New law changes for 2019/20 season

[m1st]

Just now, Boz said:

Some might want to undertake some homework before Saturday?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48382254 

 

So no more "Tugay-substitutions", to allow the player being substituted to milk the applause as they walk from the Riverside to the Jack Walker Stand, then?!?

[Stuart]

Think I’ll give the PL a complete miss this time round. I’ve been watching it less and less and VAR is just going to kill it as a spectacle.

[jodrell]

there is also one about the keeper can't move they have to have a foot on the line. No jumping up and down moving from side to side kicking the posts.

[CD_93]

1 hour ago, m1st said:

So no more "Tugay-substitutions", to allow the player being substituted to milk the applause as they walk from the Riverside to the Jack Walker Stand, then?!?

Currently the 60-minutes Danny Graham ovation.

[AllRoverAsia]

Just now, jodrell said:

there is also one about the keeper can't move they have to have a foot on the line. No jumping up and down moving from side to side kicking the posts.

BBC: 'The goalkeeper must have one of his/her feet partly on the goal line (or above it if jumping) when the kick is taken. They cannot stand behind or in front of the line.'

I suppose VAR can monitor that ........

[Vinjay]

8 hours ago, Stuart said:

Think I’ll give the PL a complete miss this time round. I’ve been watching it less and less and VAR is just going to kill it as a spectacle.

There were 6 minutes of added time (first half) during the CSKA Moscow v Lokomotiv Moscow game on Monday. That's because it took so long to make a penalty decision. 

I don't agree with anything technological perhaps aside from an earpiece (for communication with assistants only) in football. It's just another way of watering things down. Are people that weak minded that they can't take an incorrect decision at a football game anymore? I said there would be a backlash to the use of VAR and that's exactly what's happened. Where's the Unabomber when you need him? ?

[Stuart]

3 hours ago, Vinjay17 said:

There were 6 minutes of added time (first half) during the CSKA Moscow v Lokomotiv Moscow game on Monday. That's because it took so long to make a penalty decision. 

I don't agree with anything technological perhaps aside from an earpiece (for communication with assistants only) in football. It's just another way of watering things down. Are people that weak minded that they can't take an incorrect decision at a football game anymore? I said there would be a backlash to the use of VAR and that's exactly what's happened. Where's the Unabomber when you need him? ?

VAR isn’t itself the problem. It is the competence of this using it. It takes too long and decisions are being made using slow motion which removes context. A hand on a shoulder and a “felt the touch” dive would be a penalty every time under VAR slow motion. We will actually have players cheating more, not less.

Then there is the time this all takes.

[philipl]

5 hours ago, Vinjay17 said:

There were 6 minutes of added time (first half) during the CSKA Moscow v Lokomotiv Moscow game on Monday. That's because it took so long to make a penalty decision. 

I don't agree with anything technological perhaps aside from an earpiece (for communication with assistants only) in football. It's just another way of watering things down. Are people that weak minded that they can't take an incorrect decision at a football game anymore? I said there would be a backlash to the use of VAR and that's exactly what's happened. Where's the Unabomber when you need him? ?

TV boys will get antsi about ads and scheduling

[gumboots]

Technology works well in cricket, tennis, rugby where the guy on the pitch decides when it's used. Football's problem is that the guy on the pitch isn't the one who decides if he needs VAR. 

[Claytons Left Boot]

Just now, gumboots said:

Technology works well in cricket, tennis, rugby where the guy on the pitch decides when it's used. Football's problem is that the guy on the pitch isn't the one who decides if he needs VAR. 

Spot on gumboots. If VAR was applied exactly as it is in Rugby League, there wouldn’t be a problem.

[m1st]

2 hours ago, philipl said:

TV boys will get antsi about ads and scheduling

There is a silver lining, then!??

[BlackburnEnd75]

The change in the free kick law not allowing any attackers in the wall is a strange one. Not sure why the powers that be have decided to give more benefit to the team that committed the original offence.

[AllRoverAsia]

13 minutes ago, BlackburnEnd75 said:

The change in the free kick law not allowing any attackers in the wall is a strange one. Not sure why the powers that be have decided to give more benefit to the team that committed the original offence.

It opens up some interesting ideas for the team taking free-kicks within scoring distance. Defenders have to be 10 yards away so the attackers could place a 'wall' of their players as near to the ball as they want just to completely block the defenders/keepers view of the kick until the final seconds. Might work on a centrally located free kick near the penalty area.

[BlackburnEnd75]

Just now, AllRoverAsia said:

It opens up some interesting ideas for the team taking free-kicks within scoring distance. Defenders have to be 10 yards away so the attackers could place a 'wall' of their players as near to the ball as they want just to completely block the defenders/keepers view of the kick until the final seconds. Might work on a centrally located free kick near the penalty area.

But surely they could do that anyway

[AllRoverAsia]

Just now, BlackburnEnd75 said:

But surely they could do that anyway

Yes, come to think of it , back to the drawing board

[USABlue]

Don't like the no attackers in the wall thing.  Not at all.

[had.e.nuff]

22 hours ago, BlackburnEnd75 said:

The change in the free kick law not allowing any attackers in the wall is a strange one. Not sure why the powers that be have decided to give more benefit to the team that committed the original offence.

surely it is to stop attaking players creating a hole in the wall by pulling defenders out of the wall, also stops alot of pushing and shoving in the wall

 

[BlackburnEnd75]

28 minutes ago, had.e.nuff said:

surely it is to stop attaking players creating a hole in the wall by pulling defenders out of the wall, also stops alot of pushing and shoving in the wall

 

It will speed up set pieces by stopping pushing and pulling but why would you want to stop the attacking team creating a hole in the wall? 

It gives an advantage to the defending side which is surely counter productive?

 

[Atko's Engine]

If an attacking player pushes someone in a wall or leans them out of the way, it should be a foul like it would be if it happened anywhere else on the pitch. That's what happens when attacking players line up in a wall, but all it does is slow the game down & encourages argy bargy in the wall. 

I'm quite happy with this change. Putting an attacking player in the wall is a relatively recent tactic as well I think, this is just a change to facilitate reverting back to what was probably the original intention when the 10 yard rule was brought in in the first place.

[rigger]

I thought I read somewhere that penalties in normal time where going to be treated like a penalty in a shoot-out, where if the first kick is saved or comes back of the woodwork the ball is dead, so there are no rebounds. Is this true?

[Tom]

I like this bit at least:

 

Drop balls can no longer be contested, but the change is more positive than it sounds.

If play is stopped, the ball will be dropped to a player on the team that last touched the ball - and where they touched it. All other players must be 4.5 yards (4m) away.

What that means is if a team's attack is stopped, they will get the ball back in that position - instead of the opponents booting the ball down the field.

[Boz]

Putting aside my allegiance, might I ask a question which I genuinely am confused and am unsure about, concerning the disallowed goal on Saturday? 

I might have missed something as these days I don't follow every law change and/or different interpretation of the laws by referees/authorities.

VAR is only applicable in England to the EPL and doesn't apply to the EFL and championship? The referee's decision is final. The referee is aided by 'assistant referees'.  Yet who are these assistants? Two assistants referees running the line, plus a fourth official by the dugout. Then in the EPL there is the Video Assistant Referee (VAR), but does not apply to the Championship. Then finally a fifth assistant, who I think has only the limited task of being available in case of injuries to any of the above, they used to have access to the TV footage of the match, but have never been permitted to advise the on field officials, despite famously the 2006 World Cup final and Zidane being sent off. 

So Saturday's incident... the ball went out of play when it went into Luton's net, the assistant referee did not raise his flag, nor did the referee blow his whistle and point for a goal or for an offside. The fourth official was busy on the sidelines with both sets of dugouts, he was certainly not reviewing any footage. The ball was retrieved from the net and placed on the centre spot to restart the game, so what followed was a minimum of two minutes before the awarding by the referee of offside. This was after the referee was speaking to his assistant, yet also in addition they both were obviously receiving instructions in their earpieces, which ultimately no doubt led to the decision.

As a supporter on the ground I could only in retrospect view the footage and can see that it was indeed offside. It is seemingly widely thought that the use of technology to assist with the correct decisions being made are desirable, despite teething problems with VAR and the argued impact on such delays these VAR decisions might take, besides also the impact on the spectacle. 

My confusion is...if indeed the officials within the EFL Championship are not in receipt of external support, either via VAR or perhaps even a 5th official, then what was occurring between the referee. his assistants and whomever else they were both obviously receiving information into their earpieces? 

[arbitro]

1 hour ago, Boz said:

Putting aside my allegiance, might I ask a question which I genuinely am confused and am unsure about, concerning the disallowed goal on Saturday? 

I might have missed something as these days I don't follow every law change and/or different interpretation of the laws by referees/authorities.

VAR is only applicable in England to the EPL and doesn't apply to the EFL and championship? The referee's decision is final. The referee is aided by 'assistant referees'.  Yet who are these assistants? Two assistants referees running the line, plus a fourth official by the dugout. Then in the EPL there is the Video Assistant Referee (VAR), but does not apply to the Championship. Then finally a fifth assistant, who I think has only the limited task of being available in case of injuries to any of the above, they used to have access to the TV footage of the match, but have never been permitted to advise the on field officials, despite famously the 2006 World Cup final and Zidane being sent off. 

So Saturday's incident... the ball went out of play when it went into Luton's net, the assistant referee did not raise his flag, nor did the referee blow his whistle and point for a goal or for an offside. The fourth official was busy on the sidelines with both sets of dugouts, he was certainly not reviewing any footage. The ball was retrieved from the net and placed on the centre spot to restart the game, so what followed was a minimum of two minutes before the awarding by the referee of offside. This was after the referee was speaking to his assistant, yet also in addition they both were obviously receiving instructions in their earpieces, which ultimately no doubt led to the decision.

As a supporter on the ground I could only in retrospect view the footage and can see that it was indeed offside. It is seemingly widely thought that the use of technology to assist with the correct decisions being made are desirable, despite teething problems with VAR and the argued impact on such delays these VAR decisions might take, besides also the impact on the spectacle. 

My confusion is...if indeed the officials within the EFL Championship are not in receipt of external support, either via VAR or perhaps even a 5th official, then what was occurring between the referee. his assistants and whomever else they were both obviously receiving information into their earpieces? 

I'm certain the conversation between the two was about whether Dack actually touched the ball. From the AR's position he couldn't tell and put the onus back to the referee. Again I'm certain there was no other dialogue between the other officials. Again I making an assumption but I wasn't convinced if the referee knew if Dack had actually touched it given the length of the conversation. The AR followed the prescribed process by standing his ground and not flagging.

The correct decision was reached and by and large it was done by the book. In fact that incident aS better teamwork than anthem saw from Rovers.

[Boz]

Yes I agree that the correct decision was reached. However it was the inordinate length of time for them to discuss the incident and then make the decision.

I was posing the question as to whether there might have been any outside (from the on-field officials) input? Especially so given the apparent movement to their earpieces, as if listening. 

"Certain there was no other dialogue between the other officials", really how do we know this? We know that the officials are mic'd up, though who is involved in the conversations? 

If neither the AR nor the referee were certain and actually saw Dack's touch, then surely the goal should have stood, the officials can only give something they've actually seen. 

Might the discussion have been....AR to ref "I couldn't tell if Dack touched the ball, if he did he was offside?", ref in reply either "yes he did" = offside", or "no he didn't" = goal, or "I couldn't or didn't see" = goal.

How long does that take, seconds? Certainly not the length of time it took, perhaps I am just a suspicious sod, I too like things being done by the book, yet also are we all sure/aware of what the book is? VAR by the back door? 

[arbitro]

I am as sure as I can be that it was done as per the procedure. Clearly I'm not privy to the dialogue but from what I saw everything was above board and more importantly the correct decision was reached.