Foul Play

Recently I had an email exchange with a fellow solo player, mainly about different rules that we use, it was surprising just how similar our own particular methods were but we were in total disagreement about fouls on the field of play. He insisted that a foul was only committed if an attacker struck an opponent and then went on to hit the ball, and if it struck an opponent without striking the ball, all that happened was a change of possession. From my point of view that’s not my interpretation or never has been. So I asked the obvious question how he had come this assumption of foul play? “Because it’s in the rules” was his reply.

Now bear in mind this particular player is in his late 40’s and bases his knowledge of the game on the 80’s rules, which as a rule-set I must admit I’ve never seen let alone read. So probably it was about time I did.

The 80’s Rules

Known as the “Green Sheet Rules” I managed to obtain a set in PDF format and had a quick read and there in black and white under the section on Fouls is:

An attacking figure hits a defending figure before touching the ball.

NB. If the figure does not touch the ball, there is no foul, but possession goes to the opposition.

Now this method raises a few questions for me when did it change (which I’ll address later), and what’s stopping a team in possession who has little chance of hitting the ball taking a well placed opponent out without consequence?

Now this is not how we played the game prior to this, (I’m showing my age now), If an attacking figure hit a defending figure before touching the ball, irrespective of whether the ball was hit or not, it was a foul. This in itself stops taking a well placed opponent out without consequence, and seems more logical to the likes of myself.

The goalkeeper changes for cup ties in my League Pyramid to give the higher ranked team a slight advantage

So when did things change?

Some people may argue that it’s never changed, because I’ve encountered the same kind of narrative in the past. At that time however I put it down to interpretation of the old rules.

So looking through the rules I have in my possession, which ranges from 1950 to 1975, I’ll try to find evidence that a foul has to be striking an opponent first before going on to strike the ball, or simply just striking an opponent first irrespective of whether the ball is struck afterwards. So the following are direct quotes from various rule books.

The 1950 rule book states:

If during play a figure hits another figure of the opposing side, without first

touching the ball, a free kick (or penalty, if the incident happens in the appropriate penalty area) is awarded against the guilty figure’s team.

Now that says to me exactly what it says on the tin, strike an opponent first, irrespective of what happens after is a foul.

The 1967 rule book states:

Exactly the same,and if we turn to the Advanced rules of 1967 it also states that a goalkeeper cannot be fouled. So again I do not see any evidence that my interpretation needs to be changed.

The 1969 rule book states:

It is a foul when an attacking figure hits an opposing figure BEFORE touching the ball – the goalkeeper cannot be fouled.

This I must admit could be interpreted slightly different, especially with the word BEFORE in bold capitals. But as there’s no further explanation, I would think it’s safe to assume that the wording may have changed but the rule hasn’t. It’s just another way of saying that striking an opponent whether or not you hit the ball afterwards is a foul.

The 1975 rule book states:

A foul is awarded when a figure hits an opponents figure WITHOUT first touching the ball.

So we’re back to the wording in the 50’s rules, which to be fair is probably the best wording in the rules we have come across so far and probably needs no explanation. Now that is in the Elementary Section, as we move down to the Advanced section we read:

It is a foul if the attacking figure hits the defending figure before touching the ball.

Now why it’s worded differently in the elementary and advanced sections I have no idea, but to be honest it’s worded exactly (well almost), the same way in 1969 so one assumes that the rule hasn’t changed, and again there’s nothing suggesting of what happens if an opponent is struck first and no contact with the ball follows. So again my interpretation of the rule remains the same.

We have a winner

So it looks like the rule changed sometime in the 80’s, why I have no idea, Maybe the manufacturers at that time interpreted things wrong and made an attempt to clarify their interpretation, or just decided this was how the game should be played.

I’d be interested to know how readers interpret the rule in their own games so feel free to post a comment.

I for one in solo play take things a little further, If a blocking flick strikes an opponent or the ball that in my book is a foul and is punished, it’s then up to the attacker to take a free kick, play a back, or simply play on whichever is to the attackers advantage. So as long as defenders are careful they give nothing away now to me that makes sense in my world.

Whilst we’re on the subject of rules

Reading the 1950 rule book for this blog, (Which was kindly loaned to me), one rule I’ve never come across before regards the use of a spare goalkeeper or one which has been removed from it’s control rod which is as follows:

When an attacking side bring the ball down into their opponents penalty area, the defending goalkeeper may be given the chance to clear by being flicked against the ball, irrespective of whether it is the defending sides turn to play or not. The ball after having been kicked by the goalkeeper, is immediately in the possession of the attacking side, even if it should have been deflected on to a defending figure. The goalkeeper can be replaced on the wire immediately in cases where the ball is hit, but when it is missed the ruling is the same as stated under goalkeeping.

Now reading this to me conjures up visions that every time the attack get the ball into the penalty area the keeper is allowed to kick the ball away and then given time to be put back on it’s control rod, but the attack keep possession, I’m intrigued at this point as the rules are vague at best and probably pose more questions than they answer. Can you do this continually and turn the game into Subbuteo Tennis. Or maybe keep shots on goal from further out to stop our over zealous keeper putting the boot in, who needs defenders when we have such dynamism in between the sticks. What the hell happens at corners do we have to let our Super Custodian kick the ball away as soon as the ball is put into the penalty area. At this rate the feeling is leave him off the wire permanently and pop him back on if he needs to be, and save the bother of constantly trying to insert a rod in the poor guys rear end.

That rule was dropped by 1953 so presumably it must have either caused total chaos or proved to be a little too effective.

New rules for the Bonfire Alliance

I’ve been pondering over recent times how to conduct cup ties that involve teams from different tiers in my league structure, that give a slight advantage to the higher ranked team. I don’t play any form of home advantage in my league and didn’t want to change my rules for cup ties, because I know at some point I’d forget the rule change and make the whole process null and void. So I’ve implemented a way of allowing the higher ranked team to have an advantage by the use of different goalkeepers.

In all league games the goalkeepers used are the BBB variety, I purchased a set last year mainly to review them, and as I posses a set I decided to use them this season the 2 keepers in diving pose are used in all league games as they provide the greatest coverage. My plan if you can call it that, is if a team from a tier below is playing a higher ranked team the lower ranked will change it’s keeper to the upright BBB, if 2 tiers below the keeper will be substituted for a normal Subbuteo diving keeper mounted on a weighted base.

I originally started using the BBB keepers to try and cut the goal tally and it did have a bearing on this compared to my previous season which used the Subbuteo diving keepers so the above method hopefully will create a situation where the higher ranked team has a slight advantage, as it should be in a cup tie, but a giant killing can still happen with a little luck.

I think that's enough for now, feel free to comment on this post, I’d love to read your interpretation of foul play in the solo game or anything else raised in this post.

Keep On Flicking

Ian