalty kick your teammates can't just follow the ball and score a try. The sanction is the penalty kick and nothing else.

But then we wouldn't have amazing moments like this:


or this:

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Also, how often are rebounds actually scored? Maybe less then 5%? Seem's like a rule change for the sake of a rule change (as well as to cover the arse of lazy ref's not watching for encroachment)

 

[AN17]

What's this no attacking players in the wall nonsense ?

 

[Damien]

I was going to make this thread last night but read at the time that the penalty rebound thing wasn't necessarily true (no mention of it in the IFAB notes) so held off. Ziegler backs this up:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Damien]

IFAB website: http://www.theifab.com/news/133rd_annual_general_meeting

Additional approved Law changes included: measures to deal with attacking players causing problems in the defensive ‘wall’, changing the dropped ball procedure, giving a dropped ball in certain situations when the ball hits the referee and the goalkeeper only being required to have one foot on the line at a penalty kick.

Somewhere that has got lost in translation to being no rebounds allowed.

 

[NinjaFletch]

"Intent" on the defender's behalf should not be the issue IMHO – it's always handball. The only "intent" that is available to be judged by an official is if the attacker has purposely kicked the ball at a retracted arm/hand to win a foul as he has no other options … in which case it's handball but retracted as forced.

But that's just shifting the onus from the referee having to judge whether the defender has done something deliberately (as things currently stand) to judging whether the attacker has done something deliberately (which is even harder to prove). As soon as you start asking a referee to mind read things start to go awry (especially when you introduce slow mo replays).

I don't really mind if we do go towards a system where handball itself is the offence (as opposed to deliberate handball), but I think it would cause an awful lot of arguments as the change was being made and defenders were getting used to getting their hands out of the way.

 

[kiristao]

According to article, Ref can invoke that rule, to ask players to get off using nearest line. So I think it's up to refs, how they play this rule.

Well then that makes sense. Will help a lot in the time wasting department..

 

[roonster09]

IFAB website: http://www.theifab.com/news/133rd_annual_general_meeting



Somewhere that has got lost in translation to being no rebounds allowed.

So Sky got it completely wrong? Going by that twitter, even Marca reported rebounds from penalties are not allowed.

Now this is confusing, 2 papers getting it completely wrong.

 

[shaky]

I don't like the new sub rule. Seems a very half-hearted attempt at preventing time wasting.

Why not just let referees continue with the game once the sub's number comes up and the ref has confirmed the substitution is going ahead? If the player coming off wants to take 5 minutes to walk off, that's up to him, but he's not allowed to interfere with play, and his replacement isn't allowed on until he's off the pitch. Problem solved.

 

[Andycoleno9]

These two are very stupid imo.

No rebounds? Why is that? The game is continuing and where are they going to restart playing?

And players leaving the field anywhere will cause confusion imo. The way it is is fine.

That is excellent change. Players going early in penalty box is happening at every penalty.

 

[Kostov]

That is excellent change. Players going early in penalty box is happening at every penalty.

I think is unnecessary. I liked it how it was.

 

[Ciddy]

That is excellent change. Players going early in penalty box is happening at every penalty.

Agreed. Completely avoids this issue of encroachment which happens at EVERY penalty and 9/10 isn't upheld.

 

[jojojo]

The handball rule had always been very subjective in how it's applied. Most refs apply it differently to attackers and defenders, and differently inside and outside the area.

Removing the concept of deliberate/accidental in favour of advantage gained seems like a good one. In reality refs already do that with attackers, it just balances things up. Like all these things it's a "what does it look like in practice" really. I wonder where it's been/is being trialled.

The subs rule, and the cards for officials rule are being trialled at the women's tournament "SheBelieves". They're also trialling a rule I'm not seeing mentioned here: ball is in play as soon as a goalkick is taken, so defenders/forwards can intercept it in the penalty area (provided they don't encroach).

 

[NinjaFletch]

That is excellent change. Players going early in penalty box is happening at every penalty.

So enforce the law as it currently stands? At the top level with VAR there's no excuse and we don't need a bad law to cover for bad refereeing.

Luckily, it sounds like this isn't actually something being introduced.

 

[shaky]

Agreed. Completely avoids this issue of encroachment which happens at EVERY penalty and 9/10 isn't upheld.

To get around the issue of defending players encroaching on penalties, they make a rule that's even more beneficial for the defenders? That's a cowardly new rule if it's actually true.

 

[Schneckerl]

The most important rule would be that they should really try to clarify in detail what is a handball and what is not. There isn't much consitency in how it is called and general disagreement/confusion.

 

[Pace Abuser]

A penalty is a big enough advantage without further giving more by keeping the ball in play incase of rebound.

 

[Mb194dc]

Good news on pen rebounds. Amazing big news outlets got that wrong .

Referees should enforce enchroachment properly though.

 

[Judas]

Hopefully the penalty rule change isn't true, a horrific unneeded change in my view.

 

[UncleBob]

Daft as feck, imho, if they change anything regarding rebounds on penalties.

 

[RochaRoja]

I'm all in favor of this rule... A penalty is the biggest advantage you could get, if you miss you shouldn't get a second change through a rebound.

Also it takes away the annoying pushing around the area and the question if a penalty should be repeated because a defender was running in the box too early.

From the wording of the new law it seems that passing from a penalty has also been outlawed.

 

[RochaRoja]

The handball rule had always been very subjective in how it's applied. Most refs apply it differently to attackers and defenders, and differently inside and outside the area.

Removing the concept of deliberate/accidental in favour of advantage gained seems like a good one. In reality refs already do that with attackers, it just balances things up. Like all these things it's a "what does it look like in practice" really. I wonder where it's been/is being trialled.

The subs rule, and the cards for officials rule are being trialled at the women's tournament "SheBelieves". They're also trialling a rule I'm not seeing mentioned here: ball is in play as soon as a goalkick is taken, so defenders/forwards can intercept it in the penalty area (provided they don't encroach).

I usually think Danny Mills talks rubbish but I thought he made complete sense when he said that all contact between ball and hand be penalised and the argument that players would aim for opposition players is nonsense as it would be so obvious and easy to punish with a caution for unsporting conduct.

The goalkick change would be good too. The whole “ball has to leave the penalty area” thing is pointless and needlessly slows down the game.

 

[UncleBob]

I usually think Danny Mills talks rubbish but I thought he made complete sense when he said that all contact between ball and hand be penalised and the argument that players would aim for opposition players is nonsense as it would be so obvious and easy to punish with a caution for unsporting conduct.

The goalkick change would be good too. The whole “ball has to leave the penalty area” thing is pointless and needlessly slows down the game.

The bold bit is stupid as feck, no one is going to start punishing players for booting the ball at someone unless it's long after the whistle has been blown.

 

[POF]

I like the rebound rule, it's basically what happens in Rugby, if you miss a penalty kick your teammates can't just follow the ball and score a try. The sanction is the penalty kick and nothing else.

Really? Are you sure?

 

[Offside]

What’s the penalty one about? Bizarre.

 

[Marcelinho87]

What's this no attacking players in the wall nonsense ?

Meaning you can't use a striker to hustle/push the defending wall about.

 

[JPRouve]

Really? Are you sure?

Actually, I'm wrong.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

The penalty one is bollocks thankfully. We were just debating it at work this morning. Sky have updated it on their site too.

 

[sideshow_bob]

No rule change about players being able to touch the ball in the area after a goal kick?

Thought for sure that would be the first change.

 

[RochaRoja]

The bold bit is stupid as feck, no one is going to start punishing players for booting the ball at someone unless it's long after the whistle has been blown.

Players wouldn’t try to boot it at opposition players’ hands. Or they’d have to be incredibly thick to try.

The idea of the “loophole” would be players trying to dink or chip the ball onto a hand which would be as easy for ref’s to penalise as when defenders try to flick the ball up and head it back to their keeper.

 

[jojojo]

No rule change about players being able to touch the ball in the area after a goal kick?

Thought for sure that would be the first change.

That's being trialled at the moment, so it's certainly being debated. I don't know if it's getting ignored by the press or just something early in the trial phase that won't be ratified in time for next season.

 

[kouroux]

Good news on pen rebounds. Amazing big news outlets got that wrong .

Referees should enforce enchroachment properly though.

Why do they never do that ? In the Arsenal vs Spurs, Vertonghen was very close to Aubemeyand when he took the pen.

 

[jojojo]

I've just found IFAB's own press release summary and the goalkick change is in there:

Following experiments in different parts of the world, the AGM also approved changes to the Laws of the Game related to a player being substituted having to leave the field of play at the nearest boundary line, yellow and red cards for misconduct by team officials and the ball not having to leave the penalty area at goal kicks and defending team free kicks in the penalty area.

http://www.theifab.com/news/133rd_annual_general_meeting

From the summary, I'm not sure where that Sky penalty interpretation came from. Maybe there's been some debate going on around it somewhere.

 

[sideshow_bob]

I've just found IFAB's own press release summary and the goalkick change is in there:

http://www.theifab.com/news/133rd_annual_general_meeting

Ah I see. Strange that it's not receiving any mention by the news outlets collating the rule changes.