Discuss / Feedback on FA Laws of the Game

I suppose it is useful to standardise things. Not sure what leeway each tournament has on slightly amending things
to suit their own needs.
I think its more about the refs. At last weeks EFL tournament there was almost no blowing for running or fouls. I
have told the players to be aware of this and not to stop unless a clear whistle blows. Even that was a problem
at times as the pitches were adjoining each other.
We could suggest at each tournament that the organisers give a brief on the laws .

I think we should adopt the FA rules in particular regarding direct and indirect free kicks. We had a simple plan for free kicks at the recent tournament and even then they were not very successful. Direct free kicks only increases the options, I think we should have 2 or 3 options and try to execute them every time there is a free kick. I appreciate that we have Bob and Ian who don't necessarily represent Clevedon at tournaments but I don't think Bristol City or Weston will spend any time practising defending free kicks as they don't even practise taking them!

I know that this is too late for feedback to SFA but having watched several WF videos recently about contact rules it appears that 3 versions of the game are emerging:
1. Non-contact
2. Minimal contact
3. Full contact (within reason)

I wonder which version we shall adopt for our regular sessions? My preference is for option 2. minimal contact, having seen some of the rough tactics adopted by some of the tournament teams in the videos and of course the now infamous bruising battle v WSM at their place.

I have to say the standard of refereeing at tournaments is generally very poor and gives players very little protection against bruisers. Hopefully WF refereeing will improve and I see now there are the beginnings of courses for WF refereeing. I might even consider WF refereeing myself when my playing days are over and/or when I retire from working and have more time to focus on such matters.

What are your views on WF contact?

Its an interesting topic for debate.

It was good to see once again yesterday that 2 of our latest recruits were given a little more time on the ball
most of the time. Some of our more experienced players yesterday were being a little cute when it came to tackles.
At times when in possession any contact they were claiming "foul" whereas previously they had been doing the same
thing.Friday sessions can be a little more robust and the players enjoy being able to have a tackle, within the laws of course.

The above head height law can be harder to judge. The overhead height law was brought in initially for 5-a-side games and
adopted by walking football . The aim obviously to encourage players to keep the ball on the ground. The problem is that
different Associations ,tournaments and clubs have adopted their own height restrictions. We once had the nonsense at
one event where the rule was shoulder height. The problem was the crossbar was higher than shoulder height. A goal was scored
and the keeper appealed against it as being "above shoulder "height. The ref gave the goal.
I do not believe that any player intentionally kicks the ball higher than whatever the laws are in the game he is playing. Why would he
as it awards a free kick to the opposing team. Therefore my opinion is that any reference to health and safety is a red herring.
Crossbar, shoulder and head height is easy to judge when a player shoots at goal and it sails above everybody. The problem becomes more acute
when you have the ball rebound off a player which is where most of the issues arise. When a player tries to block the ball
he has no intention of hurting another player he is simply trying to stop the ball. He has no intention of making the ball go above
whatever height laws are in place he merely wants to block the ball. So there is no intent there like a person who is over vigorous
with a tackle.
My contention is that over head height is easier to judge than over crossbar height. Particularly when the ball is is away from the crossbars to judge.
When I ref I look at the players involved in the incident at the time of the ball going high. If for example we have 2 players one six foot four and one
five foot four if it goes above the head of the smaller player I blow the whistle. No ref has a measuring stick so his judgement comes into play. I can
tell you that whatever height is being used some of the players will disagree with the ruling ,its the nature of football.
I also contend that using a lower threshold will mean more stoppages in the game and therefore more chance for arguments . For a long time we
didn't have or need a ref at our sessions and they went very well. It is because the sessions today are more competitive both on Thursdays and Fridays
that most of the players prefer having an independent ref. I say independent ref as having a ref who also doubles as a player causes much friction as has
been the case in recent weeks.

Anyway I have rambled on a bit and may be a loan voice on this but I think it is worth more discussion .