Fifa and IFAB’s latest Law changes for 2011
Missed criterias, clothing bans, triple punishment and vanishing spray
The International Football Association Board (IFAB), the lawmaking body tasked with authorizing changes and amendments to the Laws of the Game, convened for its 125th Annual General Meeting in March 2011, in Wales. Their rule changes sanctioned will come law on 1 July 2011. Up for consideration were some of the following vexing issues:
Goal Line Technology:
FIFA President Joseph S. Blatter announced that none of the ten companies which had been invited to test their technology had so far been successful in meeting the specific criteria set out by the IFAB meeting on October 20, 2010. IFAB therefore agreed to a one-year extension of Goal Line Technology tests. Blatter explained:
If you have no system which is responding to the criteria that has been fixed by this entity, you cannot just jump in.
We must first have the answer to our basic principles – accuracy, speed – which means the immediate delivery of the result – and a system that is not too complicated to implement. And we haven’t achieved these three things so far with our independent laboratory.
Therefore, it is a question of one year. What is one year? It is nothing. Just a little bit of patience is needed. But it was a very positive approach in the meeting …. and there was not one single person there, despite the fact that we had a lot of special guests today, going against the tests.
The ten systems all had to demonstrate they were 100% accurate and that they could transmit the result of a goal being scored, or not, to the referee within a second. Blatter said the issue of Goal Line Technology would be brought back to the attention of IFAB next meeting – March 2012, in London – when a final decision will be taken.
Chuck Blazer
FIFA executive committee member Chuck Blazer, one of the body’s delegates to IFAB and General Secretary of CONCACAF said:
“It has got to be reliable, quick and affordable and nothing has worked at the moment. If anyone can meet that criteria I continue to be open to it. I don’t have a problem with keeping the testing open until we get something that works.”
FIFA secretary general Jerome Valcke mentioned that the world governing body are “ready to pay” for further goal line technology tests. The goal-line system developed by a British company, Hawk-Eye, was not one of the tested systems. FIFA has given the British company the assurances that they are still under consideration.
Hawk-Eye, the most established technology, having already conducted stadium testing at Reading in England, declined even to take part in FIFA’s experiment prior to the 125th AGM, apparently in anticipation of the difficult testing environment. Their version of the specific technology needed a stadium environment for their cameras. Hawk-Eye remains confident its system would pass Fifa’s tests – the company is in the process of being taken over by a larger company and it will be eager that IFAB will give them some guarantees that IFAB will want to continue with goal line technology in the future.
The ten technology Companies had only a few months to attain Fifa’s criteria of 100% accuracy and relaying results back to the officials with speed – and it proved too difficult a task for them.
IFAB is made up of representatives from each of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland’s FAs, plus FIFA, the international governing body for football. Each UK association has one vote and FIFA has four. IFAB deliberations must be approved by three-quarters of the vote, which translates to at least six votes. FIFA’s approval is necessary for any IFAB decision, but FIFA alone cannot change the laws of the game and requires the support of at least two of the UK members.
The Welsh and Northern Irish Football Associations, which until now had backed FIFA in opposing any goal line technology, about turned their stance and are now also leaning towards supporting more tests on goal-line systems.
Fifa has announced a timetable for goal-line technology during 2011. Companies, interested in presenting their goal-line systems, need to declare their interest before 3 June 2011 to Fifa headquarters in Zurich and have to formally apply one month later with a $20,000 registration fee.
Germany's GK, Neuer, fails to save England's shot by Lampard in World Cup 2010, a catalyst for FIFA to re-evaluate their stance on goal-line technology.
Presented systems will be tested during the first phase between September and December 2011, and all systems reporting a 90% or higher accuracy in simulated match conditions would be invited back for the second phase of testing, being conducted between March and June 2012. The second phase will be more rigorous, entailing the evaluation of the qualified systems under different weather conditions, shock resistance, immunity to electronic interference and under different types of playing surfaces. Trails will be held behind closed doors and manufacturers can choose their preferred stadium for conducting such tests.
Ben Buckley, GM of the Australian Football Federation, offered his federation's services as guinea pig for FIFA's goal-line technology tests.
Australia’s Ben Buckley has already offered Fifa his willingness to help out evaluating and testing goal-line technology within the Australian Football Federation. Said Buckley in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph:
“We believe the infrastructure of the [A] League is of high enough quality to give it a meaningful trial. [Australia] took the initiative on using video technology to penalize simulation retrospectively, and pleasingly you now see very, very little of that in our game. Everyone wants to see the correct decisions made by the officials, and this seems to be a way of supporting them in that.”
AAR’s during the EURO 2012:
Europe’s (EUFA) president, Michel Platini, wants extra officials behind each goal line instead of technology. (Getty Images)
A presentation was also made to IFAB on the use of Additional Assistant Referees (AAR’s) behind each goal line and IFAB approved the continued experimentation thereof in the EUFA Leagues and sanctioned it for the upcoming European Cup, EURO 2012, to be held in Poland and Ukraine.
Vanishing spray:
The English Football Association (FA) asked IFAB to consider the use of ‘vanishing spray.’ The usage of coloured vanishing spray is common practice in Brazil and South America where officials use a spray on the grass to prevent the defensive wall encroaching on the 10-yard gap at free-kicks. The spray evaporates after a minute. The small canisters of spray are carried by referees in velcro clasps during matches. The CONMEBOL football federation was granted approval to trial the use of vanishing spray in their football associations.
Law 12 – Fouls and Misconduct : ‘DOGSO’s ‘Triple punishment’:
The punishment of players, when send off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity, coupled with a penalty kick if this occurs in their own 18-yard area, as well as the follow-on administrative expulsion – guilty players may have to sit follow-on matches out due to specific league rules with regard to red cards offenses) was discussed. IFAB ruled that this issue, as well as the possible usage of radio communication in the technical area should be postponed and referred them both to FIFA’s Task Force Football 2014 team.
Snoods, Undergarments and Performance clothing worn underneath playing kit:
IFAB ruled neck warming scarfs (snoods) are not permitted as from 1 July 2011
Snoods, or neck warming scarfs and/or hoods, are to be outlawed as from 1 July 2011 under Law 4 – Player’s Equipment. IFAB also clarified and re-iterated that the colour of the increasing popular usage of performance clothing (leg tights or baselayers), if worn, must match the colour of a player’s shorts. //
I would like to make a suggestion for consideration on rule changes, especially concerning the FA’s in the UK. Currently, the points system awards 3 points for a win and 1 point for each team in the even of a draw. But I and several of my footballing friends think a better system is possible – very easily. What we think would be better, more exciting and an incentive to WIN would be if the 3 points remained the same for a win, 2 points were awarded in the even of a SCORE draw and just the 1 point each in the event of a no score draw. This new way of awarding points would make for a better game of football and teams might be less inclined to setttle for any kind of draw and would therefore strive for a win each time…..I have thought this for a very long time and I think it’s something the ‘rule makers’ should seriously consider….if not worldwide then certainly for the FA in the UK….I would be grateful of your comments regarding my suggestion. You surely, have to agree, it would make for a more exciting and competitive game if the new points system was as I have suggested?
Hello Chrissy,
An interesting point. Some observations first: The common goal (pun intended!) is, in league matches, to see teams striving for a win, and a sine qua non (essential action/ingredient) is for teams to score goals to do so. Obviously, you cannot win without scoring. However, scoring goals will not guarantee a win, nor will it always guarantee entertainment. Nevertheless, goals are goals, they’re fun to watch and scoring goals will give a team a very good chance of winning their match, and certainly will have a far greater chance in providing entertainment for the watching public. That we all agree on.
Some assumptions:
Firstly, it’s assumed the actual act of a player scoring, as compared to no goals in a match, is exciting and has entertainment value!
Secondly, we assume that a 0-0 draw (the “boring position”) is less exciting to watch then a 1-1 drawn match (likely), vs. a 2-2 drawn game (almost certainly), vs. higher scored draw.
Thirdly, we want to provide incentives for teams to score more goals, and shun any type of draw.
There are 2 components:-
(1) The incentive/striving for a team to try and win a match, accomplished via scoring goals (team endeavor)
(2) The incentive for supporters/spectators to watch teams scoring (spectator entertainment).
The 2 components, team endeavor & entertainment, are linked via goals scored/the striving for goals scored. Obviously, team endeavor in striving for a win does not always imply entertainment, but if we can have both at the same time, we’re all the better for it.
Lets look at the suggested 3-2-1-0 (“321”) scoring system compared to the current 3-1-0 (“31”) system.
(1) Match at 0-0: Both know their endeavor/striving to score => greater chance to win the match => greater chance winning the league [“321” = “31”]
(2) Match at 0-0: both teams know they will receive only a point if result stay as is; [“321” = “31”]
(3) Match at 0-0: Both teams endeavor to win (via goals) might be entertaining or not; [“321” = “31”]
(4) Match at 1-0: We have a greater incentive for ONE team (the losing team) under the “321” system to strive for scoring a single goal which will give them an extra point, for total 2 points in the log race. [advantage “321”]
(5) Match at 1-1 or > draws: Both teams know they will receive 2 points each if result stay as is under your “321” system. They have scored goals, so it’s likely they’ve entertained spectators in doing so. But that holds true for the “31” system too. However — and here’s the rub — under the “31” system with a scored draw, BOTH teams are now losing 2 points off the log race for the title if the status quo remain, and not just 1 point.
Wouldn’t BOTH teams, not wanting to lose 2 points, now have a slightly greater incentive to play for a win under the “31” system, in RELATION to other teams on the log winning their games, compared to the “321” system? I would say, yes.
Granted, under both scoring systems, any scored draw will spur both teams on to score a single goal and win outright to get a 3-0 point result. However, it’s highly likely, under your “321” system, that both teams might reckon in a scored drawn position to NOT try too hard in getting that winning goal, safe in the knowledge that they are “only losing a single point off the pace” versus other 3-point winning matches in their league. See the dilemma with regard to team endeavor and possible repercussions on entertainment value?
For we can, under your proposed system, have the attitude of both teams, in a scored draw, saying “we’re only losing a single point and not 2 points, compared to the teams that win their games in our league. Lets park the bus in front of our own goal. Why risk striving for more goals?”
Under the “31″ scoring system, teams sitting on a 0-0 (or higher) draw, the incentive to win and scoring goals have a slightly bigger impact on their endeavor as BOTH will, in all likelihood, strive THAT LITTLE BIT HARDER to get out of their scored/scoreless drawn position. Both teams are now 2 points off the pace set by the possible winning teams for that particular league round, and not just 1 point.
You cannot have both teams collect 2 points in a scored draw and expect that the 2 points achieved as having a greater incentive to win then a 1-1 point allocation under the “31″ scoring system. Put another way, a 1-1 point allocation match might inspire both teams, in every type of drawn match, to greater endeavors given how much BOTH teams stand to lose: 2 full points chopped off their point allocation for their title race in winning the league. You could say drawing any game under “31″ system has double the negative impact compared to scored drawn games under the “321″ system, over and above the strive to win your game outright and collect the full 3 points.
To be an improved solution over the current 3-1-0-point system, you have to have, say one team scoring 2 points at the expense of the opposing team getting 1 point, to be truly effective. But then, this will entail further artificial mechanics. When and/or how do you decide on a 2-pointer and a 1-pointer result for two teams? And will the powers in Football be convinced by the rationale for such further mechanics in deciding to allocate different points for a drawn match, whether goalless or not?
Will the 3-1-0 scoring system result in a slightly greater team endeavor — and possibly entertainment value – compared to the 3-2-1-0 system? In my humble opinion, I believe so.
Thus, I don’t believe your proposed system will spur teams on to greater team endavours/entertainment value, as compared to the current system of a 1-1 point allocation for both teams, given scored and scoreless drawn games.
Kind regards
No to the above for the following reasons:
Keep it as simple as possible, no calculator reqired, award 4 points for a win leaving ALL draws as virtually worthless on 1 point.
You can’t take the chance that teams drawing 0-0 would not contrive to draw 1-1 so as to get 2 points each for a score-draw as in the proposal above of the 5th May 2011.
With 4 points for a win & only one for a draw teams would have to absolutely go for it if the clock is ticking down. A point for drawing would be virtually worthless & eliminate the thinking of so many coaches who play safe for an away draw.