Conference trucks::football;1

    
    Is this really true?  A better rule might be to outlaw passes back into
    ones own half having crossed the half-way line, as in basketball.  If
    its an attempt to prevent (time-wasting) possession football, then
    there are other better ways of doing it!  What happens if the ball
    deflects off a defenders foot, (e.g. intercepting an attacking pass),
    does this count as a pass-back?  I pity the refs.
    
    
    

    So is it o.k. for a defender to flick the ball up in the air and head
    it back to the keeper then?
    
    Stevo

    
    Is it right that a player can pass back to his keeper but the
    keeper must not pick it up ? Effectively he becomes the sweeper
    and must play the ball out.
    
    I can see the good points for this rule as less time will be wasted
    but it will put more pressure on defenders and keepers. Other adverse
    effects I'm not sure about though.
    
    JN.

    So now as a defender you will be penalised if you chase back thirty
    yards to catch a forward who is through, sliding tackle and slide the
    ball back to the keeper ??? However if you slid in head first and nod
    it back to the keeper you get away with it ???
    
    A little unfair I think.
	
    		Brian.

    What happens when somebody has a shot which deflects off a defenders
    boot which is then saved by the keeper - is this a backpass.
    
    This rule seems doomed to failure from the start unless there are some
    allowable back passes. Surely a defender in his own area must be able
    to use his foot to get the ball to his keeper. What option has a
    defender got whos under pressure from an attacker with the keeper as
    his only 'Free' player - boot into touch? Also if the keeper stops it
    with a part of his body other than his hands - is he then allowed to
    pick it up?
    
    Confused - you will be.
    
    Nigel

    Could also encourage the use of the long ball in attack - hoof it over
    the top with the defender firm favourite but an attacker in pursuit.
    The goalkeeper is not an option so the defender's only option is to
    risk turning on the ball under pressure from a forward or to put it out
    of play for a throw or a corner. The result is a low-skill punt upfield
    gets quite a decent reward.
    
    Paul
    
    

    This rule change was actually reported in an American newspaper so
    it must  be "officiaL" - ok so it was after the 16 daily pages of
    baseball but it was there.
    
    the article also said that there were 4 other "more obscure rule
    changes" - so come on someone satisfy my curiousity and tell me what
    the others were... i thought this one was fairly obscure so what were
    the others? - teams not allowed to play in shirts that contain less
    than 14 different colours or something.
    
    Regards,
    
    Andrew.D.Wicks
                                                       

    I though one of the changes should be that the first infraction in
    taking a dive, the game should be stopped, and the attending fans score
    from 1-10. If the scoring is an average of 8+ the player should be
    placed in a POOL of ice water for five minutes.Huummm!! not a bad rule
    change, this one hey!
    
    Nick

    Re. last
    
    	Brilliant !!
    
    Ok, so it now looks like the Arse are going to win the Premier League.
    I can imagine listening to the World Service at 11:37 pm on a Saturday
    night, where Alan Green will be in full flow:" Semen picks up the ball,
    kicks a long one into the <opposite team> half. Smith heads the ball,
    (Wright/Campbell/Merson) picks it up, beats one man and yesssss it's
    a goal. Arsenal score their eighth goal, an exact replica of their
    previous seven goals. It looks like nobody will be able to provide any
    kind of answer to this Arsenal's attacking strategy........."
          Well, that's the kind of footie you're going to be witnessing
    with these ridiculous new rules. With these new rules, I don't see the
    necessity of having any midfield players at all. 
    	Just my 2 cents.....
    
    
    Regards,
    
    Kumar
    
    
    
    Regards,
    
    
    Kumar 

	RE: other FIFA rules changes...
	
	If I remember well one of them consisted in having the referee show
	both red AND yellow card for a second booking to send some player
	back to the changing room...
	
	Very useful as a new rule I guess, future will tell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
	
								.Andre.

    When does the backpass rule become official ? Because it certainly
    wasn't used last night in the Germany V N. Ireland game (1-1).
    
    	- Robin

    The rules apply from next year.
    
    Another was that a goal kick could be taken from anywhere in the 6 yard
    box and not just from the side of the goal where the ball went out of
    play.
    
    Nigel

    
    The rule changes are from July 25th '92

    
    Actually Sweden applied for these changes for this season (began in
    April), but IFAB said no. All the major leagues play autumn-spring, so
    we just have to wait a year. 
    
    Another change we applied for was that all freekicks would be direct.
    Easier for the players/public/(referees?) to remember. anyone knows if
    this has come true?
    
    The backpass-rule is GOOD in my opinion. Like some other rules, the
    referee must see if a player makes an deliberate violation of a rule or
    not. Take for example  the "Goalie must not take the ball with his hands 
    twice"-rule. If the goalie makes as save, losing control over the ball but 
    retreives it again, the rule doesn't apply. I mean, if the ball deflects 
    on a defender, this new rule won't apply. In the case when a defender 
    "must" pass the ball back to his goalie, he can do that relying on his 
    goalie to kick the ball away. Otherwise he must kick it over the line 
    making a corner.
    
    The last ten minutes of last nights game between Italy and Sweden, the
    ball was in the Italian penalty-box for five of them. A long backpass from
    the mid circle, and the Italian goalie just waited for a Swedish forward to
    attack him. With the forward 5 meters from him he picked up the ball and
    kicked it up the field again. That sort of play will hopefully decrease. 
    
    One thing on my wishlist is a new off-side rule. No off-side from the
    penaltybox-line to the mid-line. Iv'e seen examples of it (and i think
    it was used in some international youth-tornament) and i liked what i
    saw. A bigger area for forwards to play on, leaving the midfield to
    make more constructive build-ups of the play.
    
    Mats
             

    
    	I agree for the backpass rule.
    
    However, I am much more dubious on what you suggest about the off-side.
    No off-side between the box area and the mid-field would have the 
    following side effect:
      There will be players staying along the match just at the box border,
    awaiting a ball. This will oblige the opposite team to have defenders 
    there to control these guys.
    Result: as many of the most offensive teams are now playing 'the line',
    i.e. a flattened defense, with defenders very 'high' (at mid-field
    level when the team is attacking), they will have to change their 
    tactics...and become more defensive.
      I think that unfortunately this rule would rather favour the 
    counter-attacking teams (i.e. defensive) than the actually offensive 
    ones.
    
    Pierre-Yves 

    Is this going to be in effect for the local amateur football as well??
    If it is I'm moving up to midfield!! Sod that sweeper lark!
    
    Tony

It will affect all F.A. regulated leagues.
               ===

    
    Played the first full game using the new rules last night and it's
    gonna take some getting used to, I can tell you. Admist various chaotic
    scenes, the one thing that did emerge is that the boot upfield (or out
    of play) is now often the best option for defenders and goalkeeper
    alike. What tended to happen last night was that the 'keeper operated
    as an extra man at the back and if put under any pressure, would simply
    kick the ball as far as possible.
    
    This does mean that if, as a striker, you attempt to put the 'keeper
    under pressure, you are almost certain to be in offside position once
    he has cleared the ball.
    
    This all makes for exciting, goal-mouth incident but it hardly improves
    the quality of the football.
    
    jeff

    Are there any referees out there who have actually read the official
    ruling ? I've just read the Dutch interpretation of the new backpass
    rule, it seemed full of the terms "intentional backpass", and 
    "not in the spirit of the new backpass ruling".
    I've just been discussing this with a friend of mine who is a team
    manager, and we both agreed that it will be difficult for all
    concerned to draw the line between a backpass used as a defensive
    action, and a backpass used as a time wasting manoeuvre (sp).
    When I first read the base note I was under the impression that
    backpasses other than by the head or chest are to be penalised full
    stop.
    If for example there are two defenders stood within a few yards of
    each other in and within a few yards of their keeper, one has just gained 
    possession from an opponent and played it off to the other defender
    who at that very moment is put under pressure by an attacker, is
    the defender who is now in possession punishable if he plays the
    ball back to the keeper's hands ? or does the keeper *have* to
    kick the ball away.
    Anyone care to comment ?
    
    
    Tim

    I was wondering the same thing....The backpass can be a useful
    defensive play if a ball is kicked a little too long for the forwards,
    and a full back gets to it first, but he is being pressured from
    behind. Does this mean he can't pass it back to his keeper? or if he
    does, is the keeper, in effect, just like another field player, ie, can
    play it, but can't pick it up? I don't hink ANYONE would consider a
    play like this a deliberate waste of time, after all, the forward is
    putting pressure on, the defender is running full speed, the keeper
    must be ready, etc. Any kind of mistake could easily result in a goal.
    
    I interpreted this as another "referee's discretion" call. Anyone can
    clearly tell the difference between a scenario like the one above and a
    deliberate, time wasting backpass from midfield. Then again, unless this 
    is defined once and for all, different referees will have different 
    interpretations of the rule, and it will be chaos.
    
    Tom

    "If on any occasion a defender kicks the ball to the goalkeeper, and the
    goalkeeper plays the ball with his hands, the goalkeeper will be
    penalized with an indirect free kick."
    
    "Kicks" is defined as playing the ball off the foot or feet.
    
    There is no direction defined in the rule; ie, back, forward etc.
    
    The defender may head the ball, play it off the chest, thigh or knee
    and it is not a rule infraction.
    
    If the ball is deflected off defended #2 from defended #1 to the keeper
    the keeper may not use his hands.  If it is deflected off an attacker,
    the keeper may use his hands.
    
    If in the refs opinion, the ball is played away from the keeper but
    intended for the keeper, the keeper will be penalized.  Example: the
    keeper is playing on left of goal, defender kicks ball to right of goal
    but no attacker is within reasonable distance to "steal" the ball.
    
    Remember, if the keeper plays the ball without using his hands, it is
    not a rule infraction.
    
    Hope this helps.
    
     

    There's going to be real fun with this! What happens if a defender
    tries to clear a ball, slices it, and the goalie has to make a diving
    save?
    
    We will see daft things like defenders going on their hands and knees
    and 'heading' the ball so that the goalie can pick it up!
    
    Andy Dibble has blamed his broken leg on this rule. He had to hack at a
    ball he normally would have caught, but unfortunately he caught his
    ankle on someone's boot and broke his ankle.

    Well...I my team played their first game under the new rules last
    night, and in my opinion it is an improvement, bearing in mind
    that here in Holland they like the defensive game you would
    normally see far too much backpassing, the new rule at least ensures
    that the ball is more in play than it normally would be.
    As mentioned in -.1 you see a lot of unusual ways of passing the
    ball back to the keeper...edge of penalty box..defender on the ball
    crouches and "knees" the ball back to the keeper ! also a similar
    situation that the defender "flicks" the ball up and either heads
    it, or knees the ball to the keeper.
    This new rule is going to be a boon to opportunist strikers, and
    a worry to indecisive defenders. I don't think it's going to have
    much impact on the English game, but it's really going to affect
    the "continental" game.
    I.M.H.O. a great improvement.
    
    
    Tim

    Well I held off replying in this topic until I recieved the official FA
    guidelines regarding the changes.  Last night I attended a Refs
    Association meeting to discuss the new changes.  Luckily quite a lot of
    reps from clubs also attended so we should have a common understanding
    of what is legal and what is not. As stated earlier, the key statement
    is a deliberate or intentional passback to the keeper...if he then
    handles it, then its an indirect free kick.  Since the new law has been
    introduced there have been attempts at getting round it  eg getting on
    your knees and kneeing the ball back, or flicking the ball up and
    heading it back.  This has now been dealt with by an addendum to the
    law which states that if a defender is judged by the referee to be
    trying to 'cheat' into a passback then he will be punished irrespective
    of whether the keeper handles the ball or not.  This caused quite a lot
    of debate last night, and Im not sure whether this has been fully
    resolved or not.  I see that there is more pressure placed on refs as
    the law states that in the opinion of the referee...this is OK, as it
    gives refs the caveat that they are therefore always right, but leads
    to individuals having different interpretations which means
    inconsistent reffing.  I intend to get both sets of players together
    and explain the new changes prior to the game for the 1st couple of
    games..then there is no excuse for "I didnt know about that one ref"
    etc.
    
    Other changes (by memory)
    
    Any player breaking from a defensive wall, or encroaching within 10yds
    from a free kick, before the kick has been taken, will be cautioned.
    
    Any player standing in front of the ball, preventing a free kick to be
    taken will be cautioned.
    
    Any player kicking, or picking up the ball, after a free kick has been
    awarded, thus trying to get himself into position prior to the kick
    being taken, will be cautioned.
    
    Red and yellow cards to be used at ALL levels of football. A player who
    committs a second cationable offence will be shown BOTH cards.  ie you
    are being cationed for that offence = yellow, but as its your 2nd, your
    off = red.
    
    The feed back from the few refs who have already reffed games under the
    new laws is that it does promote more play and less time wasting..this
    even from 1 ref who was totally opposed to the changes.  There are
    instances of defenders trying to get round the passback changes eg one
    defender passes to another defender in the box, who traps the ball then
    the goalkeeper runs up and picks the ball up..as this has not been a
    passback from the 2nd defender to the keeper, then no offence has
    occurred.  Also defenders have been pretending to miss kick the ball so
    that it doesnt look like a deliberate passback.
    
    A long note, which I apologise for, I hope Ive not mislead anyone, or
    missed anything critical out.
    Cheers
    paul

Don't apologise Paul - we'll all be wanting to know what's going through a 
ref's head on quite a few occasions this season I expect!

All the best with the new rules - let's hope they make the games better.

grahame

    	Paul,thanks for the info on the new rules.
    I for one am opposed to the law on backpasses since I feel it tends to
    lead to a levelling of skills as a defender.By this I mean that in a real 
    situation where a defender has the skill to make space & time for
    himself to break up an attaking move by using the keeper "safely" (ie
    the keeper can pick the ball up),he is now prevented from doing so &
    will just hoof the ball into the stands....obviously a move forward for
    keeping the game flowing.....
    
    	Once again,an opportunity for the hoofers in football to look
    better......(just read this,& I don't think I've got the point I'm
    trying to make across very well.Apologies if that is the case but I
    know what I mean)
    
    

    re -1 
    
    Know exactly what you mean.
    
    If the purpose of the no passback change was to get the game flowing
    and to stop time wasting, perhaps it would have been easier to impose a
    time limitation eg 12 seconds that a keeper can have the ball, before
    he must get rid of it.  This could prevent some of the confusion, and
    stop players hoofing it out and the time required to retrieve the ball.
    
    Ive heard again that people who have been totally against the change,
    having now been in a couple of games, are starting to change their
    minds....time will tell.
    
    George Graham was in the Grauniad earlier this week moaning and
    complaining (surprise, surprise) about it.  Given that Arsenal and
    Liverpool spend about half of their time passing it back, I would have
    expected them to complain more !!.
    
    paul

    If time wasting (60 minutes of actual playing time in a game, etc.) is the 
    main problem and reason for this rule, how about this suggestion: Have
    the referee stop the clock when the ball goas out of bounds, for
    injuries, free kicks, etc. a few seconds saved here and there will end
    up lengthening the total time for action in the game. In ice hockey,
    once play is stopped, the clock stops as well. As soon as play resumes,
    the clock starts ticking.
    
    Tom 

    The rules of the game say that the referee should already be doing
    this!

    -1
    But they don't! More often than not, the running time for a half of
    football is almost always about 45 minutes. If you add up every time the 
    ball goes out of bounds, etc. you should get an extra 5-10 minutes or so. 
    If a ball is hoofed over the net, it might take a minute to get it back,
    give it to the goalie, he sets it up in exactly the right spot, (got to
    move that blade of grass out of the way!) he looks around, then makes
    the goal kick. If the ref stopped the clock from the time the ball went
    out of bounds to the time the goalie kicked the ball, we'd see a lot
    more action over the course of a game.
    
    Tom

    -1
    And Wimbledon games would have to start at midday to prevent the
    floodlights being needed ! The timing is an interesting subject
    actually. I've always wandered whether refs stop the clocks for ball
    retrieval - in my experience they don't unless there's 2 minutes to go
    and the team leading by 1 goal but under pressure are hoofing the ball
    out trying to time waste. Is there an official ruling on this ?
    
    Andy..

    Having read this topic I would like to put a different perspective to
    the new back pass rule. I am a team manager, and have recently taken
    charge of a Jewson League team. Mildenhall Town. I am only 28 but I am
    greying quickly. Having watched a few firendlies pre-season in which
    the new rule was enforced I am affraid to say that the colour of my
    hair is becomming lighter by the minute!
    
    The rule was about time wasting. Why penalise defenders! They normally
    play to their coaches/managers instructions. Without being over rude
    defenders are nomally either thinkers or non-thinkers! Half should cope
    with the new rule but I feel sorry for the other half. I noticed on
    Saturday that Liam Daish was caught with the ball by John Aldridge and
    dispossesed, allowing Aldo to score.
    
    The way Cambridge play will probably become the norm accross the
    league. Arsenal abandoned any football ideas last season. They sold
    their midfield, bought a quick striker, and played him alongside a
    great big centre forward. No wonder Adams, Bould & O'Leary enjoy it at
    Arsenal they can hoof it 60 yards and either Cambell or Smith get on
    the end of it. I'm afraid that the new rule will only act to encourage
    such tactics.
    
    NOt at Mildenhall though. We can't find a big enough centre forward or
    a defender who could kick the ball that far so we will have to continue
    to play give/go football. Shame!!!!
    
    MG

      
      RE: previous few notes on timewasting
      
      While I limit my reffing to U19 and below, we nonetheless follow FIFA 
      laws. Prior to last year's season, we received a rather lengthy 
      communique highlighting recent changes, including a special note to ALL 
      referees STRONGLY encouraging the adding back in of delays caused by 
      long out of bounds, injuries, poorly handled substitutions, etc. It IS 
      THE LAW to do this. I suspect that this note was included since the 
      overwhelming majority of refs just don't bother.
      
      For our league play, there are five main reasons why refs don't add back 
      in lost time:
      
      - excepting flagrant breaches, it's a nuisance to do it
      - refs would just as soon get the game over with in the allotted time
      - it's not uncommon to have to ref another game on a different field
        (sometimes in a different town!)
      - in tournaments, you have limited fields and refs (refs are told NOT
        to add back in time, even for injuries, except in finals)
      - we don't have (or allow, for that matter) ball runners to immediately
        replace booted balls leaving the field (BTW, runners make a BIG 
        difference in high school play, who don't follow FIFA)
      
      In sum, there are no real incentives for refs to add time back in... but 
      several incentives for them NOT to.  Without realistic incentives, it 
      will remain 'business as usual' back here.
      
      
      Ed

    
    I dont have the Laws of the Game to hand, but I think the wording is
    that a game shall consist of 2 x 45 minutes duration.  There is a
    mention of stopping the clock for injuries, subs etc, but not a
    specific directive regarding ball out of bounds, not in the UK anyway. 
    Of the games Ive officiated this season, they seemed to have flowed
    more, and encouraged more open play..perhaps its just the teams Ive had
    so far !!.  To me the big confusing issue is the statement that back
    passing is not allowed...this is simply not true !!  You can pass to
    the keeper at any time, its just that he is not allowed to use his
    hands..so in theory the law change has affected the goalkeeper more
    than any other player.  The position of the play or keeper is
    irrelevant also, so a 'pass forward' to the keeper, who then walks back
    into the box means that he cant pick it up...this is also the case of a
    defender taking a goal kick, where the keeper collects the ball outside
    the box (aka the short goal kick) , if the keeper then walks the ball
    back into the box, he cannot pick it up. The advice Ive given to players, 
    especially keepers, is if in doubt dont pick it up.
    
    So far, as I mentioned in an earlier note, the area causing most
    disagreements is the automatic booking for dissent, failing to go back
    10 yards etc, as this was the topic for a re-emphasis on the
    administration of a law, rather than a law change in itself...it was
    also an area not covered by the media to the same depth as the passback
    law change !!.  (The wording changed from should be to MUST be
    cautioned).
       Thank god its the new season again..I saw a plyer wearing a t-shirt
    at the weekend which read "My marriage is temporarily suspended...the
    Football season has started "...now where have I heard that before ??
    
    Cheers
    Paul

	This rule is not perfect.  As you all know, it will take some times 
before all involved in football figure out how to best deal with it.  
However, if we put aside our natural tendency to resist changes (especially 
when it comes to this game we are all so passionate about), we can see that 
the rules will make the game more exciting.

	The only argument against this rule that I buy is the extra burden 
it puts on refs.  They really didn't need an extra judgement call.  To me 
the other arguments are not convincing enough.  At best what they are saying 
is that this new rule is not adding any value to the game.

	Let's take a look at some of the arguments against the new 'back 
pass to keeper' rule.

	1) What is a defender to do when his only option is a pass to his 
keeper?  A pass to a keeper seems to be a terrible option only because the 
keeper cannot pick up the ball with his hand.  This new rule simply requires 
better ball handling skills from both keepers and defenders.

	2) Don't we waste time if the defender boots the ball out of bound?  
We seem to forget that a free throw or a corner kick is an opportunity for 
the attacking team.

	3) How is the ref to know when a pass was intentional or not?  The 
penalty for violating the new rule is less severe than the one for a foul 
committed inside the 18 (penalty kick as opposed to indirect free kick).  If 
a ref can handle the latter, then the former should not be much of a problem.  

	With this new rule, IMHO, we will see more intelligent tactics, and 
better individual skills.  I think we all want that but are not willing to 
give up anything for it.  I hear a lot of screaming from british fans for 
example.  I don't understand why. Their style of play is the least affected 
by this rule.
	It seems like this rule was inspired by the ultra defensive style of 
the italians and the ridiculously calculating style of the germans.  I don't 
hear much complaints from them.

	I hope this rule brings more scoring opportunities to the game in 
general.  I also hope more teams will design tactics that will allow them to 
score more goals than their opponents.  Except for Brasil of '70 and '82, 
Holland of '74 and '78, Argentine of '78 (there were others), most world cup 
national teams have emphasized defense much more than offense, making most 
games right out boring.  

	BTW, I think all of you will get used to this new rule very quickly 
because like me, you are crazy about this sport.  I can't think of one 
single rule that can turn you away from football.  Let's hope it works for 
the best.

Jude 

    Couldn't they modify this rule so that it's only an offence if it's a
    "time-wasting" backpass in the refs opinion. After all, he's allowed to
    judge whether or not a handball is intentional, and whether or not a
    foul was to stop the man or for the ball etc...
    
    Stevo

    
    I agree with everything that .35 says, and nothing that .36 says. If
    this were to become a judgement of "time-wasting" it would never be
    used. Players would learn how to "accidentally" pass the ball to their
    keeper. This rule will eventually promote better skills, maybe that's
    why the English are worried :-)
    
    cheers,
    
    	Stefan

    
    I dont have a problem with the new 'back pass' law change.  The only
    problem is that because its 'in the opinion of the referee', it means
    that there will be inconsistent ruling/reffing.  Eg a ball which goes
    to the keeper after a tackle, is not neccessarily deliberate, but
    already Ive seen refs (at Premier League level) either let it go , or
    penalise.  In one instance the ref awarded a free kick where the
    passback occurred rather that at the point where the keeper picked the
    ball up !!  There was about 10-12 yards difference.  This only means
    that confusion reigns, and until things are clearly defined, they will
    remain so.  I saw a video from the Scottish FA which explained in
    deatail all the scenarios/possibilities, gave the decision whether it
    was legal or not, and the reasons why.  We decided to show this to our
    league committe meeting to at least get a common understanding of the
    law.  Whether this info is passed to the players is another
    thing.......
    
    Its still the best game in the world.
    
    Paul 

    re .38

    	I'd love to get a copy to show around here in the States! Got an
    extra to loan? 

    re others:

    	I was just "taught" the new rule by our State Ref. Instructor.  I
    can't say that the rule itself is bad.  It won't be too hard for me to
    implement -- except that if a defender passes it back, and the goalie
    kicks it around for a bit, I have to remember that if he picks it up, I
    have to call an indirect free kick.  (i.e. I have to remember for a
    while how the goalie got the ball - sort of like keeping track of the
    flight of an indirect kick until it's touched by someone)

    	The hard part will be enforcing the "Trickery" provisions!  This
    part is that if, "in the opinion of the ref", a player tries to get
    around the law (e.g. player A flips the ball into the air, so player B
    can head it to the goalie), then it's an indirect free kick FROM WHERE
    PLAYER A HIT IT - REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE GOALIE USES HIS HANDS, AND
    PLAYER A GETS A RED CARD!!!  Think of the complexity just put on the
    ref!  (And think, if I'm player B and don't like player A, if "A" sends
    me a high pass, I can get him ejected by heading that pass back to the
    goalie!!!!!)  This Trickery clause will be very difficult for me.

    			Jeff

    P.S.  Our youth leagues are not putting this law into play until the Spring.
    	  All our Fall games will ignore it.  Hopefully by then there will
    	  be more clarity on its implementation.

    Jeff,
    
    re player A anb B scenario...the player should only be cautioned for
    Ungentlemanly conduct, not sent off, unless the USA FA have decided
    otherwise.  My beef about this bit is say player A flicks the ball in
    the air, he doent know what player B is going to do with it, so how/why
    should he be punished ??  What if both players are 5 yds apart, 20 yds
    apart, 40 yds apart, when is the 'anti-cheat' law applicable.  What if
    the players are 40yds apart with an attacking player in between them
    ??..To me its going to be difficult to interpret that one, sure if they
    are right next to each other and they try it on then Ok Ill go for
    that, but otherewise Im sure Ill interpret differently from other refs.
    
    Paul

    Gentlemen in black
    
    Suppose a defender kicks the ball towards the goalie and it is in the
    air, then the goalie use his hands to block the ball (as was common
    last year) and allows it to drop onto the ground before continuing to
    play it with his feet (ie without picking up the ball). Is this allowed
    or is it a free kick according to the backpass law?
    
    tks
    
    Peter

    re -1
    
    It is a foul, as per the new law.  If a defender passes to the keeper,
    whether in the box or not, the keeper is regarded as an outfield player
    ie if he deliberately handles it, its a foul.
    
    Another question is 'If a defender passes the ball towards goal, and
    the keeper saves it with his hands, should the keeper be sent of for
    preventing an obvious goalscoring opportunity, as per last years law
    changes (AKA the professional foul)  ????'
    
    Paul

    
    I'm not a qualified referee but I do referee sometimes.
    
    2 questions
    
    1 A shot struck the heel of as defender and then was caught by the
    keeper.  I didn't give a free as the passback clearly wasn't
    deliberate.  I think I'm right but I've seen free kicks given in
    similar circumstances.
    
    2 A defender was taking a quick free kick, the attacker was running
    away.  The free kick hit the attacker when he was about 7-8 yards away.
    I allowed play to continue.  With hindsight I think I was wrong but I'm
    not sure.
    
    Gary.

    I'm not a ref either but in number two I would say you are correct to
    say play on.
    
    In the Diadora League the ref will normally ask you (the taker) if you
    want 10 yards.  If you say no and try to take a quick one then you have
    no argument if it strikes somebody less than 10 yards away.  If you ask
    for 10 the ref will stand near the ball and demand the opponents
    retreat 10.  If an opponent then encroaches you can retake the kick.
    
    Basically I think if the takers wants to wait and ensure opponents are
    10 yards away then wait and tell the ref.
    
    Personally I think in a lot of circumstances it is advantageous to get
    the ball down and start playing as quick as possible.  What do the
    qualified refs think???
    
    		Brian.

    Re. .43 Q1  I have not been penalizing these touches while trying to
    intercept, as I don't regard them as an intentional back-pass. I 
    shout 'not intentional' loudly, so players are aware of my decision.
    I've had no problems yet.
    
    I must be getting old, but I am worried about a decision at the weekend
    - free kick 3/4 yards from goal line, but not in penalty area; can the
    defender (back) pass the ball direct to the 'keeper? I said he could...
    
    Cheers
    DaveT

    re .44 
    Brian,
    
    I think your interpretation is correct. If they want to take the quick 
    free kick, they run the risk of striking an opponent within 10 yards.
    Tough. If they indicate they're going to take their time, then they
    must wait for a signal that the ref is satisfied with the ten yards
    before the kick is taken. I personally like the quick free kick being
    taken, as it makes the game flow more, and opens up chances that are
    often lost when they fiddle about deciding what to do!
    
    Cheers
    DaveT

    re .45
    
    I'm not sure I understand your question.  However, on ANY free kick by
    the defense, no matter where on the field, they can NOT pass the ball
    to the keeper, who then handles the ball. (Of course the keeper can
    kick the ball like anyone else.)
    
    I see this new rule stopping the goal kicks out to the side sweeper who
    then kicks it back to the keeper for a punt.  I also see the full backs
    no longer able to stop a break away by running back, getting between
    the ball and the attacker, and pushing the ball forward to the keeper
    (Acting as an illegal shield by slowing down at that point).
    These are the two more frequent passbacks I've seen which should now
    stop.
    
    Regards,
    			Jeff
    
    P.S.  See the "Men in Black" note for add'l comments.

    re .47 - yep - thought I was wrong, but no-one seemed to question it,
    until half time when the 'keeper approached me and said 'was it alright
    for him to pass to me like that from the free kick'. He said he
    wouldn't pick it up next time, just in case...
    
    Cheers,
    DaveT

Re .43 - In the French League the other day, scenario 1. happened. The defender
deflected a cross which the keeper handled --> indirect free kick, and in that
instance, goal!

I'm not sure but it looks like the FIFA did not take that into consideration.
However, in the "spirit" of the game I don't think he should have penalized
the keeper. On another hand, if you start interpreting the rule, the road is
open to excesses. When do you judge that a deflection is intentional or not?
Common sense? In a 10th of a second? Difficult indeed.

�JF?

    Re -1 
    
    JF, FIFA have taken this into consideration, as the ruling states quite
    clearly 'deliberate passback to the goalkeeper'.  A deflection does not
    in my view constitute deliberate, but the new ruling does state 'in the
    opinion of the referee'....nuff said.
    
    Paul

    OK, I'm fresh from a USSF training session on the new kickback law!
    It's NOT that simple!!!
    
    Any guesses?  For each question:  What's the call, AND What's the
    					restart?  Players 1 and 2 are
    					both on the same Team A.
    
    		1)	Team A has a direct free kick (DFK) from inside their
    			penalty area.  Player 1 kicks the ball into the air
    			a few yards to player 2 who heads it to their
    			goalie inside the penalty area who catches the
    			ball.
    
    		2)	same as 1) except the DFK is taken outside of the penalty
    			area.		
    
    		3)	Goal kick.  Goalie kicks it to player 1 outside of
    			the penalty area who heads it back to the goalie
    			who catches it.
    
    		4)	Player 1 takes a throw-in and throws the ball to
    			the goalie who kicks it a few yards and then picks it up to
    			boot it out of the penalty area.
    
    		5)	Player 1 does a fair slide tackle on the offense,
    			which results in him kicking the ball to his goalie.
    
    		6) 	Player 1 races back on a break away and kicks the
    			ball ahead to the goalie who lunges outside of the penalty area 
    			to make the stop.
    
    		7) 	Same as 6, but the goalie instead kicks the ball
    			from outside of the penalty area and then picks it
    			up when it crosses into the penalty area.
    
    		8) 	Player 1 kicks the ball back to his goalie, but he
    			hits it too hard!  The goalie makes a great save catching the 
    			ball just before it goes into the net.
    
    		9)	same as 8 above, but directly from a goal kick taken by team A.
    
    	
    		10) 	During play, player 1 is pressured, so he kicks the
    			ball to player 2, who heads it to the goalie.
    
    	HAVE FUN!!!
    
    			Jeff

    Jeff,
    
    Kick-back == Back-pass in English right?
    
    Regards,
    
    Andrew.D.Wicks

1) If player 2 is outside the penalty area, then no call - continue playing;
   Otherwise repeat free kick as ball has to leave penalty area.

2) no call -continue playing

3) no call - continue playing

4) no call - continue playing

5) Difficult. I've seen some refs in this situation giving a free kick and
    others let the game continue. Personally, I would let the game continue.

6) no call - continue playing.

7) Indirect free kick for other team, where the goalie picked up the ball.

8) Indirect free kick for other team, where the goalie caught the ball.

9) Assuming the goalie belongs to Team A , same as 8

10) No call - continue playing.

Eduard

    
    	This gets tricky this law. A lot of it is down to referee
    interpretation. Last week whilst playing I blocked a shot on my goal
    line with an outstetched foot and our keeper then picked up the loose
    ball on the six yard line. The referee gave an indirect free kick.
    
    	Tony B.
    

    
    	NO.
    
    	We have had a few free kicks given close to the goal line this
    season and it proves very difficult to score.
    	As soon as the ball is touched you're usually faced with 11
    screaming idiots charging full pelt at you!
    
    
    	Tony B.

    Eduard (.53),
    
    	Pretty good answers to the questions (.51).  I'd disagree on one or
    two, but let's wait and see if anyone else wants to try!  Remember,
    there is another set of "guidelines" as to what to do in the case of
    that crazy piece of behavior called "TRICKERY". (As in "... if a player
    attempts to circumvent the laws of the game through trickery, then
    ,..."
    
    		Regards,
    				Jeff
    
    P.S.  Yes, "kick back" is the same as "pass back".  I call it the
    	kick back rule because use of the foot is required, whereas you 
        can legally head pass back to the goalie.
    
    
    KEY ELEMENTS:
    		   All these must be present:
    			USE OF THE FOOT
    			GOALIE USES HANDS
    			INTENTIONAL
    
    		  BUT, if there is Trickery, ....!!!

    
    	Jeff,
    
    	From a players point of view (especially relevant as I'm a centre
    back) I think the rule is good in as much as it does stop time wasting,
    but the one thing that is annoying is the ambiguity of referees
    interpretation of the rule where it is down to their discretion.
    	It is very annoying to have free kicks given against you one week
    when the week before in an almost identical situation one wasn't. I'm
    sure if i was a ref. I would get fed up with the comments of "It wasn't
    given last week!"
    	The better referees in our league talk to the team just before kick
    off to explain what they constitute as an illegal pass back and what
    they don't. At least that way you can be clear what you can and can't
    do during the game.
    
    
    
    Now I wonder if I can get away with some of the trickery you have
    mentioned!!!!!!
    
    
    	Tony B.

    Tony,
    
    	Thanks for your thoughts.  I find it tougher and tougher to ref. 
    This particular law is very difficult.  In this law, you sometimes
    can't call an infraction for several seconds.  For example, if its
    kicked back to the goalie and he kicks it around for a while, I, the ref,
    have to remember that it was from a kick back that the goalie got the
    ball.  So, three seconds later when he picks it up I have to whistle
    the infraction.  This is the second "delayed" penalty we have. (The
    first being the goalie catches the ball, drops it and later tries to
    pick it up).  Even an advantage play where at the end I still have to 
    give the fouler a card is less complicated to enforce).
    
    	The purpose of the quiz was to show folks that it is NOT an easy
    law.  The trickery piece and it's associated restart rules are not very
    simple.  Stay tuned to our discussion regarding the answers to .51!
    

	RE. 57:

	Jeff, you're right. I answered the questions disregarding the 
	trickery piece.
	In that case I would give free kicks to the opposite team for
	questions 1.) 2.) and 3.).

	It's true that different referees rule the same incident differently
	and it's a good idea for the ref to tell the players before the
	game how he interprets the backpass rule.
	During the game he can then easily block complaints saying
	"Shut up, I told you BEFORE the game, so you knew it!!"  :-)

	Eduard

    I'll have a go, if it encourages the correct answers to be put up.
    
    My get out clause for any I get wrong is that the law says
    'intentional'. this should be interpreted according to standard of
    players, which is why a call against professionals might not be given
    against youngsters.
    
    1	If P2 inside area, retake goal kick
    
    	If P2 outside area, IFK at p2
    
    2	IFK to opposition at P2
    
    3	IFK to opposition at P2
    
    4	OK
    
    5	If goalie picks it up, FK at p1
    
    6	If goailie handles it Red card and DFK at goalie
    
    7	OK
    
    8	IFK at p1
    
    9	missed end of question on my mini-screen!
    
    10	dependes, if intent to cheat against law then IFK at p2, if not is
    OK.
    
    Peter

           <<< TRUCKS::DISK$USER72:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FOOTBALL.NOTE;1 >>>
                                 -< FOOTBALL >-
================================================================================
Note 222.51                       Rule changes                          51 of 61
CARTUN::BERGART "Jeff-the-ref"                       48 lines   8-MAR-1993 21:48
                       -< How about a Kickback Quiz?!! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK HERE GOES!  I DO NOT PRETEND TO BE 100% CORRECT.  
OTHER OPINIONS WELCOME!!  [ MY ANSWERS ARE IN CAP'S ]

		BY THE WAY, AS AN OVERALL COMMENT, I BELIEVE THAT THE LAW
		STATES THAT AN IFK IS AWARDED IT WILL BE TAKEN AT THE POINT
		THE GOALIE PICKS UP THE BALL (NOT WHERE LAST KICKED), UNLESS 
		ITS INSIDE THE GOAL AREA IN WHICH CASE IT COMES OUT TO THE 
		GOAL AREA FRONT LINE.

    
    		1)	Team A has a direct free kick (DFK) from inside their
    			penalty area.  Player 1 kicks the ball into the air
    			a few yards to player 2 who heads it to their
    			goalie inside the penalty area who catches the
    			ball.
    
		YELLOW GIVEN TO P1 FOR TRICKERY (I KNOW ITS UNFAIR THAT P2 
		HEADED IT TO THE GOALIE, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID IT IS!!).
		THE REASON IT'S TRICKERY IS THAT P2 WAS WITHIN THE 10 YDS
		OF THE DFK AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE OTHER
		TEAM TO CONTEST P2'S HEADER.
		RESTART IS REPEAT DFK FOR TEAM A! -- BECAUSE BALL NEVER WAS IN
		IN PLAY DUE TO TRICKERY FROM A DEAD BALL SITUATION.

    		2)	same as 1) except the DFK is taken outside of the penalty
    			area.		
    
		SAME ANSWER AS #1!!  DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHERE DEAD BALL IS
		AT START OF THE PLAY.  CLEARLY IF IT'S INSIDE OF PENALTY AREA
		AND P2 IS ALSO INSIDE, THEN TRICKERY IS A CLEAR CALL.  IT'S
		HARDER IF P2 IS MORE THAN 10 YDS AWAY, OUTSIDE OF THE PENALTY
		AREA AND NOT CONTESTED.

    		3)	Goal kick.  Goalie kicks it to player 1 outside of
    			the penalty area who heads it back to the goalie
    			who catches it.
    
		PLAY ON!!!  THE DEFENSE HAS THE RIGHT TO CONTEST THE GOAL KICK.
		REMEMBER, THIS IS A DEAD BALL START, NOT PART OF A CONTINUING
		PLAY --- BIG DIFFERENCE ACCORDING TO THE STATE REFEREE REP.
		KEY POINT IS THAT P1 WAS OUTSIDE THE PENALTY AREA!		

    		4)	Player 1 takes a throw-in and throws the ball to
    			the goalie who kicks it a few yards and then picks it 
			up to boot it out of the penalty area.
    
		OK!  REMEMBER, INTENTIONAL/KICKED/HANDS BY GOALIE.  A THROW IN
		DID NOT START WITH A KICK, THEREFORE, NO INFRACTION.

    		5)	Player 1 does a fair slide tackle on the offense,
    			which results in him kicking the ball to his goalie.
    
		EITHER WAY IS CORRECT.  FOR JR'S ITS PROBABLY PLAY ON.  FOR
		PRO'S IT COULD BE CALLED AN IFK FOR TEAM B.  

    		6) 	Player 1 races back on a break away and kicks the
    			ball ahead to the goalie who lunges outside of the 
			penalty area to make the stop.
    
		IT'S A DIRECT KICK FOR TEAM B!  NORMALLY ITS AN IFK, BUT A HAND
		BALL BY THE GOALIE OUTSIDE THE PENALTY BOX IS A MORE SERIOUS
		MATTER.  PETER IS CORRECT THAT IF IT WAS ALSO A BREAKAWAY
		SCORING OPPORTUNITY, THEN A RED CARD WOULD BE CORRECT. (EDUARD
		I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU'D CALL CONTINUE PLAY)

    		7) 	Same as 6, but the goalie instead kicks the ball
    			from outside of the penalty area and then picks it
    			up when it crosses into the penalty area.
    
		IFK FOR TEAM B AT POINT OF GOALIE PICK-UP. (PETER, JUST BECAUSE
		THE GOALIE KICKS IT BEFORE HE PICKS IT UP DOESN'T "WAVE OFF"
		THE CALL.)

    		8) 	Player 1 kicks the ball back to his goalie, but he
    			hits it too hard!  The goalie makes a great save 
			catching the ball just before it goes into the net.
    
		IFK TO TEAM B FROM WHERE GOALIE CAUGHT THE BALL EXCEPT IF
		INSIDE GOAL AREA IT COMES OUT TO FRONT GOAL AREA LINE. 

    		9)	same as 8 above, but directly from a goal kick taken 
			by team A.
    
    		PROBABLY JUST A RETAKE!!  YOU SEE, EVEN THOUGH GOALIE CAUGHT 
		THE BALL, THERE WAS NO TRICKERY INVOLVED.  ALSO, UNTIL THE BALL
		CROSSES THE PENALTY AREA, IT'S NOT IN PLAY.  ( HERE IS A
		PLACE THAT I AM DEFINATELY NOT SURE OF THE CALL!!!)

    		10) 	During play, player 1 is pressured, so he kicks the
    			ball to player 2, who heads it to the goalie.
    
		NO CALL!  THIS IS PREFECTLY LEGAL SINCE P1 WAS UNDER PRESSURE
		DURING DYNAMIC PLAY.


		WELL HOW'D YOU DO? (ESPECIALLY ALL YOU FOLKS WHO READ, BUT DID
		NOT TRY THE TEST!)  THIS IS NOT AN EASY LAW TO ENFORCE.
		BEST REGARDS,
				JEFF
    

    Re answer 6):
    
    	Jeff it was a misunderstanding. I read English and thought German,
    	i.e I translated to "make the stop" as "den Ball stoppen" which means
    	to stop the ball with your foot!
    
    	BTW, a similar situation - although not a back pass -  happened on 
    	Wednesday's super cup match  FC Barcelona - Werder Bremen.
    	A long pass towards the penalty area by a Barca player with a
    	Barca player and a defender in the center running for the ball,
    	the goalie dived for the ball and skidded just a bit outside the
    	penalty area with the ball in his hand (very unfortunate).
    	The goalie got the red card for deliberately handling the ball
    	outside the penalty area (a very hard decision, but according to
    	the rules acceptable). So Bremen had to substitute a player with
    	a goalie who's first action was to pick up the ball from inside
    	the goal, scored by a superb free kick from Stoichkov (15th Min.).
    	Bremen had to carry on with 10 players and in the end lost
    	2 - 1 . Barcelona won deservedly and could have scored half a dozen
    	goals in the second half against a completely worn out an torn 
        apart defense.
    
    Eduard 

Hi - I'm relatively new to this conference and am a referee in New 
Hampshire.  I've been skimming through this note and thought it might 
help if I entered the actual text of the FIFA circular that was sent out 
concerning the backpass law.  This letter will not appear in the rule 
book but is intended to help referees interpret the new law.

    "Subject to the terms of Law XII, a player may pass the ball to his
    own goalkeeper using his head or chest or knee, etc. If, however, in
    the opinion of the referee, a player uses a deliberate trick in
    order to circumvent the amendment to Law XII, the player will be
    guilty of ungentlemanly conduct and will be punished accordingly in
    the terms of Law XII; that is to say, the player will be cautioned
    and an indirect free-kick will be awarded to the opposing team from
    the place where the player committed the offense. 

    Examples of such tricks would include: a player who deliberately
    flicks the ball with his feet up onto his head in order to head the
    ball to his goalkeeper; or, a player who kneels down and
    deliberately pushes the ball to the goalkeeper with his knee, etc. 

    In such circumstances, it is irrelevant whether the goalkeeper
    subsequently touches the ball with his hands or not.  The offense is
    committed by the player in attempting to circumvent both the text
    and spirit of Law XII, and the referee must only be convinced that
    this was the player's motive." 

One of the important sections is the last paragraph where 'intent' is 
penalized.  This 'intent' also applies to other sections of Law XII and 
I'll post a small quiz next to see how you would call some situations.

Gerry

OK - a short quiz along the lines of the one Jeff did a few weeks ago.
These items come from a recent edition of Referee magazine.  if you've 
seen it please don't bother to answer, otherwise have a go!

1.  During play, Two players both end up over the goal-line inside the 
    net. The defender then deliberately kicks the attacker.  The ball is 
    still in play. What should the referee do?

2.  During the game a coach/manager continually directs verbal abuse 
    towards the referee.  What should the referee do?

3.  If the abuse continues what should the referee do?

4.  An attacker is running alone towards the goal with the ball.  He/she 
    pushes the ball around the goalkeeper.  The goalkeeper throws 
    himself towards the attacker.  The attacker stumbles and falls though 
    the goalkeeper did not touch him/her.  What action should the referee 
    take?

5.  An attacker has the ball inside of the penalty area.  A defender 
    starts to tackle him/her.  The attacker gets the ball past the 
    defender but has to jump to avoid getting kicked.  Because of this 
    he/she can no longer get the ball.  What should the referee do?



I'll post the answers in a few days.

Gerry

    Re: 222.65
    
    Gerry,
    
    		I don't remember this test.  Good to see some activity
    regarding the Laws and Refereeing!!  I'll give it a shot, ... but I'll
    wait a day or two so that others can try.
    
    [For all you other refs out there, how about sharing your "tough",
    "best", "worse" etc. experiences in the "Men in Black" topic.]
    
    			Jeff-the-ref
    	(Always available for true "Friendlies.")

I'll start....

1.	Wait until the ball goas dead and then caution the offending player. No
penalty sould result as the players are off the field of play.

2.	Caution the coach 
		e.g. "Mr. Souness will you please be quiet"

3.	Send the coach off 
		e.g. "Mr. Souness!!!  You're out of here!!!" 

4.	If no attempt was made for the ball then, as no contact was made, 
allow play to continue, but caution the keeper for ungentlemanly conduct,
once the ball goes dead. Awarding a penalty would set a precedent for attackers
to fall over when challenged at every opportunity.

5.	Nothing.

RE: .65

#1.

Well, because the foul did not take place "IN" the penalty area, I would treat
it as any other foul occurring off the playing field.  I'd call for an IFK for
the attacking team from the goal line.  Thay would probably anger numerous fans
(as well as most of the readers of this reply) but I'll have to be convinced
that another call is proper.

#4.

Because it was a break-away (the attacker is "running alone"), and because the
keeper did not "play the ball", I'd send-off the keeper and award a penalty
kick to the attacking team.  I'm confident this decision will make me as popular
as my decision in #1.

#5.

This one allows for lots of interpretation as to why the attacker "jumped to
avoid being kicked".  If I believe that the defender "attempted" to kick the
attacker, then I'd award a penalty kick.  If I believed otherwise, I'd allow
play to continue.

#2 and #4.

I don't like these, so I'm not going to answer them to any more detail than to
say I  would include comments about this verbal abuse in my referees report.

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Re .65
    
 My answers below, next screen if you don't want a look yet.

#1
    Stop play if defence got ball, play on if attack got ball to see if 
    they score. When play stops send off defender and restart with a 
    drop ball on the six yard line if play was stopped for offence or
    restart as normal.

#2 + #3
    Send them away or to the stand and caution them and report all
    foul language etc.

#4
    Penalty, the law states, kick or attempt to kick etc etc
                                     ^^^^^^^
    Oh, and send off the keeper.
#5    
    As above, a penalty but all things can be viewed differently, you
    would have to be sure it was a dliberate attempt to stop the player
    with foul play, i.e. is the ground wet and he couldn't stop sliding
    etc,. No two offences are the same.

    Colin.

    
    Here's a wee poser.....
    
    The attacker gets the ball about 25 yds out. He is then fouled by a 
    defender, just an ordinary foul, no cautions involved. He stands up,
    the defender moves away to dispute the decision with the referee.
    This leaves no one between the attacker and the goal, i.e. in an 
    offside position, another attacker runs up, places the ball just 
    behind our fouled player, touches it forward to him and he runs 
    round the keeper and slots the ball into the net.
    
    Would you give the goal ?????  And why/why not !!!!
    
    colin.

    re .70  (see next page)
    
    IMHO:
    NO GOAL.  The guy was in an offside position, and attempted to gain an
    unfair advantage. (Makes no difference WHY the defender "moved up.")
    You can be offsides in a Direct and Indirect Free Kick.  A twist would
    be to have the defender complain about giving the other team a
    throw-in!  Because there is NO offsides on throw-ins.  I've never seen
    a team take advantage of this -- who knows why?
    
    P.S.  If the ref had said, "on my whistle" and the kick was taken
    before the whistle, then rather than offsides, the kick would have to
    be taken again.
    
    
    re .65 (see next page)
    
    IMHO (without reading the other replies):

1.  During play, Two players both end up over the goal-line inside the 
    net. The defender then deliberately kicks the attacker.  The ball is 
    still in play. What should the referee do?

	The players are outside of the pitch.  Therefore, play should continue.
	At the next stoppage, the ref gives the defender a yellow for unsports-
	man like conduct.  OR!! If serious, the ref can stop play, award the
	yellow (or red) and then restart WITH A DROP BALL AT THE POINT THE 
	BALL WAS AT THE STOPPAGE.  If a red is issued, I'd say that team
	plays one man down (ANY COMMENTS ON THIS!!).  If the defender was not 
	a player, but say a sub, then the team plays with full strength, but 
	has one less sub.


2.  During the game a coach/manager continually directs verbal abuse 
    towards the referee.  What should the referee do?

	Verbally warn the coach to "settle down"  In many leagues, a ref can
	give a coach a yellow card.

3.  If the abuse continues what should the referee do?

	The coach can be asked to leave the pitch (with or without a red card
	given - depending on the league).  In some leagues, if there is no
	"official" assistant coach who has a league identity card, the match
	at this point would be abandoned.


4.  An attacker is running alone towards the goal with the ball.  He/she 
    pushes the ball around the goalkeeper.  The goalkeeper throws 
    himself towards the attacker.  The attacker stumbles and falls though 
    the goalkeeper did not touch him/her.  What action should the referee 
    take?

	Key word is "attempts."  The laws say that the act is all that is
	needed to commit the foul.  Depending on the situation, it's either
	a red card (Breakaway), or yellow (serious foul), or no card.  And 
	also depending, the restart would be a direct or penalty kick.


5.  An attacker has the ball inside of the penalty area.  A defender 
    starts to tackle him/her.  The attacker gets the ball past the 
    defender but has to jump to avoid getting kicked.  Because of this 
    he/she can no longer get the ball.  What should the referee do?

	I think this is OK - i.e. no foul.  Of course, I'm assuming that
	the defender does a LEGAL tackle. (i.e. both legs on the ground, going
	for the ball). If the defender kicks his legs up a foot into the air 
	then (s)he is guilty of "Attempting" to trip, in which case see #4 
	above. If, IN THE OPINION OF THE REFEREE, the defender is attempting to
	just block the progress of the attacker, then the ref can call 
	obstruction and give an INDIRECT kick.

    Here's a real "live" question from a recent match!
    
    Team "A" is given a corner kick.  Before they take it, their coach yells,
    "Ref, goalie change."  Ref says "no subs."  Coach yells, "Don't want to
    sub, just want to change goalie with a player currently on the field."
    
    What should the ref do??
    
    	a)  Stop play & let them change.
    
    	b)  Make them take the kick, but tell the coach he can
    		make the change while the match continues.
    
    	c)  Make them wait until next stop in play.  And if so, what
    		stoppage is OK?
    
    
    
    Now, would you have picked a different option if the team defending the 
    corner kick had asked to change their goalie?

    Jeff,
    
    Team "A" is given a corner kick.  Before they take it, their coach
    yells, "Ref, goalie change."  Ref says "no subs."  Coach yells, "Don't
    want to sub, just want to change goalie with a player currently on the
    field."
    
    What should the ref do??
    
    I would allow the change making it quite clear that I had added on time
    for doing so. The reason being that the ball is out of play at the
    time. Also if you don't allow this and team B clears and scores, you've
    got real problems.
    
    It gets tricky if this is used as a clear time wasting tactic (eg
    changing again), at which time the cautioning the coach option comes
    into play. Another option (against the timewasting) might be to call
    both captains together and explain that you will only take calls for
    goalkeper changes from then and that you will consider unjustified
    changes to be ungentlemanly conduct.
    
    Get's complicated doesn't it!
    
    Peter.
    
    
    
    Peter.  

    No matter how you look at it....... There are no subs in a corner kick!!
                
    Nick

Have to agree with -.1.  At least in Southern New Hampshire the rules 
are no subs or goalie exchanges at a corner kick. Basically exchanging 
goalies is treated the same as bringing on a sub.  However rules on this 
tend to differ from area to area so it might be fine in other places.

Gerry

Re. the 'wee poser':-
    
    The attacker gets the ball about 25 yds out. He is then fouled by a 
    defender, just an ordinary foul, no cautions involved. He stands up,
    the defender moves away to dispute the decision with the referee.
    This leaves no one between the attacker and the goal, i.e. in an 
    offside position, another attacker runs up, places the ball just 
    behind our fouled player, touches it forward to him and he runs 
    round the keeper and slots the ball into the net.
    
	OFFSIDE.  NO GOAL.

Gerry

Answers to the short quiz:-


1.  During play, two players both end up over the goal-line inside the 
    net. The defender then deliberately kicks the attacker.  The ball is 
    still in play. What should the referee do?

    THE REFEREE ACTUALLY HAS A CHOICE!  HE CAN DECIDE, IF THE SITUATION 
    WARRANTS IT, TO STOP PLAY IMMEDIATELY OR HE CAN WAIT UNTIL A NATURAL 
    STOPPAGE. IN EITHER CASE HE SHOULD WARN THE PLAYERS INVOLVED AND 
    FORMALLY CAUTION IF NECESSARY. A FREE-KICK FOR A FOUL CAN ONLY BE 
    AWARDED FOR AN ACT COMMITTED ON THE FIELD OF PLAY, AND THE AREA 
    INSIDE A GOAL NET IS NOT ON THE FIELD OF PLAY.  THUS IF THE REFEREE 
    STOPPED PLAY IT IS RESTARTED WITH A DROPPED BALL AT THE POINT WHERE 
    HE STOPPPED PLAY.  IF THE REFEREE DECIDES ON A RED CARD, THAT SIDE 
    THEN PLAYS ONE MAN SHORT. EVEN THOUGH HE WAS OFF THE FIELD AT THE 
    TIME OF THE INCIDENT HE IS STILL A MEMBER OF THAT TEAM (AS OPPOSED TO 
    A SUBSTITUTE) AND CANNOT BE REPLACED. (to answer your point Jeff).

2.  During the game a coach/manager continually directs verbal abuse 
    towards the referee.  What should the referee do?

    YELLOW AND RED CARDS CAN ONLY BE SHOWN TO PLAYERS AND SUBSTITUTES 
    (THOUGH MANY COACHES I HAVE MET HAVE COMPLAINED THAT THEY HAVE BEEN 
    'CARDED'!).  THE REFEREE'S INITIAL ACTION SHOULD BE TO ISSUE A 
    VERBAL WARNING TO TO THE OFFENDER.

    JEFF YOU COMMENT THAT SOME LEAGUES ALLOW 'CARDING' OF COACHES. I 
    HAVE CERTAINLY HEARD OF THAT THOUGH THAT IN ITSELF IS ILLEGAL. ANY 
    ORGANIZATION PLAYING UNDER FIFA RULES CAN ONLY MAKE CHANGES TO THOSE 
    RULES IN FOUR AREAS.  ANYONE KNOW WHAT THOSE FOUR AREAS ARE?

3.  If the abuse continues what should the referee do?

    IF THE ABUSE CONTINUES THE REFEREE SHOULD DISMISS THE OFFENDER FROM 
    THE FIELD AND OFFICIALLY REPORT THE INCIDENT TO HIS/HER GOVERNING 
    BODY.  'FROM THE FIELD' MEANS TOTALLY AWAY FROM THE GAME.  THAT 
    PERSON IS NOT ALLOWED TO SIMPLY GO INTO THE CROWD AND CONTINUE TO 
    WATCH THE GAME (THOUGH THIS DOES HAPPEN).

4.  An attacker is running alone towards the goal with the ball.  He/she 
    pushes the ball around the goalkeeper.  The goalkeeper throws 
    himself towards the attacker.  The attacker stumbles and falls though 
    the goalkeeper did not touch him/her.  What action should the referee 
    take?

    LAW XII REQUIRES PUNISHMENT FOR TRIPPING OR ATTEMPTING TO TRIP AN
    OPPONENT. IF THE REFEREE BELIEVES THAT THE GOALKEEPER WAS MAKING A
    DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO STOP THE ATTACKER THEN THE CORRECT DECISION IS
    TO AWARD A FREE-KICK OR PENALTY DEPENDING WHERE THE ATTEMPT TOOK
    PLACE. SINCE THE ACTION PREVENTS A GOAL BEING SCORED THE GOALKEEPER
    SHOULD BE SHOWN THE RED CARD.  HAVING SAID THIS THERE OBVIOUSLY ARE
    CASES WHEN THE ATTACKER TAKES 'A DIVE'. THE REFEREE HAS TO MAKE A
    SPLIT SECOND DECISION IN THESE CASES AND OFTEN AT PROFESSIONAL LEVEL
    SUFFER INTERROGATION BY TV SLOW MOTION REPLAY OR AT LOCAL JUNIOR
    LEVEL INCUR THE WRATH OF ONE OR OTHER SET OF PARENTS!  THIS IS A
    WHOLE OTHER TOPIC WHICH WE CAN TALK ABOUT LATER. 

5.  An attacker has the ball inside of the penalty area.  A defender 
    starts to tackle him/her.  The attacker gets the ball past the 
    defender but has to jump to avoid getting kicked.  Because of this 
    he/she can no longer get the ball.  What should the referee do?

    SAME ANSWER AS 4. KICKING OR ATTEMPTING TO KICK CARRY THE SAME 
    PUNISHMENT. THIS SHOULD BE THE DECISION EVEN IF WAS A LEGITIMATE BUT 
    FAILED ATTEMPT BY THE DEFENDER TO TACKLE. IN THIS CASE A PENALTY.


Thanks to all those that answered - I'll try to come up with more 
questions later.

Gerry

    re .77 questions (next page)
    
    
    
    
    	There are 4 local "adjustments" that can be made to FIFA rules.
    	They are for children, & women [and over 30 (or 40?) year old 
    	men have such adjustments around here but I don't remember seeing
    	them included in the Law book].
    
    		1) Length of each half
    		2) Size of Ball
    		3) Size of Goals
    		4) Number of Substitutions (as well as allowing for
    			reentry of a player who came out for a sub)
    
    	But locally we also have the number of players as a variable (Both 
    	on the field and on the roster).  And with reduced number of players, 
    	we have smaller fields as well (e.g. 6 on 6).  Some young leagues
    	do not allow penalty kicks, and some allow one coach on the field 
    	from each team. ETC!!
    
    	I, for one, wish that there was a unified youngster set of laws. 
    	For every youngster league I ref, I need a cheat sheet telling me
    	the unique "Rules" they have (From when one can substitute, to
    	whether both teams keep their subs on the same side of the field!).
    
    	Regards,
    			Jeff
    
    	*******************************************************************
    	P.S.  REWARD FOR THE MOST OBSCURE LEAGUE RULE!! (I Have a good one
    	I'll share later)
    	*******************************************************************
    

    
    Answer to .70, a wee poser
    
    You've got to give a goal.
    
    
    The player places the ball just behind the fouled player and touches it
    forward to him.
    
    He's onside.  There now follows a party political explanation.
    
    To be offside you have to be in front of the ball and our player was,
    but the ball is not in play until it has travelled it's full
    circumference so technically he is still onside as the ball passes him.
    
    As for the ref blowing the whistle, he doesn't blow in a way as to take
    the advantage away from the fouled team, so he plays on as happens when
    teams take quick free kicks.
    
    colin

Re. the goalkeeper change, I wasn't entirely happy with the answer I gave 
so I looked it up tonight.  As I thought the rules vary a great deal 
from place to place.  Pure FIFA allows goalkeeping substitutions at a 
corner. The United States Soccer Federation is the same.  Local rules 
allow it in some areas and not otehrs. I was wrong in that Southern New 
Hampshire does allow it but NH High Schools do not.

Gerry

Colin - your 'wee poser' answer is very interesting! You are certainly 
correct in that the receiver of the ball is technically behind the ball 
at the moment of the kick if he is within 27 inches of the kick (the 
circumference of the ball).  You'd need your ruler out to make sure!!
If however the ball was passed directly to him within that distance 
the kick would have to be re-taken as the ball had not gone into play. 
If it was played past him and he ran on to it, fine.

A good problem.  Simple game isn't it!

Gerry

Local adjustments to FIFA rules (there are 5 not 4 as I said before):-

The laws may be modified for games involving players under 16 years, for 
women, and for veterans (over 35 according to FIFA!) in the following 
ways:-

1.  Size of field of play
2.  Size, weight, and material of the ball
3.  Size of goal
4.  Duration of play
5.  Number of substitutions

Gerry

RE: .79

The rules are explicit in identifying when a player, who is in an offside
position, is not to be called offside.  All other situations should strictly
follow the offside rule.

I'd call offside in the situation you described, whether or not the player was
within the circumference of the ball.

Gerry

    
    .....but you can only be offside when the ball is in PLAY and has 
    been passed forward.......he's not offside. Remember the ball is not
    in play until it has travelled it's full circumference.
    
    colin

    re .77
    
    Answer to No5.
    
    A tackle is not a kick or attempted kick, and therefore I cannot see
    how a foul, or penalty, can be awarded.  If the tackle was a genuine
    attempt at the ball then the fact that the attacker has to jump over
    the defender is irrelevant.
    
    Paul
    

    As I write this, the US Spanish Language TV channel (Univision) is
    broadcasting a game from Japan between Mexico and Italy.
    
    No throwins.  Ball is placed on the touchline at the point of 
    exit of the ball, then kicked in.  Kicks from within 20 yards
    of the goal line can be exciting...like a corner kick with
    a better angle.
    
    Is this an experiment leading to a possible rule change?
    

    
    -1.   
    
    I hope not. As a right back I am just getting distance on my throws.
    Kicking the ball leaves a lot to be desired.
    
    
    Stick to throw-ins please Footballing Ruling Persons.
    
    
    Gary. 

    The J-league has a number of rule changes from standard leagues - if I
    can find the article i'll list them all but I also remember that they
    also have sudden-death extra time i'm sure there were others.
    
    regards,
    
    Andrew.D.wicks

    I enclose a note I extracted from another conference by my good friend
    Fumito Kondo in Nagoya.
    
             <<< JIT081::$81$DUA11:[NOTES$LIBRARY]JPNCLT.NOTE;1 >>>
                      -< The People and Culture of Japan >-
================================================================================
Note 323.1                          J-league                              1 of 2
TKOV50::F_KONDO                                      99 lines  28-MAY-1993 17:59
                              -< Lineker is here >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave-san,
I'm pleased to find you on the VAXnotes.
>    	- who are the Japanese stars?

 Japanese most popular soccer star is KAZU. 
 His full name  is Kazuyoshi Miura.  He had palyed in Santos Brazil about four 
years ago. He was born in Shizuoka prefecture which is the one of the most 
vigorous soccer place in Japan.
 When his 15 years old, KAZU drop out high school, then move to Brazil only 
himself for study professional soccer of Brazil.
 He had grow up as professional soccer player through his rigorous training.
 Finally, he became star player in Santos. He returned to Japan in 1990, or 
1989 I forgot exactly.

 There is another famous player Ramos Rui.  Ramos is originally Brazilian. 
He played soccer in Japan very long time. After his marriage with Japanese girl,
he was naturalized to Japanese. Now he play in Japan national team together 
with KAZU. This is the best combi. KAZU and Ramos for Japan national team.
 KAZU and Ramos both belongs Verdy Kawasaki. Verdy will play against to Aston 
Villa in this July.   This game will be exciting.

>    	Are there any J-league specific rules?

 JFA(Japan Football Association) has belongs to FIFA. Therefore FIFA rules is 
JFA rules. However, J-league thought, they want to make all game will play 
exciting.
 They desided all J-league match should be played without tie.
 If the game was tie after play 90 minutes. They will play  extre time 30 
minutes with sudden death. If the game was tie after extra time, they will 
play PK match with sudden death. Therefore there is no tie in J-league.
Originally FIFA object to J-league plan.  After many discussion, FIFA has 
approve of this plan as experimentally perform.
 Other rule is the same as FIFA.

>    	- How big are the crowds?

 The first opening game Verdy Kawasaki vs Marinos Yokohama was 60,000 in the 
Japan national stadium.
 J-league has playing Wednesday, and Saturday in every weeks.
The average spectator of each game is about 20,000.
Most of J-league stadium can admit only 15,000~30,000. The only Japan National 
stadium can admit 60,000.
By the way, the Mizuho stadium in Nagoya which has performed the game Grampus 
vs. Marinos in 5/22 was 15,000 full spectator, although it was the heavy rain.
I was one of the spectator with dripping wet.

>    	- How did interest get generated in the game?

Is this means how do we excite in the game?
The most of Japanese soccer supportor copied support style from soccer 
advanced country. Last year, most of Japanese soccer fan enjoyed Samba rhythm 
in the game.
 This year, the new trend appeared. It is Italian style as sing a song 
"Ole-Oh-Oh" or "Ole-ole-ole-ole".
 Especially, Grampus 8 has Lineker which is Englishman, therefore Grampus office
recommend to support by European style.
          

   I believe FIFA can solve much of the lack-of-scoring-slow-pace-play-for-PKs 
   mentality we have witnessed without tampering with the offside rule, 
   the size of the net, etc. by allowing unlimited substitution and re-entry 
   into the game.  This will make for a much higher constant work-level on 
   the field, and therefore and more goals in the regulation time and in OT.

   Picture the WC final we have just witnessed with just that one change.
   Baggio can be rested and reinserted at full potential; Signori gets to 
   play as he gives Mussaro a rest, Zola comes in for 30 minutes and runs 
   his Brasilian counterpart ragged knowing he can give his all in those 
   30 minutes, etc.  Not to be outdone, Brasil makes sure that Romario, 
   Bebito, et al are fresh.  

   A 100% fresh substitute can work much harder than a starter at 70% stamina. 
   Also, the starter comes BACK IN at 95-100% stamina again.

   An added bonus is the coaching strategy decisions created.  Do I take 
   out Baresi for a break?  If I do, is my team too weak in the back, even 
   with him at 65% stamina now, what will the other coach do, etc.?

   Clark   

	Beg pardon, but "high work rate" is what got us into this mess.

	Back in the days when forwards didn't cover back when their
	teams were on the defensive, there used to be more goals. If all
	eleven players are always ready to sprint back to pack their
	penalty area, we'll see even fewer goals.

>   An added bonus is the coaching strategy decisions created.  Do I take 
>   out Baresi for a break?  If I do, is my team too weak in the back, even 
>   with him at 65% stamina now, what will the other coach do, etc.?

	I don't think most soccer fans would see this as a bonus. Soccer
	is about what the players on the pitch can do. "When the game starts
	the manager's job is finished."

	Tony

    
    re .90
    
    Sounds good to me.
    
    Archie
    

    re.90
    	Heresy!
    I have witnessed such practices at work (high school level here in the
    U.S) and the result is organized mayhem....I don't think that any coach
    would like this... too much break-down in assignments....
    
    Jacques

   re:               <<< Note 222.93 by GLDOA::BOSSONNEY >>>
   >>>...too much break-down in assignments....
    
   These are national team-level players, coming in fresh.  Breakdowns 
   in assignments or in the continuity of the game would be unforgivable 
   in my opinion; they are professionals, and should be able to handle it.

   I have seen many high school and premier level youth games where 
   substitution and re-entry has resulted in a huge increase in 
   on-the-field action and excitement, with little or no breakdown,
   when there is not a large disparity in talent between the starters 
   and the subs.

   Clark

    Anyone who wants an electronic copy of the latest version of the
    Laws send me mail (they are too long to put in here). 

    Gerry

		SUMMARY OF THE 1995 FIFA LAW CHANGES

    At the 109th annual meeting of the International Football
    Association Board, held in Ayrshire, Scotland, on 4 March 1995, a
    number of amendments were made to the Laws of the Game and the
    accompanying decisions. These Law revisions were distributed to
    the member associations of FIFA in Circular no. 560 dated 2 May
    1995, and are to take effect on 1 July 1995. For seasons that are
    underway on that date, implementation of the changes may be
    postponed until the start of the following season. 

    1.  LAW III (Number Of Players): Substitution

    For games played under the jurisdiction of FIFA, Confederations
    (e.g. CONCACAF), or National Associations (e.g. USSF), the rules
    of competition may permit the use of up to three substitutes from
    a nominated list of up to five. Only those substitutes whose names
    are given to the referee prior to the match are eligible for
    substitution. This revision removes the rather complicated
    two-plus-one (i.e., two field players plus a goalkeeper) ruling
    made in 1994. 

    2.  LAW VII (Duration of the Game): Length of Half-time

    The maximum length of the half-time interval, which must be given
    in the rules of the competition, was increased from five minutes
    to fifteen minutes. The duration of the half-time interval can be
    altered only with the permission of the referee. 


    3.  LAW XI (Offside)

    The phrase "seeking to gain" an advantage has been replaced with
    "gaining" an advantage, and the Law now requires that a player in
    an offside position be "involved in active play" before he or she
    can be called offside. Paragraph two of Law XI now reads: 

    2.  It is not an offense in itself to be in an offside position. A
	player shall only be penalised for being in an offside
	position if, at the moment the ball touches, or is played by,
	one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee,
	involved in active play by: 

	(a) interfering with play, or
	(b) interfering with an opponent, or
	(c) gaining an advantage by being in that position.

    New diagrams illustrating offside are promised for the 1995
    edition of the FIFA Laws of the Game. 

    4.  LAW XII (Fouls and Misconduct): The Ten Penal Fouls

    There are now ten penal fouls, rather than nine. The word
    intentionally has been removed from Law XII, but handling the ball
    must be deliberate to be a foul. Only the new text for the penal
    fouls is given here, but some comments about the deleted text is
    provided. Law XII now reads, in part: 

    A player who commits any of the following six offenses in a manner
    considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or involving
    disproportionate force: 

    (a) kicks or attempts to kick an opponent; or
    (b) trips an opponent; or
    (c) jumps at an opponent; or
    (d) charges an opponent; or
    (e) strikes or attempts to strike an opponent; or
    (f) pushes an opponent;

    or who commits any of the following four offenses:

    (g) when tackling an opponent makes contact with the opponent
        before contact is made with the ball; or 
    (h) spits at an opponent; or
    (i) holds an opponent; or
    (j) handles the ball deliberately, i.e., carries, strikes or
        propels the ball with his hand or arm (this does not apply to the
        goalkeeper within his own penalty-area); 

    shall be penalized ... (The rest of the text is unchanged except
    for reference to ten fouls instead of nine and removal of the word
    intentionally.) 

    Note that the tripping foul no longer contains the words i.e.,
    throwing or "attempting to throw him" ... , finally bringing to an
    end the contention of some that the attempt to trip was a penal
    foul. 

    5.  LAW XII (Fouls and Misconduct): The Non-penal Fouls

    The words intentionally obstructing have been removed from the 3rd
    non-penal foul, which now reads: 

    3. 	when not playing the ball, impeding the progress of an
	opponent, i.e. running between the opponent and the ball, or
	interposing the body so as to form an obstacle to an opponent; 

    6. LAW XII (Fouls and Misconduct): The International Board Decisions

    The changes to Law XII have necessitated the revision of several
    of the decisions following the Law. 

    Old decisions (2) and (3) have been deleted, and the subsequent
    decisions renumbered. The renumbered decisions (2)-(5), (8)-(9),
    (11)-(12) and (14)-(16) are unchanged. For the following three
    decisions, only the affected portions are given; refer to your
    1994 FIFA Laws of the Game to complete their wording: 

    (1) If the goalkeeper either strikes an opponent by throwing the
	ball at him or pushes him with the ball while still holding
	it, the referee shall award a ... 

    (6) If a player positions his arms to impede an opponent ... 

    (7) If a player impedes the progress of the opposing goalkeeper,
	in an attempt to prevent him from playing the ball in
	accordance with Law XII, 5(a) .. 

    The word intentionally has been deleted from renumbered decisions
    (10) and (13). Decisions (13) and (14) concern fouls which deny an
    opponent a goal or obvious goal-scoring opportunity. Although the
    word intentionally was previously in both of these decisions, the
    circular indicates a change only in (13), and states that (14) is
    unchanged. However, since a hand ball foul must be deliberate,
    decision (14) will probably be reworded sometime in the future,
    perhaps when the 1995 Law Book is published. 

    7.  LAW XIV (Penalty-kick): Where Players Must Stand

    An additional requirement has been added concerning where players
    must stand when a penalty-kick is being taken. The first paragraph
    of Law XIV now reads: 

    A penalty kick shall be taken from the penalty-mark and, when it
    is being taken, all players with the exception of the player
    taking the kick, properly identified, and the opposing goalkeeper,
    shall be within the field of play but outside the penalty area, at
    least 10 yards from the penalty-mark and "must stand behind the
    penalty-mark".

    The phrase behind the penalty-mark means more than 12 yards from
    the goal-line. Referees must ensure that all players are correctly
    positioned "before" signaling for the penalty-kick to be taken. 

    8.  MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES

    LAW I (The Field of Play): There are two new decisions. The first
    prohibits logos or publicity on, or cameras, microphones, etc.
    Attached to, the field, nets, corner flags or goalposts. 

    The second decision permits an optional mark 11 yards from the
    corner flag, perpendicular to the goal-line, and off the field.
    The purpose of this optional mark is to assist the referee in
    ensuring that the minimum distance of 10 yards from the ball is
    observed by opponents during a corner-kick. 

    LAW II (The Ball): Balls used in FIFA and Confederation
    competition matches must bear certain prescribed markings to
    indicate that they meet minimal technical requirements. National
    Association competitions may also impose this requirement. The
    markings that have been identified are: FIFA Approved   FIFA
    Inspected  International Matchball Standards 

    LAW V (The Referee): A new, lengthy decision (13) attempts to
    limit the legal liability of game officials. 

    THE TECHNICAL AREA: The sentence Markings are not required to
    define this area has been revised to read It is recommended that
    Markings be used to define this area.