• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Rule changes in football

Kenyan Spur said:
They do this in Rugby don't they. It seems to work perfectly. Everyone knows EXACTLY how much time is left. Currently, nobody knows for sure and there is always an element of surprise - specially when a team is desperate for a goal, to earn a draw or win.

Sent from my Safari mobile using DrumTalk.
Click to expand...


I believe that's only in international games, I get wound up by time wasting, particularly when teams start it in the first half. Everyone can see it but refs let it go, until ALL referees take action this will just continue. If we stopped the clock whenever their were stoppages the game will be like gridiron with games lasting over 2 hours. There is more than one object in time wasting, it helps break the flow of a game and allows teams under the hammer to gain some sort of control. The rules of the game really only cover foul play and take little or no attention to unsporting actions and it's difficult to put that sort of legislation into a rule book.
 
You could have the refs do the time on/off like they do in rugby, so the clock wouldn't have to stop for a throw in or whatever, but while whichever Chelsea player is rolling around crying they could time off.

Would be interesting to see what time the game ended up finishing if nothing else.
 
jts1882 said:
FA proposing a rule change on use of substitutes in extra time of FA Cup after quarter-finals.



I was actually thinking about this during the Euros. Some teams clearly had a problem with tiredness in extra time and more fresh legs would have helped the games. Some managers also seemed to delay their final substitution to keep their options for extra-time.
Click to expand...

Personally I'm no fan of this. I think it will only benefit the best teams with the biggest squads/best substitutes. If for instance Chelski field a weakened team against a Championship opponent, they'd have an extra £40m player on the bench, ready to bail them out in extra time if things doesn't go the way they planned.

And why only after the quarter finals? If they are to introduce this rule, at least it should be for the entire tournament.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Not strictly the same topic but are we in real danger of killing off the game

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38824937
Click to expand...
Huh? You could at least put some context or comment on the linked article. How would "sin bins for yellow cards" kill off the game?

It makes sense to me; if a player is naughty e.g. shirt tugging or hacking down Dembele in full flight, he should leave the pitch for a while.

This would stamp out those silly shirt pulls etc and allow for some actual football to break out, rather than niggly fouls and "professional" yellow cards.
 
jts1882 said:
I think it would stifle the game. Teams can shut up shop when they go down to ten men. The damage of a sending off usually occurs late in the game when the toll of playing with ten men for a long time takes effect. For ten minutes a team can afford to be totally negative in play, knowing the player will be back.

I think yellow cards should be replaced with a points system, with progressively longer match bans as points accumulate. Allow the referee to give penalty points, several per games if needed, and then apply post match bans. Players who push the envelope, just enough to avoid yellows (e.g. Huth), would then get points and bans. Points could be given for dissent and holding far more readily. The referee wouldn't need to be concerned with how many penalty points were given during a game and being accused of ruining a game because of two soft yellows leading to a sending off. Serial offenders would end up with long bans.

A sending off should be solely for violent and dangerous play.
Click to expand...
So rack up 'several' points in one game and then apply post match bans?
I'm sure the team you just played will be over the moon with having just played against a serial offender and thrilled that all the upcoming teams reap the benefit.
 
With the current system I do think that if a player gets banned retrospectively for cheating, violence etc that one of the games he is banned for should be against the team he committed the crime on. (whether it be this season or next)
 
Well, as you point out the existing system only punishes yellows later and it will usually benefit another club. My system is no different there.

My concern is that yellows are too hard to get because the punishment for two is severe. Referees are reluctant to give a yellow early so effectively allow a free hit early in the game. There was a notorious game where Fergie used free hits by all his defenders to take Lennon out of the game. In a recent City game, Toure got a yellow and then committed another foul moments later. The commentators were going on about it being too soon after the first for another yellow. This should never be an issue for a referee.
 
Bullet said:
Huh? You could at least put some context or comment on the linked article. How would "sin bins for yellow cards" kill off the game?

It makes sense to me; if a player is naughty e.g. shirt tugging or hacking down Dembele in full flight, he should leave the pitch for a while.

This would stamp out those silly shirt pulls etc and allow for some actual football to break out, rather than niggly fouls and "professional" yellow cards.
Click to expand...

I think this constant changing of the game for some kind of Utopia that does not exists. I think we have a pretty good sport as it is and it requires minimal change.

I read something the other day from Poch actually relating to technology in the game, it summed it up perfectly, I can't find it at the moment but the jist of it was not stopping the game of slowing it down from its current dynamic and I think its spot on.
 
Grays_1890 said:
I think this constant changing of the game for some kind of Utopia that does not exists. I think we have a pretty good sport as it is and it requires minimal change.

I read something the other day from Poch actually relating to technology in the game, it summed it up perfectly, I can't find it at the moment but the jist of it was not stopping the game of slowing it down from its current dynamic and I think its spot on.
Click to expand...
Agreed, there's little wrong with the rules, they just need to be applied better
 
The only rule I would like introduced, is a cap on how many players a club can have. Should not be allowed to own more than, say, 33 players over the age of 21. The amount of players out on loan today is ridiculous, and it only benefits the super rich clubs.
 
glasgowspur said:
Agreed, there's little wrong with the rules, they just need to be applied better
Click to expand...

they should certainly try that first, then work with referees to change the wording and remove ambiguities

i'd also rather that instead of sin bins (anything from rugby is automatically a stupid idea as the entire of game of rugby is a stupid idea) they use the card system more effectively, if you want to eradicate little fouls and shirt pulls start punishing them with red cards, players will soon learn not to do it

you can't lead professional footballers with a carrot
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...e-retrospective-bans-for-diving-a7742296.html

Football Association set to approve retrospective bans for diving from next season

The Football Association is expected to approve a proposal for retrospective bans for players who dive or feign injury in English football from next season.

The idea, which is already being used in Scotland, is on the agenda at the FA's annual general meeting at Wembley on Thursday.

It is understood that the English Football League, League Managers Association, Premier League and Professional Footballers' Association support the plan.

If approved by three-quarters of the 1,100 FA shareholders, three-man panels will review footage from the weekend each Monday and any player unanimously found to have cheated can expect a ban.

Introduced in 2011, the Scottish Football Association's (SFA) rule 201 gives a disciplinary panel the power to impose two-game bans for acts of simulation missed by the officials or rescind yellow cards for players who were incorrectly adjudged to have dived.

Hearts winger Jamie Walker has experienced both verdicts this season, having served a two-game ban for a dive to gain a penalty against Celtic in August and then been retrospectively cleared of simulation during a game against Rangers in December.

Simulation has been an issue in the game for years and there have been a number of notable cases this season, including Robert Snodgrass's dive to earn a penalty for Hull against Crystal Palace and more recent incidents involving Harry Kane and Marcus Rashford.

In January, the FA told said it wanted to talk to the SFA about rule 201 and its impact, but said this was part of a wider discussion with other associations.

In the past, FIFA has been reluctant to take decision-making away from the officials on the day but there are influential voices at world football's governing body more receptive to the idea of technology that helps officials and retrospective penalties to stamp out cheating.

With England and Scotland having permanent seats on FIFA's law-making body the International Football Association Board, bans for divers could soon become a worldwide policy.
 
An admirable move but I fear it will not have the desired effect. I suspect minor clubs will be made an example of and british teams will suffer in european competitions where their opponents will carry on as usual with the aid of poor officials.
 
What will decide which incidents get reviewed? Because Sky replay a particular incident over and over?
Or do the clubs get to request a review -e.g. we believe player x dived and our player y was incorrectly booked/sent off?
If player x was found to have dived, does player y's card for the foul then get rescinded (I suppose logically it must), even though currently yellow cards are not open to appeal?
 
Football reforms: Scrapping 45-minute half to be debated at Ifab

A proposal to scrap 45-minute halves is to be looked at by football's lawmakers to deter time-wasting.

Instead, there could be two periods of 30 minutes with the clock stopped whenever the ball goes out of play.

Lawmaking body the International Football Association Board (Ifab) says matches only see about 60 minutes of "effective playing time" out of 90.

The idea is one of several put forward in a new strategy document designed to address football's "negativities".

Another proposal would see players not being allowed to follow up and score if a penalty is saved - if the spot-kick "is not successful", play would stop and a goal-kick awarded.

Other ideas include a stadium clock linked to a referee's watch and a new rule allowing players to effectively pass to themselves or dribble the ball when taking a free-kick.

Former Chelsea striker Gianfranco Zola is in favour of the proposal to cut matches to 60 minutes.

"I personally like this rule because there are so many teams who try to take advantage of it because they are winning and wasting time - so I think it is not a bad rule," he told the BBC.

"Football is fast enough. Some of the changes I don't like very much, but this is a good one."

Arsenal keeper Petr Cech echoed Zola's sentiments as he discussed the proposal on social media and wrote that at present there are "25 minutes of effective playing time per half so you would actually see more football".

Where have these proposals come from?
The ideas have been put forward to Ifab by stakeholders in the game to tackle "on-field issues" and form part of what it calls its "Play Fair strategy", which has three aims of:




    • improving player behaviour and increasing respect
    • increasing playing time
    • increasing fairness and attractiveness
Part of the problem the new document highlights is that a 90-minute match has fewer than 60 minutes of playing time because of stoppages and time-wasting.

Which plans need no law changes?
The document has put forward a number of radical ideas for discussion, but suggests some proposals can be implemented immediately without the need for law changes.

Most of these apply to trying to combat time-wasting. The document says match officials should be stricter on the rule which allows keepers to hold the ball for six seconds and be more stringent when calculating additional time.

Additionally, it suggests match officials stop their watch:




    • from a penalty being awarded to the spot-kick being taken
    • from a goal being scored until the match resumes from the kick-off
    • from asking an injured player if he requires treatment to play restarting
    • from the referee showing a yellow or red card to play resuming
    • from the signal of a substitution to play restarting
    • from a referee starting to pace a free-kick to when it is taken
Which plans are ready for testing?
Some of the proposals are already being tested. The idea of only allowing captains to speak to referees - to prevent match officials being mobbed - will be trialled at this summer's Confederations Cup, which starts on Saturday.

Another proposal involves changing the order of kick-taking in penalty shoot-outs, known as 'ABBA'. It is similar to a tie-break in tennis, with team A taking the first kick, then team B taking two, then team A taking two. That is a change from the traditional 'team A, team B, team A, team B' pattern.

New suggestions also include players who are being substituted leaving at the closest part of the touchline to them instead of at the halfway line.

Which ideas are up for discussion?
This is where it gets interesting. One of the proposals would allow being able to dribble straight from a free-kick to "encourage attacking play as the player who is fouled can stop the ball and then immediately continue their dribble/attacking move". Other measures include:




    • passing to yourself at a free-kick, corner and goal-kick
    • a stadium clock which stops and starts along with the referee's watch
    • allowing the goal-kick to be taken even if the ball is moving
    • a goal-kick being taken on the same side that the ball went out on
    • a "clearer and more consistent definition" of handball
    • a player who scores a goal or stops a goal with his hands gets a red card
    • a keeper who handles a backpass or throw-in from a team-mate concedes a penalty
    • the referee can award a goal if a player stops a goal being scored by handling on or close to the goal-line
    • referees can only blow for half-time or full-time when the ball goes out of play
    • a penalty kick is either scored or missed/saved and players cannot follow up to score to stop encroachment into the penalty area
Who has come up with these proposals?
Ifab is made up of Fifa and the four British home football associations - of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - and is responsible for making the final decision on law changes.

Former English referee David Elleray is Ifab's technical director and has overseen the document.

"Referees, players, coaches and fans all agree that improving player behaviour and respect for all participants and especially match officials, increasing playing time and the game's fairness and attractiveness must be football's main priority," he said.

The next stage would involve the ideas being discussed at various meetings before decisions are taken on whether to develop them further or discard them.
 
There's quite a few good proposals there, but to cut the 2 x 45min format is blasphemy IMO. Football was intended to be played over 90 mins, just introduce the good proposals to counter time wasting, and that's it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back