A&H

Laws You Would Like To Ammend/ Change ?

Beezer

Beezer

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
Here are the 2 that don't sit well with me .......

1. Penalty Advantage

Lets have a rugby style Advantage for fouls committed in the Penalty Area , so we can let the move continue in the knowledge that if the team don't score everyone on the pitch is aware we will be coming back for a penalty kick .

2. Second Phase Offside .

Any player who is in an Offside position during a passage of play stays Offside for the duration of that move and may not be involved in play .

Seen it so many times when a striker is 10 yards offside the ball gets pinged wide to the winger , striker turns ,runs toward goal takes the pass and taps it in .....No defence to be seen

Unfair and Offside

Anyone else fancy a go ? feel free :)
 
The Referee Store
Hi Beezer,

I'd like to see some redefinition of handball. The current use of the term of "deliberate" is not applied literally and is open to massive interpretation. I'd like some account taken of whether any advantage is obtained in handling the ball. For example, Neymar's disallowed goal in the Champion's League Final was subject to some debate on here - whether or not it was deliberate the "goal" would not have been scored had it not been for the contact with his hand/arm. Not sure how this can be worded in LOTG however,

Secondly, I'd change the DOGSO law so that a red card is not issued if the incident occurs in the penalty area and results in a penalty being awarded. I recall this law was introduced to deter/punish the proverbial last man tackle out side the area (who is old enough to remember Willie Young?). Inside the area I respect the right of a defender or goalkeeper to make a last ditch chalenge. Provided the challenge itself is not worthy of a red card I'd be happy with a penalty. Im probably in the minority on this - it was discussed at my local RA meeting last year but around 90% wanted to keep things as they are.
 
OIREF! said:
Isn't that just poor defending?
Click to expand...
No ......its just impossible to defend against ......you only see on the odd occasion just doesn't seen very fair on the defence !

OIREF! said:
Hi Beezer,

I'd like to see some redefinition of handball. The current use of the term of "deliberate" is not applied literally and is open to massive interpretation. I'd like some account taken of whether any advantage is obtained in handling the ball. For example, Neymar's disallowed goal in the Champion's League Final was subject to some debate on here - whether or not it was deliberate the "goal" would not have been scored had it not been for the contact with his hand/arm. Not sure how this can be worded in LOTG however,

Secondly, I'd change the DOGSO law so that a red card is not issued if the incident occurs in the penalty area and results in a penalty being awarded. I recall this law was introduced to deter/punish the proverbial last man tackle out side the area (who is old enough to remember Willie Young?). Inside the area I respect the right of a defender or goalkeeper to make a last ditch chalenge. Provided the challenge itself is not worthy of a red card I'd be happy with a penalty. Im probably in the minority on this - it was discussed at my local RA meeting last year but around 90% wanted to keep things as they are.
Click to expand...
like that idea.....it can be a very harsh outcome for a mistimed tackle
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't agree with the let's change the law regarding DOGSO/Penalty/Red Card/Double punishment arguments. Been done to death...

Certainly agree with Premier League referees being seen to enforce the laws of the game, especially where dissent and the constant rugby tackling/wrestling in the box is concerned. So what if Rooney and co see red for gobbing off and if the likes of Stoke concede 5 penalties in a game. Don't want a red card or penalty given against you? Keep the mouth shut, defend properly instead of holding/grabbing/pushing, after a few weeks it would soon stop as fast as it all started!

I for one would like to see an end to the nonsense of a player receiving treatment on the pitch then having to leave the pitch until play has restarted. More often than not, a player receives treatment due to a foul by the opposition, why should the fouled team be effectively punished by temporarily being reduced in number due to no fault of their own?
 
Id like to change the dogso rule in terms of goalkeepers... i'm not saying give them their own rules but by definition of being the preverbial "last man" for 99.9% of a match i think its very harsh that 99% of fouls they committ are seen as red card offences. I Also think it's harsh that a goalkeeper gets a straight red if he handles the ball outside his area.
 
Mooseybaby said:
I for one would like to see an end to the nonsense of a player receiving treatment on the pitch then having to leave the pitch until play has restarted. More often than not, a player receives treatment due to a foul by the opposition, why should the fouled team be effectively punished by temporarily being reduced in number due to no fault of their own?
Click to expand...
i agree with this too.... but if, in the opinion of the referee, a player is feigning injury then we could ask him to leave the pitch for treatment/after treatment

this one isnt technically a law but more a competition rule however id also like away goals to only count in 90 minutes. if its 1-1 in the first leg and 1-1 in the second leg why should the away team of the second leg get an extra 30 minutes to score an away goal in extra time just be being drawn at home first?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
- Get rid of Law 11.
-Failing that, make it fairer for the defence. Get rid of this rubbish about how if the defender moves to the ball but can't control it, that nullifies offside. Go back to 'clear control'
- A 'foul' off the pitch is brought back to the boundary line for a free kick. It's a terrible loophole
- Fix the loophole about numbers not reducing to equate during KFTM
- Get rid of all this nonsense about undershorts colours, tape on socks, etc
- I'd also like to see 'deliberately handles the ball' rephrased to 'carelessly handles the ball when he could reasonably have been expected to avoid contact'. That is actually how it's refereed. 'Deliberate' is misleading.
-There are plenty of refereeing practices I'd love to see changed too. Let's make players accountable for their actions. 6 players mobbing the referee to argue? 6 players get booked. Handbags with 10 players who all just wanted to stir the pot? Yellows all round. Enough of this 'you're only allowed to do it because everybody else is doing it at the same time, but for some random reason that guy in particular is the only one who wasn't allowed to do it'
-Though more importantly, penalise fouls that affect a player's momentum enough to impact upon play. Players get punished for stumbling and remaining on their feet. That needs to stop. This includes pushing/holding.

Paul_Jones said:
Id like to change the dogso rule in terms of goalkeepers... i'm not saying give them their own rules but by definition of being the preverbial "last man" for 99.9% of a match i think its very harsh that 99% of fouls they committ are seen as red card offences. I Also think it's harsh that a goalkeeper gets a straight red if he handles the ball outside his area.
Click to expand...

I disagree about most keeper offences being DOGSO offences. But remove the DOGSO, and if you were the keeper why wouldn't you go for the player every time if you're not sure if you can get the ball? Also don't see what's harsh about the keeper DHB-outside-the-PA-DOGSO (again, the majority of the time it isn't a red card anyway)

Also disagree strongly with the other DOGSO ones...
 
Here s another .....Corner Flags .........over 6ft high ......footballrs don't tend to have Rickets or Consumption any more :)

The human Race is getting bigger
 
Beezer said:
Here are the 2 that don't sit well with me .......

1. Penalty Advantage

Lets have a rugby style Advantage for fouls committed in the Penalty Area , so we can let the move continue in the knowledge that if the team don't score everyone on the pitch is aware we will be coming back for a penalty kick .

2. Second Phase Offside .

Any player who is in an Offside position during a passage of play stays Offside for the duration of that move and may not be involved in play .

Seen it so many times when a striker is 10 yards offside the ball gets pinged wide to the winger , striker turns ,runs toward goal takes the pass and taps it in .....No defence to be seen

Unfair and Offside

Anyone else fancy a go ? feel free :)
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the laws which currently prevent you from attempting to play advantage in the PA and returning to award the spot kick if something unexpected happens -- it's just not advised to try unless a fairly clear goal scoring opportunity presents itself immediately. The reason for that is because the awarding of "advantage" must be more (as the word indicates) advantageous than a free kick. Given that a penalty kick is an extremely high likelihood of a goal, the advantage must be even moreso advantageous. I think the law is fine as is.

As for the offside, I do think that's bad defending. If you know the winger has excellent pace, why are you defending so high up the pitch and with so few players that you get caught out like that? The law itself does not allow for unfair situations. Furthermore, with your suggested law, I wonder how long the player would be "offside"? Just so long as his team maintain possession?
 
Ryan ...the suggestion is to make it law ....rather than open to interpretation ...!

Makes the call easier for all concerned ?

Regards....

Ryan ....the call on the offside ? .

Lazy striker wandering back ....20 yards offside ....ball gets pinged over him to the winger .... he spins and get a free tap in ?

sorry mate ...the law is flawed IMO ....that's very unfair on the defending team .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've got two.

1. When there's an injury, the referee just stops play rather than faff around waiting for players to put the ball out of play, then the opposition have to throw it back to the goalkeeper (or less sportingly for a goal kick).

Still referee's discretion on when to stop play, but just make the restart that whichever team was in possession, the restart is from their GK's possession in his penalty area (as if he'd just taken control of the ball and has six seconds to clear it - or 15 judging by EPL refs' timing). Simple - the ball can go to the GK as soon as play is stopped so ready for an instant restart.

2.

The new wording for "gaining an advantage" perpetuates the grammatical mess of "... an opponent having been in an offside position" (let alone "the crossbar having been in an offside position"). Is that phrase "having been in an offside position" really necessary? The wording explains one of the things that a player in an offside position has to do to be offside - so it seems rather superfluous and clumsy.

So do away entirely with the misleading concept of "gaining an advantage". The definition was unwisely tacked on to a phrase that originally meant exactly what it said - now a player can be in an offside position and gain an advantage in a normal understanding of the phrase but not be gaining an advantage under law 11. They should just delete all reference to gaining an advantage and add:

Interfering with play and interfering with an opponent also apply when the ball rebounds or deflects from an opponent or from the goalpost or crossbar to a player who was in an offside position when the ball was played by or was touched by one of his team. It applies to a rebound from a deliberate save, but otherwise a player can not be offside if the ball is deliberately played by an opponent.
 
simple bin rolling subs pain in the sit down area, name 7 subs must use 7 subs that stops people saying rolling subs are faires,nonsense, ban rolling subs. did i mention i hate rolling subs
 
jofusref said:
simple bin rolling subs pain in the sit down area, name 7 subs must use 7 subs that stops people saying rolling subs are faires,nonsense, ban rolling subs. did i mention i hate rolling subs
Click to expand...
At grass roots level ....rolling subs are one of the more positive things the Fa have done to encourage participation .

The average player can now get 20 mins ......keeping people in the game who otherwise wouldn't bother !
 
Beezer said:
At grass roots level ....rolling subs are one of the more positive things the Fa have done to encourage participation .

The average player can now get 20 mins ......keeping people in the game who otherwise wouldn't bother !
Click to expand...
thats the beauty of opinions everybody has one. and ours is totally different i wonder how many referees doing games with this nonsense do the substittue procedure properly
 
Never understood the hatred some people have for it. 'Properly' simply means the procedure is followed. There really aren't any difficulties with the process that aren't easily managed.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Never understood the hatred some people have for it. 'Properly' simply means the procedure is followed. There really aren't any difficulties with the process that aren't easily managed.
Click to expand...
Do you have roll on roll off subs on any of your games?! When you've run halfway across the pitch and interrupted the game by 30 secs on 15 separate occasions in the second half alone you tend to lose a little patience :). Sod's law, the one match you don't follow the procedure would be the one game where you get picked up on it by the assessor lurking in the bushes :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top