Awwwww Ref - Know The Laws
That's probably it Jag, the reason I mentioned it is that I remember Bolton getting some controversial goals with having players stay in an offside position prior to a free kick being taken, and I know that was connected with a FIFA initiative at the time.
Did anyone see the Birgmingham free kick VS Liverpool. There defender was standing in an offside position but he didnt touch the ball. But surely he is effecting the goaly and therefore the game? I know i am biased but was just wondering
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).
What I dont like about it is, is when the player is standing offside on purpose and then the ball is played which the player hasnt got involved with. Then there is a deflection so the player is now onside but there was no way he would have made it there if he wasnt offside to begin with
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.
Sorry Ging, I didnt word that quite correctly. I meant for example if the keeper partially saves the shot, the player previously standing offside then makes a play for the ball. Has he gained an advantage???
Same player I suspect EG. Jaidi.
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 ?
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 ?
Cheers for that HN, what would I do without you.
Did anyone see the Birgmingham free kick VS Liverpool. There defender was standing in an offside position but he didnt touch the ball. But surely he is effecting the goaly and therefore the game? I know i am biased but was just wondering
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).
What I dont like about it is, is when the player is standing offside on purpose and then the ball is played which the player hasnt got involved with. Then there is a deflection so the player is now onside but there was no way he would have made it there if he wasnt offside to begin with
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.
Sorry Ging, I didnt word that quite correctly. I meant for example if the keeper partially saves the shot, the player previously standing offside then makes a play for the ball. Has he gained an advantage???
He has indeed
Did anyone see the Birgmingham free kick VS Liverpool. There defender was standing in an offside position but he didnt touch the ball. But surely he is effecting the goaly and therefore the game? I know i am biased but was just wondering
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).
What I dont like about it is, is when the player is standing offside on purpose and then the ball is played which the player hasnt got involved with. Then there is a deflection so the player is now onside but there was no way he would have made it there if he wasnt offside to begin with
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.
Sorry Ging, I didnt word that quite correctly. I meant for example if the keeper partially saves the shot, the player previously standing offside then makes a play for the ball. Has he gained an advantage???
He has indeed
Great picture, thanks Ging. A bit of a tough one for ref's and lino's to call with all the players running around the box at times though
The lino surely notes the position of the other attackers at the point when the shot is taken in order to make a correct decision.
The lino surely notes the position of the other attackers at the point when the shot is taken in order to make a correct decision.
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.
The lino surely notes the position of the other attackers at the point when the shot is taken in order to make a correct decision.
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
OK, here's another question. I always get irritated by commentators (and occasionally team-mates) who think that handball should only be called if it's 'intentional' or 'deliberate'. I was under the impression that intent doesn't really matter as long as the player had positioned his or her arms in such a way as to impede the progress of the ball. In other words, if your arms are outstretched and then the ball is smashed against one of them it's still handball even if you didn't mean to play the ball with your hand, or indeed weren't even looking at the ball. If you deliberately play the ball with your hand to gain an advantage or disadvantage the opponent, then that's a yellow card, or a red card if the delibarate handball was considered DOGSO.
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?
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?
Taken from FIFA Laws of The Game - Law 12 Fouls and Misconduct: (I've highlighted the important bits)
Jag2008-05-02 10:37:56
"Handling the ball
Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee shall take the following into consideration:
� 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...."
So, according to the Laws of the Game, In order for a foul to be given, the handball must be intentional. In the examples you've given:
If a player's arms are outstretched and someone smashes the ball against one of them, it isn't a foul as there was no intent on the player's part to handle the ball. Most players don't run around for 90 minutes with their arms by their sides!
As the centre half didn't intentionally handle the ball, according to the Laws, it should NOT have been a penalty.
In both the cases you described, there was no movement of the player's hand or arm towards the ball, more that the ball played their arm.
Just quoting the Laws, chaps. I didn't write them!
That is very interesting. If that rule was followed to the letter, I bet 3/4 of penalties due to handball infringements would not be given. DKP222008-05-02 10:39:30
I know one that wouldn't have been given in the EPL last weekend 
To be honest, it is a bit of a minefield from a refereeing point of view. Especially in the penalty box.
Hmm, that's interesting. I'm intrigued by the distance between the opponent and the ball bit. Does that mean that if the ref thinks the player had sufficient time to remove his hands from the general area where the ball was going and then gets hit on the hands even if he did not 'deliberately' play the ball, it's called a handball?
Think there's an obvious difference between somebody walloping the ball at you from a metre away and somebody hoofing a ball into the box from 60 metres away.....and that's all I'm prepared to say on that one
Think there's an obvious difference between somebody walloping the ball at you from a metre away and somebody hoofing a ball into the box from 60 metres away.....and that's all I'm prepared to say on that one
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.
All comes down to how you define intent.
All comes down to how you define intent.
Yep. That's probably why there's so much controversy around handballs pretty much everywhere.
All comes down to how you define intent.
Yep. That's probably why there's so much controversy around handballs pretty much everywhere.
Also think if the player has gained an advantage by handling the ball e.g player controls with his thigh and deflects onto his arm but unfortunately it lands right at his feet. Then the foul should be given
All comes down to how you define intent.
Yep. That's probably why there's so much controversy around handballs pretty much everywhere.
�
Also think if the player has gained an advantage by handling the ball e.g player controls with his thigh and deflects onto his arm but unfortunately it lands right at his feet.� Then the foul should be given
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.
Two things
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
Two things
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
I think it natural to protect your face when charging down a ball, just like protecting your nuts when you're in a wall for a freekick
Totally natural to do so - ie protect yourself, but that would be covered with the no movement of the hands towards the ball. It still could be called as hand ball depending on the ref's reading of the situation.
Any call in the box is always going to be contested anyway.
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.
As far as I'm concerned, there's nowt in the LOTG to say that a keeper can't wear different coloured socks from his team-mates, as long as they aint the same colour as the opposition's. In fact I'm not sure there's anything in there to say a team all have to wear the same coloured socks, I'm quite prepared to be wrong tho', although common sense would dictate that they did. So I wouldn't have a problem with it, but that's just my opinion!
I'm sure someone who occupies a loftier perch in NZ refereeing than me, e.g. Dr Quack, will be able to provide Chapter & Verse.
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"
sounds crazy to me. Should have just worn tracksuit pants
Ha Ha. I remember this one flaring up big time a few years back in Welly.
As far as I'm concerned, there's nowt in the LOTG to say that a keeper can't wear different coloured socks from his team-mates, as long as they aint the same colour as the opposition's. In fact I'm not sure there's anything in there to say a team all have to wear the same coloured socks, I'm quite prepared to be wrong tho', although common sense would dictate that they did. So I wouldn't have a problem with it, but that's just my opinion!
I'm sure someone who occupies a loftier perch in NZ refereeing than me, e.g. Dr Quack, will be able to provide Chapter & Verse.
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.
Couldn't agree more about the importance, in an outfield sense, about the colour of the socks. I am prepared to be in a minority but it's not compulsory in the LOTG, and I am intelligent enough to figure that, if one team is wearing blue socks, the other team is wearing black socks and the ball comes off a leg with a yellow sock on it, I'll figure out whose leg it was without too much difficulty.
As I said, it's just my opinion, but usually have more important things to worry about during a game than the goalkeeper's socks.
FIFA Equipment Regulations 2005 Page 11 article 6.5 (not found in the Laws of the Game, just a different FIFA Statute)
"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.
"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.
As ever the voice of reason, Dr. Q.
Very interesting Dr. Cheers for that. I didn't mind being told to change. It was the case that is was 5 mins before KO so it is the last thing I wanted to worried about at that stage. Especially after i warmed up in non-orange socks too.
i have seen some keepers wear the same shorts and socks as his outfield counterparts before......so this is illegal?
i have seen some keepers wear the same shorts and socks as his outfield counterparts before......so this is illegal?
Apparently yes, but only in international football.
Aw Ref - Can you wear sweatbands on your wrists for games? Can they be any colour?
Not specified in player's equipment but I wouldn't have any problem with sweatbands no matter what colour they were.
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"
I had the same happen to me before this year's Hilton Petone Cup final. I was wearing white shorts and socks and got told I had to change. Both my team and the opposition were wearing black shorts and socks.
From Laws of the Game 2006, fifa.com:
Law 4 - The Player's Equipment
Goalkeepers
- each goalkeeper wears colours that distinguish him from the other players, the referee and the assistant referees
I knew I was f**king right.
What if i was to say, keep goal without a shirt on at all?
Quoted from Law 4
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
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
Not specified in player's equipment but I wouldn't have any problem with sweatbands no matter what colour they were.
let's bring back sweatbands people. Maybe even headbands too. Yellow would be the obvious colour