Football laws that you weren't aware of ....

[Deleted member 29601]

I stopped playing in about 2001 so that might explain it. I'd be totally confused by the off side rule if I had to play now.



One method is to hoy abuse at a footballer and then allow someone else to politely correct you on the rules of the game.

Simple maths wouldn't explain it.

 

[SAFC 83]

If two players on the same team collide and need treatment they don't need to go off afterwards.

I remember Fulham at home a few years ago throwing some colourful language at the referee and turned out he was right.

I remember this. Could be wrong but, wasn't there a sunderland player down at the same time who had to go off while their players both came back on.

 

[Fabulous Falcao]

A lot of people still don't know the suspension rule, yellow red cArds etc

 

[AC Mack]

A lot of people still don't know the suspension rule, yellow red cArds etc

The amount of people who think any red card carries a three game ban is staggering.

Love a good moan, me.

 

[RossTheNinja]

The only relevant passage is

and since the substitution would have to be completed before the throw in is taken there is nothing stopping the sub taking it. Before they've entered the field of play they are not technically in the game at all.

So I suppose it would only make a difference if the sub came on where the throw in was to be taken and didnt get on the pitch first.

There are two that always annoy me:
1 People wanting a foul throw when the player's heels are just on the touchline but the rest of their foot is on the pitch.
2 People who don't know whether offside or a goal kick has been given and don't think to look at the ref to see if they indicate for an indirect free kick.

 

[TwasOnTheFifthOfMay]

So I suppose it would only make a difference if the sub came on where the throw in was to be taken and didnt get on the pitch first.

But he has to come on the pitch according to the rules or else the substitution isn't completed and the referee wouldn't allow the throw to be taken. So this is not an issue.

There are two that always annoy me:
1 People wanting a foul throw when the player's heels are just on the touchline but the rest of their foot is on the pitch.

I'm pretty sure this is legal as long as both your feet are touching the ground on or behind the line.

Here you go -

has part of each foot either on the touch line or on the ground outside the
touch line

 

[Kevin Arnott's right boot]

A lot of people still don't know the suspension rule, yellow red cArds etc

I daresay that's because they (can) vary between competitions, whereas the Laws, with the odd exception for kids or veteran football, are the same at all levels

 

[Deleted member 31305]

Years and years ago. This was changed because keepers were wasting time walking slowly back to the correct side to take the kick if the ball ended up on the wrong side, and it was felt that it would remove this opportunity and speed the game up.

So now the keepers waste time by walking slowly across to the opposite side from where the ball ends up, regardless of where it went out, thus wasting even more time as they can do this every time and not just when the ball ended up at the wrong side if you see what I mean. So completely negating the one thing the law was supposed to do, and the refs do nothing about it.

Solution would just be to allow the ref to demand it be taken at a certain side with a quick point. Thus he could just point to the side the ball "ended up at" and issue yellows for any blatant piss-taking or going to the opposite side

 

[Lil Layne]

Goalkeepers are allowed to hold onto the ball for as long as they want... AS LONG AS THEY WANT, especially late in a game when their team is winning/drawing, and the other team is attacking ferociously, and the referee will do absolutely nothing about it because they might have bounced the ball once..

However, if they take more than 10 seconds on a goal kick and there are grumbles from the crowd in the same position, they will likely get booked.

 

[alicante mackem]

Does that depend when the game took place? In the olden days there wasn't as much discretion re: interfering with play. Shankly said something like if you aren't interfering with play then you shouldn't be on the pitch. Quite extreme when it's the corner kick taker, granted.

Was it not Jimmy greaves who said that?

 

[Crook Mackem]

Loads of people don't know the offside rule.


Edit or at least don't know it properly

The offside rule as it stands is a total farce. How can any attacker standing in the oppos pen box not be affecting play. Its shite

 

[riffraff]

The number of people who think the FA run the PL still amazes me.

Regarding the obstruction/defenders fat arse/ball running out of play posts above: I always thought it wasnt obstruction if the ball is within playable distance of the defender.

The one that really shocked me was the rule about if two London smbrs meet unplanned at a SAFC Wembley final and one is moving back up North that week then the one staying down south is allowed to hoy a pie in the others face!

 

[RossTheNinja]

But he has to come on the pitch according to the rules or else the substitution isn't completed and the referee wouldn't allow the throw to be taken. So this is not an issue.

I'm pretty sure this is legal as long as both your feet are touching the ground on or behind the line.

Here you go -

I know it is, that's the point I'm making

Why would it annoy me when people understand the rules?

 

[SurreyMackem]

The number of people who think the FA run the PL still amazes me.

It always amazes me the number of people who think the Premier League is any different to any other league run under the FA

 

[cocky]

There's a lot of people that don't understand how a goalkeeper can play someone offside.

 

[SurreyMackem]

There's a lot of people that don't understand how a goalkeeper can play someone offside.

That often catches people out.

 

[CEF]

The offside rule as it stands is a total farce. How can any attacker standing in the oppos pen box not be affecting play. Its shite

Nobody understands the offside rule anymore. Players, fans, referees, pundits, FIFA, nee one.
Fair enough if a player is down injured away from game play, but you can't tell me a player in the six yard box, even if he isn't obscuring the flight of the ball, doesn't affect how a keeper (or defender) deals with an incoming ball (they're sense of awareness must be useless if it doesn't), although that didn't stop the Mags complaining about their disallowed goal last season.

 

[HarrogateMackem]

That a player is given a free kick automatically if he falls over and grabs the ball... I believe it derives from playground " it's my ball" rules but im not sure

 

[makum102]

Out of interest, why have you highlighted the final part? Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, it doesn't say anything about a goalkeeper not being allowed to bounce the ball.

Errr. Yes it does. I highlighted that bit because I knew some righteous twat would come on and attempt to rubbish that bit. And also because, like you, Until I read it I thought it didnt say anything about bouncing the ball. BUT IT DOES!

Here. Have a read yourself... (scroll down to Goalkeeping rules)
http://www.football-bible.com/soccer-info/goalkeeper-rules.html

 

[Edinburgh Black Cat]

One that will get some people is that a goal can't be scored directly from a throw in.

Was it Gordon who got pelters for letting it go straight in?

Bloke was bullshitting you. Ref probably said, "don't take any more yards" or something, and Connor just tossed the ball to somebody else as they often do.

Ok, here's one for you. What's the only circumstance where, if the ball bursts or becomes damaged in live play, that the game is restarted with something other than a dropped ball?

If it becomes burst in the air just as the first half whistle is about to be blown?

Foul and abusive language is a red card. This is never applied in the Premier League which to me is an utter disgrace.

Foul and abusive language isn't a red card; it's Offensive, Insulting or Abusive language.