new rules on holding in the box

[The Libero]

Watching the soft penalties given in the Stoke v City game at the weekend it looks like a precedent has been set for refs being very tough on any shirt pulling or manhandling in the box.

Could be a few implications: short-term while teams are adjusting to the rules there might be more penalties given than usual. Longer term when teams start to adapt, the inability to disrupt attacking players in the box might lead to an advantage to the attacking side and increase the number of goals from set-pieces.

Just thinking through the implications for FPL - obviously might be a benefit to the guys on penalties, but also who might score more goals than otherwise now this rule has come in...Van Dijk? Dann? Dawson? McAuley?

[spiderm4tt]

It is a significant rule change and it will no doubt change the dynamics of the Premier League and also the FPL. I think the short term and longer term implications you've got it spot on.

It's made, and also making, me think for example going Tadic over Redmond, Mahrez over Vardy, Barkley (if on pens) over Mirallas/Bolasie/Lukaku, Bojan over a better non pen taking mid, Gray over a non pen taking cheap forward, and think most certainly Zlatan over any other Utd attacker. I stop though at Milner over Firmino/Coutinho/Mane, for now anyway

And yes players like McAuley etc who come up for corners and set plays may either get a better headed chance for a goal or an assist for a penalty, like McAuley and Otemendi did at the weekend just gone - the former with the goal, the latter with an assist.

[Gambit]

will other referees start to follow this rule though?

loads of holding and blocking all weekend (as there is every week) but only one ref did anything, and even then it was random as other offences went unpunished during the game.

[Tall Paul]

On a point of pedantry, it's not a new rule, it just looks like the referee's have been told to apply the existing law more strictly. Although I'm not sure why they ignored a blatant shirt pull by Fer on Michael Keane last week.

As Mark Hughes said at the weekend, it'll probably last a week or two then everything will go back to normal.

[Football Hero]

It will result in less clean sheets too.

[Tall Paul]

[spiderm4tt]

will other referees start to follow this rule though?

loads of holding and blocking all weekend (as there is every week) but only one ref did anything, and even then it was random as other offences went unpunished during the game.

That's a good question. The new rule (or applying the existing law more strictly as Tall Paul says) needs to be consistent, but some refs will obviously give more pens than others. When I watched Stoke v Man City the other day I was thinking; 'Who is Mike Dean referring next week?', and; 'Who are Stoke playing?' and 'Which teams/players are most likely to pull shirts!'.

If we could come up with a list of refs penalty stats and their upcoming weekly fixtures along with teams/players who like to pull shirts (probably more man-to-man marking than zonal defence), and players and teams who get most and least corners, set plays, crosses etc, then you could have some sort of prefect formula for the perfect storm of predicting this potential new wave of FPL points - if the existing law is continually strictly applied that is

[Tall Paul]

A good plan would be to pick the penalty taker for whoever WBA are playing every week.

[spiderm4tt]

Ha yes. You could probably say that about a number of teams and players. If Conte signs Chiellini I hope he does it before the weekend as I have Gray!

[SuperGrover]

will other referees start to follow this rule though?

loads of holding and blocking all weekend (as there is every week) but only one ref did anything, and even then it was random as other offences went unpunished during the game.

Agreed. Also given how awful the penalty call on Sterling was you wonder if the reaction might be to cut back on these calls moving forward. I think it's a bit premature to think it means anything so far.

If they do call more pens then I definitely think the points made above are very valid. Time will tell.

[SuperGrover]

If we could come up with a list of refs penalty stats and their upcoming weekly fixtures

The first part is already done for you.

http://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-le ... bewerb/GB1

Speaking of, Mike Dean awarded a penalty every 3 games last year, one of the higher rates in the league. Not surprising he was on the Stoke-City game.

[blahblah]

A good plan would be to pick the penalty taker for whoever WBA are playing every week.

Yep, and to the dropping in CS point above.

[MoSe]

Football rules are relatively few and relatively unchanged since long.
What's paramount for the actual application and/or strict enforcing of those rules, are the refereeing bodies Guidelines, set both centrally and by the individual refs associations, which might change from season to season.
See for instance the offside rule, which without changing went (back and forth) over the years from "there must be light inbetween" to "just the tip of your nose or your foot is enough, not considering the arms", and from "you just look at the ball and you're actively participating" to "if you don't receive the pass you're not offside" I saw for a while last season (in Serie A).

• I recall I checked some refs sites at the time of Euro2008, when Panucci was down injured beyond the goal line, and still kept onside a Dutch (or Roumanian?) attacker. I even posted a question and got a reply from a US referee (!), but can't recall now which were the sites.

the FA site includes FAQs in the Laws section
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... misconduct

and I also found this from IFAB
http://www.theifab.com/#!/laws/addition ... -documents
http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/assets/doc ... elines.pdf
http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/assets/doc ... hanges.pdf

but those are not the practical guidelines I recalled and was referring to

In Italy, the Referee Association (AIA) official Laws document embeds its Practical Guidelines at the end of each Law, and for the Law 12 these are even longer than the law itself, but I found no mention of holding in the box ( http://www.aia-figc.it/download/regolam ... g_2016.pdf of course it's in italian only)

there might also be verbal directives given to referees by their "technical directors", to steer their attitude and decisions in a specific direction on the application of some rules, and this might be the case
e.g. IIRC at the last WC it was rumoured the refs got a directive to avoid if possibile to caution players in the first 30 minutes of play

[CR9]

new rules on holding in the box

Wenger has one, certainly.

[Weisenwolf]

new rules on holding in the box

Wenger has one, certainly.

It was a package deal with selective vision......

[CR9]

new rules on holding in the box

Wenger has one, certainly.

It was a package deal with selective vision......

Shoulda gone to Specsavers...

[Le Red]

I wouldn't overthink it. This has already caused some controversy and I'm sure there is no interest in making the number of penalties given increase too much. It can lead to some extra penalties, which is profitable for the penalty takers, but we already look at them anyway. Maybe in average each taker will have 1 to 1,5 extra penalty over the season, I think 2 would be stretching it too much. Not enough to justify one player over another imo.
I think the point about more goals being scored is worth more consideration though. Aerial threatening defenders might not only scored more goals due to not being grappled, but also suffer penalties if they are. It can be profitable to follow this tendency while it's on, but in the long term it also remains to be seen if this will really make a relevant difference.
Football is about adapting to the current scenario. If defenders can't grapple, they must look for efficient means to defend, it's not like they will be watching the opponent go for the ball. In fact, many times I've seen goals being scored because the defender was more worried about grappling than his own positioning, so...
My conclusion is that, if you're willing to buy the aerial offensive defenders, go for it since there's a chance of a small penalty hype. Otherwise, just keep playing like usual, it's a relevant change but it won't turn the game upside down.

[The Libero]

nice thought through analysis le red thanks very much

[Football Hero]

I wouldn't overthink it. This has already caused some controversy and I'm sure there is no interest in making the number of penalties given increase too much. It can lead to some extra penalties, which is profitable for the penalty takers, but we already look at them anyway. Maybe in average each taker will have 1 to 1,5 extra penalty over the season, I think 2 would be stretching it too much. Not enough to justify one player over another imo.
I think the point about more goals being scored is worth more consideration though. Aerial threatening defenders might not only scored more goals due to not being grappled, but also suffer penalties if they are. It can be profitable to follow this tendency while it's on, but in the long term it also remains to be seen if this will really make a relevant difference.
Football is about adapting to the current scenario. If defenders can't grapple, they must look for efficient means to defend, it's not like they will be watching the opponent go for the ball. In fact, many times I've seen goals being scored because the defender was more worried about grappling than his own positioning, so...
My conclusion is that, if you're willing to buy the aerial offensive defenders, go for it since there's a chance of a small penalty hype. Otherwise, just keep playing like usual, it's a relevant change but it won't turn the game upside down.

Don't the defenders choose to grapple attacking players in the first place because, (assuming it goes unnoticed by the referee), it is more effective at stopping the attacker scoring than trying to mark them, beat them to the ball and head it clear in a legal fashion?

So as a result, with the clamp down on grappling this should lead to more goals, either with more penalties being awarded, (if the defenders don't learn), or more legitimate headed goals by attackers, (if the defenders do learn and try to defend legally).

[Striker]

Other than in the very short term I'm not sure it's even worth thinking about in terms of FPL selection. Idiots like Phil Neville refuse to support the clamp down as they don't like to see players suffer yellow and red cards which in his view spoil the game. But a more rational approach is that the excess of grappling and shirt pulling is spoiling the game and that a consistent clampdown will soon be taken into account by managers and players and we'll have less problems in the box. Even the argument that with grappling removed from a defender's armoury, goals will increase is a bit spurious as managers will adapt to the new grapple free/reduced environment and modify their defensive strategies. Alternatively if the claimed clampdown isn't pursued, with Saturday's penalties being the exception rather than the rule, grappling will continue, and we don't need to take a potential increase in penalties into account. Whatever happens, one thing that won't happen is a significant increase in penalties that further increases the relative attractiveness of penalty takers.

Over time undesirable aspects of the game from racial abuse to diving have been eliminated/reduced when serious efforts to combat them have been made.

[Weisenwolf]

Re-watched MOTD yesterday and I find it amazing Costa managed to avoid getting sent off in either game so far. Whatever the guidelines if refs are still reluctant to issue the 2nd card will it make so much difference?

[Finisher1]

I can't deny it, I also think "less clean sheets" sounds so much more correct than "fewer clean sheets" (although I know it isn't)!

[Sutter Kane]

Whatever happens, one thing that won't happen is a significant increase in penalties that further increases the relative attractiveness of penalty takers.

Over time undesirable aspects of the game from racial abuse to diving have been eliminated/reduced when serious efforts to combat them have been made.

We don't actually know 100% that this won't lead to a significant increase in pens. I highlighted the 'over time' bit because it's absolutely true, but that can be a season.

[Le Red]

I wouldn't overthink it. This has already caused some controversy and I'm sure there is no interest in making the number of penalties given increase too much. It can lead to some extra penalties, which is profitable for the penalty takers, but we already look at them anyway. Maybe in average each taker will have 1 to 1,5 extra penalty over the season, I think 2 would be stretching it too much. Not enough to justify one player over another imo.
I think the point about more goals being scored is worth more consideration though. Aerial threatening defenders might not only scored more goals due to not being grappled, but also suffer penalties if they are. It can be profitable to follow this tendency while it's on, but in the long term it also remains to be seen if this will really make a relevant difference.
Football is about adapting to the current scenario. If defenders can't grapple, they must look for efficient means to defend, it's not like they will be watching the opponent go for the ball. In fact, many times I've seen goals being scored because the defender was more worried about grappling than his own positioning, so...
My conclusion is that, if you're willing to buy the aerial offensive defenders, go for it since there's a chance of a small penalty hype. Otherwise, just keep playing like usual, it's a relevant change but it won't turn the game upside down.

Don't the defenders choose to grapple attacking players in the first place because, (assuming it goes unnoticed by the referee), it is more effective at stopping the attacker scoring than trying to mark them, beat them to the ball and head it clear in a legal fashion?

So as a result, with the clamp down on grappling this should lead to more goals, either with more penalties being awarded, (if the defenders don't learn), or more legitimate headed goals by attackers, (if the defenders do learn and try to defend legally).

I would answer to your reply but Striker's post below yours sums up my thinking regarding this issue.

[Football Hero]

I wouldn't overthink it. This has already caused some controversy and I'm sure there is no interest in making the number of penalties given increase too much. It can lead to some extra penalties, which is profitable for the penalty takers, but we already look at them anyway. Maybe in average each taker will have 1 to 1,5 extra penalty over the season, I think 2 would be stretching it too much. Not enough to justify one player over another imo.
I think the point about more goals being scored is worth more consideration though. Aerial threatening defenders might not only scored more goals due to not being grappled, but also suffer penalties if they are. It can be profitable to follow this tendency while it's on, but in the long term it also remains to be seen if this will really make a relevant difference.
Football is about adapting to the current scenario. If defenders can't grapple, they must look for efficient means to defend, it's not like they will be watching the opponent go for the ball. In fact, many times I've seen goals being scored because the defender was more worried about grappling than his own positioning, so...
My conclusion is that, if you're willing to buy the aerial offensive defenders, go for it since there's a chance of a small penalty hype. Otherwise, just keep playing like usual, it's a relevant change but it won't turn the game upside down.

Don't the defenders choose to grapple attacking players in the first place because, (assuming it goes unnoticed by the referee), it is more effective at stopping the attacker scoring than trying to mark them, beat them to the ball and head it clear in a legal fashion?

So as a result, with the clamp down on grappling this should lead to more goals, either with more penalties being awarded, (if the defenders don't learn), or more legitimate headed goals by attackers, (if the defenders do learn and try to defend legally).

I would answer to your reply but Striker's post below yours sums up my thinking regarding this issue.

I am not sure that the point has been addressed about the existence of these superior, legal defensive alterations that will be introduced that will be just as effective as grappling. Surely defenders have been grappling in the past because it is very effective at stopping the attackers scoring; more effective than any legally defending strategy. If this wasn't the case then why were defenders grappling in the past because prior to this season, there was still say a 10% chance of a grapple giving away a penalty, compared to this season where it's now say 30% likely to give away a penalty.

If there were more superior, legal defensive moves available, why were these not used in the past instead of taking the 10% risk of giving away a penalty?

[BobMem]

I can't deny it, I also think "less clean sheets" sounds so much more correct than "fewer clean sheets" (although I know it isn't)!

The sheets are less clean?

With less cheese, you can make fewer cheese sandwiches.

[Le Red]

I wouldn't overthink it. This has already caused some controversy and I'm sure there is no interest in making the number of penalties given increase too much. It can lead to some extra penalties, which is profitable for the penalty takers, but we already look at them anyway. Maybe in average each taker will have 1 to 1,5 extra penalty over the season, I think 2 would be stretching it too much. Not enough to justify one player over another imo.
I think the point about more goals being scored is worth more consideration though. Aerial threatening defenders might not only scored more goals due to not being grappled, but also suffer penalties if they are. It can be profitable to follow this tendency while it's on, but in the long term it also remains to be seen if this will really make a relevant difference.
Football is about adapting to the current scenario. If defenders can't grapple, they must look for efficient means to defend, it's not like they will be watching the opponent go for the ball. In fact, many times I've seen goals being scored because the defender was more worried about grappling than his own positioning, so...
My conclusion is that, if you're willing to buy the aerial offensive defenders, go for it since there's a chance of a small penalty hype. Otherwise, just keep playing like usual, it's a relevant change but it won't turn the game upside down.

Don't the defenders choose to grapple attacking players in the first place because, (assuming it goes unnoticed by the referee), it is more effective at stopping the attacker scoring than trying to mark them, beat them to the ball and head it clear in a legal fashion?

So as a result, with the clamp down on grappling this should lead to more goals, either with more penalties being awarded, (if the defenders don't learn), or more legitimate headed goals by attackers, (if the defenders do learn and try to defend legally).

I would answer to your reply but Striker's post below yours sums up my thinking regarding this issue.

I am not sure that the point has been addressed about the existence of these superior, legal defensive alterations that will be introduced that will be just as effective as grappling. Surely defenders have been grappling in the past because it is very effective at stopping the attackers scoring; more effective than any legally defending strategy. If this wasn't the case then why were defenders grappling in the past because prior to this season, there was still say a 10% chance of a grapple giving away a penalty, compared to this season where it's now say 30% likely to give away a penalty.

If there were more superior, legal defensive moves available, why were these not used in the past instead of taking the 10% risk of giving away a penalty?

Just like when a team wins everything with an innovative tactic, you can't say "how come everyone wasn't playing like this before?". Tactics are in constant evolution in football and it's necessary for players and managers to adapt to the current scenario, be it a change in the rules or an emerging pattern of play.
Defenders grapple because they can do so without being punished most of the time. As soon as they realize they can't do that anymore, a way will be found to defend with efficiency.
You are assuming that grappling is way more effective than everything else because that's what everyone has been doing. But how many things (not only in football) are considered the best or even the only correct way to do things until something new appears and debunks the former method?
Grappling was never meant to be allowed and only became a habit because of the lenience of the referees. As soon as it becomes a risky resource defenders will grown used to repel attacks without needing it.

[Football Hero]

I wouldn't overthink it. This has already caused some controversy and I'm sure there is no interest in making the number of penalties given increase too much. It can lead to some extra penalties, which is profitable for the penalty takers, but we already look at them anyway. Maybe in average each taker will have 1 to 1,5 extra penalty over the season, I think 2 would be stretching it too much. Not enough to justify one player over another imo.
I think the point about more goals being scored is worth more consideration though. Aerial threatening defenders might not only scored more goals due to not being grappled, but also suffer penalties if they are. It can be profitable to follow this tendency while it's on, but in the long term it also remains to be seen if this will really make a relevant difference.
Football is about adapting to the current scenario. If defenders can't grapple, they must look for efficient means to defend, it's not like they will be watching the opponent go for the ball. In fact, many times I've seen goals being scored because the defender was more worried about grappling than his own positioning, so...
My conclusion is that, if you're willing to buy the aerial offensive defenders, go for it since there's a chance of a small penalty hype. Otherwise, just keep playing like usual, it's a relevant change but it won't turn the game upside down.

Don't the defenders choose to grapple attacking players in the first place because, (assuming it goes unnoticed by the referee), it is more effective at stopping the attacker scoring than trying to mark them, beat them to the ball and head it clear in a legal fashion?

So as a result, with the clamp down on grappling this should lead to more goals, either with more penalties being awarded, (if the defenders don't learn), or more legitimate headed goals by attackers, (if the defenders do learn and try to defend legally).

I would answer to your reply but Striker's post below yours sums up my thinking regarding this issue.

I am not sure that the point has been addressed about the existence of these superior, legal defensive alterations that will be introduced that will be just as effective as grappling. Surely defenders have been grappling in the past because it is very effective at stopping the attackers scoring; more effective than any legally defending strategy. If this wasn't the case then why were defenders grappling in the past because prior to this season, there was still say a 10% chance of a grapple giving away a penalty, compared to this season where it's now say 30% likely to give away a penalty.

If there were more superior, legal defensive moves available, why were these not used in the past instead of taking the 10% risk of giving away a penalty?

Just like when a team wins everything with an innovative tactic, you can't say "how come everyone wasn't playing like this before?". Tactics are in constant evolution in football and it's necessary for players and managers to adapt to the current scenario, be it a change in the rules or an emerging pattern of play.
Defenders grapple because they can do so without being punished most of the time. As soon as they realize they can't do that anymore, a way will be found to defend with efficiency.
You are assuming that grappling is way more effective than everything else because that's what everyone has been doing. But how many things (not only in football) are considered the best or even the only correct way to do things until something new appears and debunks the former method?
Grappling was never meant to be allowed and only became a habit because of the lenience of the referees. As soon as it becomes a risky resource defenders will grown used to repel attacks without needing it.

Yeah, I think that's a fair point that we may see some new legally defensive tactics get implemented in the future to perhaps combat this, but it will surely take a little while to emerge, so in the short term, (i.e. probably the rest of this season), we should see more goals go in from set-pieces as teams have not worked out what these new defensive tactics should be yet.

[Le Red]

Yeah, I think that's a fair point that we may see some new legally defensive tactics get implemented in the future to perhaps combat this, but it will surely take a little while to emerge, so in the short term, (i.e. probably the rest of this season), we should see more goals go in from set-pieces as teams have not worked out what these new defensive tactics should be yet.

Yeah, I agree with that. It might pay off to invest in aerial threats. There are a lot of attacking defenders who'd be worth it even when grappling was full on.

[MoSe]

With less cheese, you can make fewer cheese sandwiches.

unless you put less cheese in each one