No one knows when the 2020-21 football season will start; in
fact, no one is really sure how the 2019-20 season will be concluded in the
Premier League or the Football League, although below those levels
administrators have largely decided to either declare it null and void or at
least not to attempt completing it.
But whenever the next football season starts – and some
pundits believe that this may not be until August 2021 - it will come with an
amended set of rules (or Laws to be strictly accurate).[1]
It may be my imagination, but it seems that every year the game’s law-making
body, the International Football Association Board (IFAB) come up with many more alterations to the Laws of The Game than used to be the
case. It’s my view that in a number of cases IFAB issue amendments not because
there is anything really wrong with the existing law, but rather because it
isn’t being enforced properly.
What do we have to look forward to when the new season
starts? There are a number of proposed changes, and I am not going to go
through them all, but a few stand out for one reason or another. If you are so
inclined, you can read all of the proposed changes in former Premier League
referee Keith Hackett’s blog, https://www.keystoreferee.com/blogs/ifab-law-changes-of-the-season-2020-21-explained-by-keith-hackett/
We’ll start with a fairly fundamental one, the goals, one
set at each end of the pitch. When I started watching the game, the goals at
English grounds were almost exclusively wooden, and square. Over the years they
became metal and round. This year’s change to this Law allows goalposts to be
square, elliptical, rectangular, round or a combination of these shapes, and
explains that ‘The goalposts and crossbar may be a combination of the four
basic shapes.’ This allows for the somewhat bizarre scenario where the
goals at either end of the pitch may be of different shapes, and indeed on
either set the posts may be different shapes from the crossbar. I look forward
to seeing someone constructing a set where one post is round, the other is
square, and the crossbar is elliptical.
IFAB have decided that the law relating to penalty kicks
needs some amendment, and have devoted nearly six hundred words to the subject
which, rather than adding clarity, make the law maker’s intentions nearly
incomprehensible. In seeking precision, the author(s) have tied themselves in
knots; fortunately, they have added a helpful summary in table form. Frankly
this was all they needed (although spelling for correctly would have been nice).
It seems that every season, either the offside law or the
one relating to handball are tinkered with. These changes seem to be made
because either the previous change resulted in some unintended consequences,
players were exploiting loopholes, or referees were interpreting the change
differently from IFAB’s intentions.
It appears that IFAB are fairly content with the offside law
this year, as the only change is to say that a player in an offside position
receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including
by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage (and
is therefore not offside). The italicised phrase has been added, presumably to
exclude the somewhat paradoxical situation whereby a player in an offside
position receiving the ball directly from an opponent would not be offside if
the opponent headed or kicked the ball to him, but would be if the ball reached
him from an accidental handball by the opponent.
Finally, handball. The laws have been amended to include the
following text, ‘For the purposes of determining handball offences, the
upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.’ A
helpful diagram showing the boundary is included:
This appears
to merely codify what everyone has always believed to be the definition of
handball, however as is often the case, this will – especially with Video
Assistant Referees (VAR) – have everyone examining footage of handball
decisions and exclaiming that, by a matter of a millimetre or so, the referee
got it wrong. Maybe, in the interests of clarity, the law should be
supplemented with a requirement that all football shirts are marked with a line
on the sleeve that defines the point at which handball begins and ends.
At the
beginning of last season, the law on handling the ball was changed such that an
attacking player would be penalised even where they handled the ball
accidentally if this resulted in a goal being scored or created. This change
did not extend to defenders so, in theory at least, it is possible for a
defender to prevent the ball entering their goal and not be penalised if their
touching the ball is deemed accidental.
This is a bit
of a hobby horse of mine, I’m afraid, so bear with me. The Laws clearly specify
a number of circumstances where a player must not be penalised, even where the
ball touches their hand or arm, for instance ‘when a player falls and the
hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not
extended laterally or vertically away from the body.’ So, if a player falls
on the ball – for example, on their own goal line in the manner described in
italics - and prevents a goal from being scored, they should not be penalised.
Most of the
time however, referees will penalise defenders who accidentally handle
the ball, where the defender gains an advantage. In many respects it is within
the spirit of the laws to penalise a player in those circumstances, but under
the letter of the laws, it is not. I have long maintained that an accidental
event does not become a deliberate one as a result of the outcome, but that is
how referees are judging some accidental handballs. I don’t have a problem with
accidental handballs being penalised if the player gains an advantage, in fact,
I would support it, especially since it applies to attacking players if they
create, or score a goal as a result and so ought to be extended to cover all
players. But if referees are going to apply that thinking, then let’s get it in
the Laws, otherwise we have a situation where referees are simply making up
laws for themselves.
IFAB’s
methodology of amending existing laws in recent years has not succeeded in
clarifying matters or simplifying them, but has in some respects had quite the
opposite effect. Add VAR into the mix and what used to be an apparently simple
game is becoming hideously over complicated, largely thanks to over-engineering
of its laws.
With football
being off the agenda until further notice, IFAB could make good use of the time
by going back to basics and carrying out a root and branch analysis of The Laws
of The Game to actually simplify and clarify them, rather than tinkering and
overcomplicating them.
[1]
Football is a bit precious about The Laws of The Game. The difference between
rules and laws is technically that while both impose a sense of order, fair
play, and safety, the weight of a law is much heavier than the weight of a
rule. Check synonyms for rules though, and laws is there. It’s all semantics
really, especially since one test of the difference is that rules are less
strictly enforced than laws; just watch any game of football and see how many
times the laws are ignored by officials.
No comments:
Post a Comment