Talk:Laws of the Game (association football)

New Page Added
I've created a new page (The Ball In and Out of Play), so that we come closer to completing the 'Current Laws of the Game' section of this page. Drumnbach 20:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The confusion - summary for newcommers
When this Wikipedia article was created - Mintguy put up 14 laws as the "original fourteen laws of the game" - these were transcribed from "The History of the Football Association"; Geoffrey Green; Naldrett Press; (1953) - pages 36-38 Appendix 4. According to that book these 14 laws were those agreed by the Football Association in December 1863, AFTER the Cambridge Rules had been put on the table (call them post-Cambridge). They are a revision of the another set of 14 laws that were drafted on 24 November 1863, those DRAFT laws (call them pre-Cambridge) contain laws IX and X which allow hacking (kicking a player in the shins) and carrying the ball and are shown on pages 34-35 of that book. The post-Cambridge laws removed these priviledges and set the Association laws onto the path towards the game we know today, rather than towards a carrying Rugby style game. Aside from the two significant law changes, there are some other subtle differences in the wording of the other laws in the Geoffrey Green pre-Cambridge and post-Cambridge laws.

The problem is that other sources give 13 laws as the "original laws of the game". In some cases where 14 laws are mentioned (as in the FIFA centenial book) they are referring to the pre-Cambridge laws (perhaps by mistake).

The main question is - IF, as the recent Lord Bragg and FA/Bodleian Library publications seem to suggest, there were 13 laws in the first official publication of the LOTG, then where did Geoffrey Green's post-Cambridge 14 LOTG come from? 01:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

FA book
Okay I've got the FA book, and of course it lists only 13 laws. Bobby Charlton's preface also says 13 laws. It looks like that are substantially as currently suggested on this page, with the exception that law 9 definitely says  "carry the ball"  rather than "run with the ball", there appears to be a couple of other transcription errors as well. So The Times and perhaps even Lord Bragg got it wrong here! - I have also just obtained the 4 Volume set of books on Association Football published by Caxton Press in 1959/60 edited by Geoffrey Green with lots of contributors. The section on the original LOTG was written by a Mr J.R. Witty. The layout is similar to the way the laws are laid out in the 1953 Green book. Green divided the page into a left and and right hand column and put the 1863 Cambridge laws on the left hand side an their equivalent in the FA laws on the right. He thus had the FA laws in an ecentric (1,2,3,6,5,7,4,9,11,12,10,8,13,14) order to match the equivilant Cambridge rule. The Witty pages also split the page into two columns and list the 14 FA Draft laws of November 1863, as numbered, in the left hand column and show the changes from this in the right hand column, sometimes the right hand column simply says "accepted as drafted". The left hand side does not show laws 8 and 9. 9 is understandable because that was one of the laws stricken, but 8 appears to be a mistake, the new FA book and Green include law 8. The other significant thing is that the right hand column is not numbered. So Law 8 (either version) is completely mising' from Witty's pages, both right and left, but as this was the same as the draft laws, he would have just written ""accepted as drafted" anyway. In other respects he agrees with Green's version (specifically law 5 includes the words "where it left the ground in a direction at right angles with the boundary line, and it shall not be in play until it has touched the ground.", however Green's laws 9,10,11,12 are displayed in the order 9,11,12,10 and MOST IMPORTANTLY Green's law 13 is enitirely absent. So barring the additional words on law 5 and what we might take as a few transcription errors, Witty's pages substantially agree with the new FA book . I think that both Green and Witty were probably working with source material that was not entirely clear and that some errors crept into their works (who was going to copy-edit stuff like this?). Green's law 13 was in the original draft laws (except the word bounce is substitued for bound) I suspect he put it in his book as a finalised law in error. At the end of the day we have to accept that the first laws, whatever these books say, must be defined as whatever the FA published at the time by Lillywhite's, and that players up and down the country would have played by. We have to assume that the new FA book has got it right on this one. The new book includes a hand written version on the left of the page and a modern printed version on the right. So I think we have to delete Green's laws from this page, put up the laws EXACTLY as displayed in the FA book, add a note that it appears that some authors have used incorrect transcriptions and finally add another note to say that this page has inadvertantly been displaying the laws incorrectly because of an apparent error in the source material. Jooler 12:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that it would help if I emailed some scans, or put them up on some website for you to pick up somewhere. Is your Wikiemail enabled? I have to admit that mine isn't. Jooler 12:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just looking through the 1953 Green book again. One of the plates is a photo of the FA minute book open at a table on a page that is clearly first page of the DRAFT laws of November 1863. It looks very much like it it this page that the FIFA facsimile is taken from. However the caption reads "The Football Association Laws as accepted in December 1863, with references to such terms as 'fair catch' and 'making a mark'". This open page from the minute book is a typed or printed page, whilst the laws shown in th new FA book are hand-written. I suspect this is what happened. At the end of the November meeting that got someone to print up the draft laws. At the next meeting the Cambridge laws were brought to the table and the draft laws were re-debated and amended, but they were not printed up in the minute book in the same way that the draft laws were. Hence Green and others had some trouble working out from the minute book what was and what was not agreed. Mind you would have thouht that they would have actually looked at the original publication produced by Lillywhite's. There you go. Jooler 23:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * hey - a lot of stuff to think about for sure. If you look at my first message here on 17th April 2006, I saw what looked like a little printed booklet of the laws on Melvyn Bragg's initial programme of his series about some of the most influential world books - that was supposed to be The first FA Rule Book, but I thought even then it looked a mocked-up version. Maybe the DVD will show it more clearly.


 * Now a book is published called The Rules of Association Football, 1863: The First FA Rule Book with Lord Bragg's introduction, and it seems still no rule book to be seen! - but please correct me if I'm wrong about this.


 * After nearly 2 months, it is likely we are much closer to knowing what was actually in that first rule book Published by J Lillywhite with the FA's authority. You have wrestled with this topic for much longer than me, and I defer to you also in terms of your time on Wikipedia to understand how things are done here. I guess it would be right to give more weight to the FA minutes than to the Bell's Life version - that is if we want just one version to consider as The version in the absence of an actual print (still no luck on that point.)


 * Yes, my wikimail has been enabled for some time but I havent yet worked out how to customise my sig:( I'm busy during the day but if you write me I will try to reply within 24 hours. With kindest regards--luke 06:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured article link
Since this article is linked from the Wikipedia start page, I will shortly remove the spurious and somewhat confusing 14 laws per the discussion above. The FA was unfailingly less than helpful in assisting to get to the truth, and incidentally their website still says (at the time of writing) there were 14 laws penned in 1863, even after the publication of their own book on the topic based on the written minutes of the decisive meeting (the link can be found above).--luke 06:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Football Association Laws of 1863
How did the Football Association Laws of 1863 develop and evolve into the current Laws of the Game? Take for instance rule 3: After a goal is won, the losing side shall be entitled to kick off, and the two sides shall change goals after each goal is won. The second clause (the two sides shall change goals after each goal is won) is no longer practiced. Rule 5 ("the ball shall not be in play until it has touched the ground") has changed as well, since a header is allowed after a throw-in or a corner kick. When were these rules changed, and how have the Laws of the Game developed? Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 14:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, this article seems to miss the important information (or a link to another article that explains it) of how the original laws evolved into the current laws. The 1863 laws clearly don't resemble football being played today, although I think current world cup strikers would applaud the lack of a cross bar in the original rules! Wjousts (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2008

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result was no move. If you feel the discussion was ongoing, and you wish to reopen it in the next few days, please do so, and readd the move notice to WP:RM. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Laws of the Game → Laws of association football- Laws of the game could refer to anything and is highly ambiguous. "The game" could refer to any game or sport. The move would also be in-line with other articles such as the Laws of cricket.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Object. It is already in line in that it is using the correct terminology for the sport see the FIFA link (http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame.html). Presumably "Laws of cricket" is the correct name for those laws. "Laws of the Game" is the correct name of the set of laws of association football. Most other sports have rules rather than laws. Or would you also suggest that 'laws of cricket' be moved to 'rules of cricket' so that it is in line with other sports? No other sport would use the phrase "Laws of the Game" as opposed to the name of the actual sport, so there is no conflict over this formal name. Jooler (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a historical title I believe, not just a name invented for the article. A disambiguation (association football) could be added for use where appropriate. MickMacNee (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, "Laws of the Game" is the name of the publication by FIFA. See http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame.html. Paulbrock (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is not just the official name, more important is it's the name by which this publication is generally known. It's true that it doesn't make it obvious which game is intended, but there's no ambiguity within the meaning of WP:NC, nor any likely problem with people searching. Only soccer fans would search on Laws of the Game, because other games don't call their rules this... or if any do, then when we come upon them we'll just set up disambiguation to allow for it. Andrewa (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's the correct name for the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. – PeeJay 09:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support highly ambiguous. Perhaps Laws of the Game (association football) would satisfy objectors. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments
It might, however, be good to have a redirect to the article from Laws of association football. Perhaps after this discussion closes we should create one. Andrewa (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

From the survay above: Perhaps Laws of the Game (association football) would satisfy objectors. This would be far better than the proposal now before us, but is unnecessary disambiguation. At this point, there's no other article that we want to call Laws of the Game. See WP:DAB: ''When an article title could refer to several things, a disambiguation page is needed. When the title usually means one thing but also has other meanings, add disambiguation links to the primary topic's article. And even if we find another game that calls its rulebook Laws of the Game, it's likely that the article on soccer would remain the primary topic''. We'd disambiguate the other meaning(s).

But perhaps there is a navigation issue, in that people may come to this article looking for rules of other sports. They'd see a link to Category:Football (soccer) laws, but perhaps that's not enough. Category guidelines discourage us from putting this article into Category:Sports rules and regulations as well, as Category:Football (soccer) laws is a subcategory of it already. So instead I've added a hatnote. It's admittedly a bit non-standard, comments welcome. Andrewa (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggest remove "Recreational Cheat Sheet" section
The section titled "Recreational 'cheat sheet' for U6-U16" should be removed. Not only is no source cited, it is factually incorrect in many places: the "rules" listed do not remotely conform to U.S. Youth Soccer's rules (although no nationality is specified in the section), and there is variation between the U.S. States in some instances anyway, particularly from U-10 and below. If anything must be said at all, perhaps it should simply be recognized the Laws of the Game allow local associations to modify certain rules for youth players and "veteran" footballers, with some links to authoritative sites. TAGregory (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. These rules are not written in any official documentation I'm aware of, and they aren't in line with the rules for U6-U16 in the region where I referee. I understand that many national soccer associations and local clubs have radical differences in their youth soccer rules, compared to FIFA's Laws. Keeping this in mind, perhaps, as you said, it should simply be mentioned that: "the Laws of the Game allow local associations to modify certain rules for youth players and 'veteran' footballers." I agree 100%. --Jroy5 (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed I can't see the relevance to The Laws of the Game.  I've tagged it (with rather too many tags) in case someone can see what to do with it.  If it is useful information (I can't tell), perhaps it could be moved to the relevant section in Football_(Soccer), and could add a link from the article?  --94.194.57.116 (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. FIFA's laws of the game state that ''Subject to the agreement of the member association concerned and provided the principles of these Laws are maintained, the Laws may be modified in their application for matches for players of under 16

years of age, for women footballers, for veteran footballers (over 35 years of age) and for players with disabilities.''. Because there can be a vast array of possible combinations in terms of these modifications, it makes no sense to have a single set of such modifications being listed. I'd support adding a section saying that some laws can be modified, but I wouldn't know quite how to write it. I've removed the cheat sheet from the article. --Dalimyr (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2010

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved to Laws of the Game (association football). Editors, please create the appropriate disambiguation page at Laws of the Game. Ucucha 00:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Laws of the Game → Laws of the Game (association football) — ( Laws of association football changed) There is an article for another sport (rugby league) that titles its rules the Laws of the Game. There are also several other sports and meanings that use "Laws of the Game". I think a disambiguation page is in order.  LunarLander  //  talk  // 02:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Other uses: Rugby union, see: http://www.irb.com/lawregulations/laws/index.html Short mat bowls, see: http://www.booksonbowls.co.uk/esmbalaws.html Eton Fives, see: http://www.etonfives.co.uk/about.fives/laws.html Laws of Australian football, published as "Laws of Australian football", though this web page is titled 'Laws of the Game': http://www.afl.com.au/Season2007/News/NewsArticle/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsId=43770 Then there are a couple of other games but these are just derivatives regulated by FIFA: Futsal, see: http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/developing/futsal/lawsofthegame.html Beach football, see: http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/developing/beachsoccer/lawsofthegame.html  LunarLander  //  talk  // 02:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I am not usually a fan of revisiting move requests but the argument appears to be much more solid than last time. Its clear that a number of different sports utilize "Laws of the Game" and unless there is agreement that FIFA's "Laws of the Game" are the undisputed primary topic, a fact that seems unlikely, a name change would be appropriate. I am flexible on the name bit the basic format appears to have been set with Laws of rugby league and Laws of Australian football. I should note I would also support Laws of the Game (association football)--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to rules of association football or rules of football (soccer) or rules of soccer - use "rules" since these are not legislation passed by legislatures. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Rugby Union is inconsistent with usage of "Laws of the Game" and "Laws of Rugby Union", as evident even on the first page. By the nominator's own admission, Aussie Rules calls its laws "Laws of Australian Football", with "the game" only being used within that context. It's a similar story with cricket. On the other hand, "Laws of football", "Laws of soccer" and "Laws of association football" appear precisely zero times in the entirety of association football's document. I agree that there should be a DAB, but as none of the sports on a remotely similar scale to football can say "Laws of the Game" is the common usage, this page should stay here. In the event that consensus deems that this should be moved in spite of that, my preference would be for Laws of the Game (association football). I would also suggest that the corresponding category is named according to the outcome of this discussion, if there is one. WFCforLife (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree with your interpretation of this rugby union website and laws publication. The graphics on the laws website and book distinguish clearly the name of the sport from that of the laws. There is only one instance of inconsistency on the website, the rest is uniformly 'Laws of the Game'.  LunarLander  //  talk  // 01:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to have to agree with LunarLander. Laws of the Game are noted to be in use for other sports (a search online certainly shows that to be the case) and this is reinforced with reliable sources. It's sufficient to show its in use, it doesn't have to be the only use.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion established that if the only two uses were for football and rugby league, football could be considered the primary usage. The addition of four minority sports changes nothing. If however we throw into the mix another sport comparable in size to rugby league, such as Aussie rules, rugby union or cricket, football can no longer claim to be the predominant use. I think we are all agreed on that last sentence.
 * To return to Labattblueboy's point, it's very significant. Going by WP:PRECISION, to suggest that football isn't the primary usage would require one of those sports to demonstrate that their laws are primarily called the "Laws of the Game", and that it isn't just a lesser-used synonym. If this can be demonstrated for the sports I have listed (or comparable ones), I would strike my opposition, but thus far I've yet to see any. WFCforLife (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's sufficient to show there is ambiguity as to which is the primary or simply identifying that there is no primary article (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Interestingly, my searches showed that chess appears to be a candidate for primary topic, something that was not previously considered. Reliable sources indicate a variety of games that have equal popular usage. In google books, Chess received 777 hits, rugby received 624 hits and association football received 662 hits, Tennis produced 590 hits[], Bowling 618-30 hits. I also came across cards games or table games (like checkers) that make use of the term. There is frankly little to demonstrate in this discussion that association football is the blow-out leader for the term.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the fact that association football will receive fewer hits on a californian search, the Google books search does not work, this search suggests that either the search function does not work, or that at least half of the chess laws books also outline football's Laws of the Game. My stance is a simple one. If it can be proved that a second remotely mainstream sport (cricket, tennis, rugby union, tennis, Aussie rules football are just a few examples) primarily uses "Laws of the Game", I will support a move. At the moment nobody has proven this, and football is more likely to be searched for than Rugby League and the four smaller sports combined, therefore I feel the current solution is appropriate. I do however support the immediate creation of a DAB, to replace the link to the category. WFCforLife (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rugby union - 2009 Laws (http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/resources/Laws/Full/2009_irb_law_book_en.pdf) instances of the term "laws of the game" 98, instances of the term "laws of rugby union" 0.  LunarLander  //  talk  // 20:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support move to Laws of the Game (association football), per the evidence above. While it's clunkier than Laws of association football, the extra length is appropriate because "Laws of the Game" is the common terminology. WFCforLife (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no strong preference between Laws of association football and Laws of the Game (association football). Labattblueboy and WFCforLife have supported both and the latter, respectively. At the moment "Laws of the Game (association football)" is favoured. I am happy to change the nominated destination page if this remains the case.  LunarLander  //  talk  // 00:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to...
 * Proposal modified in line with discussion.  LunarLander  //  talk  // 19:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I should note that my preference is still Laws of association football, because its a descriptive title, but that I can live with Laws of the Game (association football) because it permits Laws of the Game to be converted into a dab. page.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template
I did this template Template:Association football laws--Feroang (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"This is compared to other professional sports..."
"This is compared to other professional sports where the rule books number into the hundreds and thousands of pages." I'm not sure what other sports this is referring to. The rules may be simple but the official FIFA "Laws if the Game" PDF is currently 136 pages: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/lotg_en_55753.pdf FIBA Official Basketball rules are 81 pages long: http://www.fiba.com/downloads/Rules/2010/OfficialBasketballRules2010.pdf IRB Rugby Laws of the Game are 196 pages http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/IRB_Laws_2011_EN.pdf IIHF Ice Hockey rules are 132 pages total (all sections together) http://www.iihf.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Sport/rulebook2010/Rulebook_102_127_-_29_September.pdf

These include indexes, covers, appendices etc to varying degrees, but overall it seems most sports rulebooks clock in around 100-200 pages. Not much to compare between them. Certainly none of the above relatively popular sports have rules in the "thousands of pages". Should it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.55.21.147 (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a similar phrasing that compares the use of technology in association football with its uses in other sports ("Unlike in several other sports ..."). While television replays are in fact used in other sports, goal-line technology is not. Moreover the article to which the term "goal-line technology" is linked only mentions proposals for applications to association football. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.71.7 (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Two excellent points! I've amended the article to reflect these. As for the "shorter than other rulebooks" thing, I've heard that statement discussed, however it seems unverifiable and unnecessary for the article, so I've simply removed that sentence. LukeSurlt c 12:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Structure
There's a bit of a push and pull here between two versions of the article:
 * Version A where "Laws of the Game" is the first section after the lead, the history of amendments are a subsection of with "History", and "IFAB and FIFA" are grouped together in a section of their own.
 * Version B where "History" is the first section after the lead, amendments are a separate section, but IFAB and FIFA are discussed as subsections of the History section. An additional section "Jurisdiction and change management" additionally discusses IFAB/FIFA further in a separate section.

The content of the two versions is mostly the same, this is a question of arrangement. Version A is preferred by myself and, whereas B is preferred by. A discussion is better than an edit war, so I'm opening this here.

I prefer "A" because of the following:
 * As the current laws are more important for understanding the game rather than how they were arrived at, I believe they should have priority.
 * The process of amendments is part of the history of the laws, and splitting this to a separate section does not seem logical.
 * Version B's discussion of the jurisdiction over the Laws (i.e. FIFA and IFAB) is distributed across several sections and duplicates material. Version A collects this information into one summary, which seems preferable.

Thoughts? --LukeSurlt c 12:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with, the reasons given above is how I feel as well. The current laws should have priority and then we can take the in depth history. Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 12:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

My version (B) is quite obviously superior. Specifically:

1. It is quite obviously the convention on Wikipedia for History sections to come first. Anyone who wants to know the current laws are not going to be confused by them appearing further down the page under a clearly marked section.

2. Version A's treatment of IFAB/FIFA is too confusing for the uninitiated reader. All I did was separate what was actually history into the History section, and what is their present day role into Jurisdiction/Change management. I certainly don't see where there is any duplication. There is no logic in assuming the reader wants to read all of that in one section - if there was, then the current rules would also appear in the History section. In my version, readers can choose whether they want a complete treatment of the subject, or whether they want to skip to how rule changes are controlled right now, either because they already know the history of how the voting system came about, or they just don't care. Version A does not give readers that choice, it forces them to read information they might not want to know, and includes a jarring jump from talking about what happened in 1913 to what happens today, followed by a leap back to what happened in 1958.

3. The "Notable amendments" section is a standalone list, and so should be presented as a stand alone section. It is only History in the sense that it lists historical events, but in this case it makes no sense to include in in the history section because a) it is not prose, and b) the events it lists overlaps the time periods of the other History sections. Again, separating content like that in this way is standard practice as far as I've seen in other articles - History sections on Wikipedia are quite obviously meant to be read from top to bottom as a narrative, so deviations from that are undoubtedly going to cause confusion.

Rabono26 (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly on the fence on the order of the sections. Manual_of_Style/Layout doesn't specify a distinct order. Personally I prefer having the current Laws first (for the reasons I outlined above), but Association football does have history as the first section.
 * I'm more convinced of having the amendments list as part of the history - with the IFAB/FIFA section separate, the "prose" section ends at 1863, and the amendments list (which begins in 1866, no overlap) is a succinct way of describing the Laws' evolution to the present day.
 * I've made a few edits to the "FIFA and IFAB" section, including renaming it "Governance of the Laws", starting with a summary of what they are and then jumping into their history. Hopefully this makes it clearer and helps justify its existence as a separate section. You are right that this is also mostly history, though I think they are better separate, as one is the history of the Laws themselves, and the other is the history of the lawmaking bodies. --LukeSurlt c 13:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Honestly, it's still rubbish. I've read this article before so I know what I'm supposed to be learning (and I can still remember the original reason why I came here, i.e. what I actually wanted to know - the 1958 date), and yet your version is still incredibly hard to read, it takes a lot of mental effort to parse it and store information that you need to keep referring back to because there is no logical order, effort which most readers probably won't waste on this pretty niche subject. It doesn't make anything clearer at all. I can honestly say that finding the information I wanted is just as hard in this version as the original. First I have to establish that it's not in history, even though by any logical standard it should be. I will eventually find it in the Governance section, assuming I hadn't already pulled my hair out at the crazy roller coaster ride you apparently want to take me on in that section by making me read paragraphs that chop backwards and forwards from the present day to history twice. It's almost like you've never actually consulted other articles, where if you did, you would find that what I wrote above about prose, lists, history and order etc, is perfectly standard way to lay out information on Wikipedia. It is presumably done that way because it works. Anyway, I'm done here. This place is ridiculous, and I think I'm realising why people seem to actually pay very little attention to important historical articles like this, instead just wasting their time updating scores etc. Rabono26 (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * perhaps our differences of opinion come from the fact that I don't consider this to be firstmost a historical article, but instead primarily the "parent" article about the current Laws of the Game (i.e. the articles linked from Laws_of_the_Game_(association_football) are the "children"), with the history of how these came about to be a secondary matter.
 * Anywho, I'm not terribly worried either way. I was hoping through discussion (with multiple editors) we could arrive at a consensus. If you think that we've come to an impasse, then I'm very happy for you to set out here how you think the article should be arranged and then to formally request a Third_opinion (or some other form of dispute resolution), whose impartial judgement I will be happy to accept, even if they decide against the structure I have proposed. --LukeSurlt c 12:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll give it some consideration. This discussion has rambled a bit, so it might need summarising for the reviewer. As a final thought, I really don't see where you got the idea that I consider this to be firstly a history article, other than the rather trivial issue of the History section coming first, and the issue of whether or not the List of amendments should go inside it or not. I am less concerned about those issues, than I am about the mixing of current and historical information in the same section (now named Governance). This is confusing, for all the reasons I gave above. This article should document the current status (what the laws are and how they're changed) and the history of their development (which includes both how they have changed, and how can change them) in clearly separated sections. If you're not terribly worried, then how about this as a solution - we go back to my version, but put the notable amendments inside the History section, and move the sections which detail the current situation above History into a Current situation section - I've just done this in a trial version . Rabono26 (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Goal line technology as a notable amendment
User Eckerslike is objecting to the inclusion of goal line technology on the List of Notable Amendements, claiming "It is a minor change which results from recentism. This would become a very long list if we included every officating change in the history of the game." I don't know if he's been living under a rock or what, but anyone who actually follows football will know that this is absurd - goal line tech has been the most discussed rule change for at least a decade. Just like all people will be talking about for the next decade is video technology. I will reinstate it forthwith if Eckerslike doesn't come up with some examples here of changes which have generated more debate in the last ten years than goal line technology. Rabono26 (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm moderately on the side of leaving it out. Whereas the other rule changes significantly changed every game of football in the world, Goal Line Tech is only present at a handful of major grounds. Even then, it is only significant in a small fraction of games at those grounds. You are right that its been the most discussed rule change for a while, however this is more an indication of how stable the rules are at the current time - there hasn't been a fundamental gameplay-changing amendment since 1992. It's significance feels greater because it is the most recent change, but this is essentially the meaning of Recentism.
 * Mostly on WP:BUILDTHEWEB grounds I'd like to see a wikilink to Goal-line technology somewhere in the article. Perhaps we could change the Video technology section to simply "Technology" and discuss it briefly in there. --LukeSurlt c 21:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This all feels like you two giving your own personal views of why it should not be considered significant, and therefore trying to write Wikipedia according to your own beliefs, rather than objectively judging the evidence of the sources. Humour me - try and find a single source which downplays this change as being relatively unimportant in comparison to other changes already listed, something that will somehow be forgotten in time, or otherwise overlooked because it doesn't affect gameplay. All you will find is sources saying the exact opposite, with it being compared to the importance of changes like the back pass rule, and in some cases being called the most important, even momentous. The fact is is used rarely or in only some stadia is only mentioned in the context of those being some of the reasons why it was so controversial - I couldn't find a single source using those facts to argue it was somehow an unimportant change to the laws. Similarly, the issue of how it would affect gameplay (in terms of both flow of the game and the prevention of erroneous officiating) is only ever mentioned in sources as part of the reason this change was so controversial. And I would not want this being put in the Technology section, that would just perpetuate the issue I had above, the mixing of historical and current information. Goal line technology has happened. Video Technology has not, yet. The distinction is best made by presenting VT as its own section, and listing GT as an already happened amenmdent, an obviously notable one. Rabono26 (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually the reverse is true. The list is not compiled independently by wiki editors but is a summary of the references listed at the top (Side note: Two are now broken and one of them looks like it was unreliable anyway. So it might be a good idea to recompile the list based on the remaining source.) What represents a notable amendment is inherently subjective so therefore cannot be left to wiki editors to decide. Hence the list is primarily a summary of what FIFA lists as the most notable amendments in its article. Goal line technology was then arbitrarily added with a reference that simply states that the change was made. It is up to you to provide your sources (which you didn't supply) that lists GLT alongside the other amendments. Eckerslike (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not arbitrarily add it, I included it because I know, based on the source that are out there, that it is considered just as important as the other amendments listed. You then took the arbitrary decision to remove it, on what appeared to me to be subjective reasons (which I quoted above). Only now are you trying to justify it based on the sources, and on that matter, if the list was compiled only according to what FIFA says, then it obviously should be listed, since Sepp Blatter called the change "momentous" (the blacklist won't let me add the link to the pdf, which is bizarre since it's on FIFA's server, but if you simply Google "Goal Line Technology momentous" you will find it easily. It would be hard for anyone to justify that a "momentous" change should not be listed on "notable amendments", no? I rather think, however, that a better approach would be for reliable third party sources to be consulted, since FIFA will obviously be biased toward believing their own views are fact - and based on my own research, you will not find a single such source that supports your view that this was just a minor change (further below). Rabono26 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not really that bothered by this either way, but, since you posed the challenge, a single source which downplays this change as being relatively unimportant in comparison to other changes already listed is the History of the Laws as written by FIFA themselves which doesn't mention GLT at all but does mention some seemingly minor amendments as no offsides from throw-ins (1920), the attacking side getting the benefit-of-the-doubt in offside decisions (1990), and tackles from behind becoming a red-card offense (1998). To be honest, unless one tries for a comprehensive list (not a good idea), there's always going to be a degree of subjectivity in selecting which amendments to list. --LukeSurlt c 23:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, that page doesn't even have a date on it, so you have no idea if whoever wrote it has even considered (and thus rejected) GLT in compiling the piece. Based on the last line, you could even say it was written before the year 2000. Secondly, as you point out, it mentions several changes that are not on our list, so you can't have it both ways - either GLT should be left off because it's not in there (if we are to ignore the glaring issue of it not being obvious it was even considered), or every change mentioned there should be listed, on the basis that we are using it as the guide to what FIFA considers to be significant changes. And I see no issue with listing every change mentioned in sources like this - that is the definition of notable, is it not? (obviously I don't propose using a source like 'The definitive History of the Laws of the Game' to compile such a list, as that would literally document every change, minor and major). The only alternative would appear to be to provide a source for each change which shows it is considered major or significant on its own merits, and as I've said, GLT would make the cut if that was the standard. Rabono26 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Football boots
In reports I could read that players of India did not wear boots. They played in 1948 Olympic Tournament barefooted. In addition there is reported that the IFAB did decree to wear boots in 1947? or 1948? or 1949? or 1950?. Do you have further information, please? --Gödvolltreffer (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Hi Gödvolltreffer. I've had a quick search, but I can't find the answer to your question. You might like to ask at Reference_desk/Entertainment - the folks there are experts at answering queries such as this. --LukeSurlt c 15:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there an arcticle about substitutes or / and the method of substituting?
Dear Sir, it was allowed to substitute players in the qualification for 1954 FIFA World Cup. An injured player was allowed to be substituted in the first half, an injured goalkeeper in the full time. Until 1958/59 it was allowed to substitute an injured goalkeeper. Before allowing substituting in general, England (F.A.) did it. In the most part there was the restriction regarding an injury. But no Referee could verify (excepting, he was a medical). - Is there anything to add regarding method of substituting, is there an article? --213.225.38.186 (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC).
 * Yes, the article is at Substitute (association football). Mattlore (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Why "laws"?
I get that that's what the people who wrote them called them, but why did they phrase it that way? To an outsider it seems enormously arrogant, seeming to equate the rules of a simple game to actual legislation. --Khajidha (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Soccer was likely emulating cricket's Laws of Cricket, which appear to have been described as "Laws" since the 18th century. I don't know whether in that period the word "Laws" had the same officious character as it does today, or was just a neutral synonym for "rules". --LukeSurlt c 15:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Concussion law
I was just checking on the news about Theo Walcott, I was wondering if we should add the rules about concussion to the article as noted on Govvy (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Rest periods after a game would not be part of the Laws of the Game, these only concern the on-field action. --LukeSurlt c 09:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The Laws of the Game did not originate in 1863
I don't quite agree that the (London) FA Rules of 1863 were taken as the starting point for the Laws of the Game, because in fact they are not. Historically, the FA members were almost all from London and until c.1880 (a) had much less influence than the Sheffield FC and Sheffield FA Rules and (b) were a good deal less comparable to the Laws of the Game than the Sheffield rules (FC and FA). So the Sheffield rules would be preferable to the London rules. But even these are not the starting point for me.

And when it comes to the first codex, i.e. the combination of different local codes, then the Cambridge university rules are to be taken as the starting point, but not 1863.

Moreover, the article is about the Laws of the Game, and that is only the name of the all-British rules, i.e. those of the IFAB.

In short, either 1848 or 1886 can be taken as a starting point in my view, but not 1863. That would be disregarding the development of the rulebooks. (I refer here to the research of the historian Petra Tabarelli, who also works as an expert in this field for the IFAB) SallyMarchbanks (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)