A&H

Proposed Changes for 2014/15?

The Referee Store
At the moment there is no yellow for displaying a slogan on undershirts, it's a report. The consideration here is that currently the report is only necessary if the slogan is political/advertising etc. In effect this proposed change will mean no slogans at all - but again no yellow card just a report.
 
As someone who coaches an Under-18 youth side, the proposed change that caught my eye concerned substitutes in "amateur or recreational" matches.
At the moment, over the age of 16 it's the normal "maximum 3 out of 5" subs. Hopefully, the variation will allow local leagues to vary this and use all 5 subs.
I wouldn't want unlimited subs and I still can't decide about rolling subs
What does everyone else think?
 
A simpler question is perhaps whether you agree or not with the FIFA reasoning for making this change, i.e. that it

'will help with the growth and retention of players within amateur/”recreational”
football. The change will give associations more flexibility to encourage people to take
up the sport or to continue their participation in “recreational” football '

i coached a team for two seasons at u13 and u14 level. the league we played in permitted a maximum of three subs, roll on/roll off. Without fail i would rotate my 20 player squad and then i would rotate my 14 player match day squad so that everyone got roughly the same amount of playing time, 3 subs halfway through the first half, three subs at half time, three subs halfway through the second half. some parents and players hated it, some loved it. to me, their parents all paid the same subs, the boys were all there for the same reason and i wasn't prepared to compromise for the sake of winning. as far as i'm aware, that was far from the norm where this particular league was concerned.

when i started refereeing, i discovered that another youth league that i referee in were experimenting, on behalf of the f.a., with 5 subs, roll on, roll of. There are some issues, re squad sizes for example but, as far as i'm aware, they have no plans whatsoever to revert to 3 subs.

i proposed to the chairman of the league that i coached in that they should move to 5 subs. he loved the idea and couldn't think why they hadn't done it before. sadly, the committee and the league rules took over and it was too late, in january, to be included in their agm, in march, for consideration. whether they've put forward the idea for this year's agm i have no idea.

bottom line, whether at youth level or open age level nobody, presumably, plays football to watch it from touchline. so, it's a huge yes from me and some coaches and managers will just have to be gently dragged, kicking and screaming, into the future
 
Yep, as a referee I don't have an issue with RoRo subs - we have it in our lowest men's senior league. Maximum 4 named subs. Also the Ladies regional league has it. Not hard to manage, and less paperwork post-match!

As HayWain says, at youth/junior levels it is designed to enable/maximise game time for the players. As coaches, clubs, adminisrators and organisers of juniors football, the overriding reasons for it is to develop young players and provide enjoyment of the game.

The club I am involved with keep smaller squads than HayWain mentions. At u11s, we played 7-a-side, I had a squad of 9 players. 9 a-side we have squads of 12 players. For the 5 a side junior teams we try and keep squads to 6 or 7 players depending on membership numbers.

Whenever I have a team to coach, I give all parents a 'Charter' which sets out my intentions over the season, and what I reasonably expect in return, one of the points in there goes something like:

"I am not here to teach your child how to win football matches, but to develop as a player and a person, and to enjoy the game'
 
Only problem with ro-ro subs is how often they do it. When it starts being every five minutes it gets a bit much.
 
How do you define amateur? There will always be some leagues where the stronger teams are semi-pro whereas weaker teams are not.
 
frank_ref said:
Only problem with ro-ro subs is how often they do it. When it starts being every five minutes it gets a bit much.
Click to expand...
If it's an issue, have a word with the coach/manager making all the subs.
"Every time you stop for a sub, we stop the clock. We'll be here all day at this rate, and you aren;t gaining any advantage"
 
Here are my proposed changes for the LOTG 2014/15, just in case Blatter or Platini are reading:

Throw-in law changed so it doesn't matter too much about exact technique, so long as no significant gain in distance is made. Who cares whether the ball leaves the hands when they're in front of the forehead? Big deal.

Control of time removed from referee and placed off-field. Ref's got enough to worry about. Someone with keeping track of stoppages as their only job would do it better. Plus it removes instances of refs letting a side have "just one more attack"/blowing up when they're about to go for goal (as happened to Swansea the other day). The stadium clock would accurately reflect the amount of time remaining. It would be exciting.

Changes to the penalty area. Keep it as it is as far as where the keeper can handle the ball. But make it more flexible with regard to fouls. A player with his back to the goal and eight defenders around him and no support should not receive a better reward when getting a little shove than a player through on an open goal taken out just outside the box. The first is rewarded with a virtual goal; the second most likely not. Ref should have the freedom to think which deserves a penalty and which should be a free kick, regardless of where the foul took place. Would improve all the argy-bargy at corners if free kicks could be given "in the box", and would eradicate the scenario of the exact same challenge being either punished/waved away depending on which side of the line it was on. Basically, fouls in the box never going to result in a goal: direct free kick. Fouls outside the box likely denying a goal: penalty. Wildly unpopular and idealistic proposal, of course, but an improvement, in my opinion.

The goals become bigger. When the size of the goals were determined people were, on average, a lot shorter. Base the goals on the size of the average keeper. Bigger goals equals more goals scored. And goals is what it's all about.

Players not allowed to come within ten yards of the referee when he's talking to someone. Players not allowed to talk to the referee other than to say something like, "can you explain that one please? because I don't understand and having you explain will help me and my team-mates calm down please sir. Thank you." Special exemption made for the captain, who is expected to be his team's representative and to relay necessary information to his boys. Failure to comply punished with bookings/free kicks/yardage awarded to opposition. All foul and abusive language equally punished. (I believe we have a Law already for that, buried somewhere in the book, but not many people know about it.)

Three cards instead of two. Sin bins introduced.

Video technology applied to penalty decisions and sin bins/red cards. It wouldn't take long. Probably about as long as it currently takes for players to argue their case and the referee to calm everybody down. If a mistake is made - such as an incorrectly given yellow - VT has opportunity to rectify and rescind "in game" while play goes on.

Any good reason why a free kick has to leave the penalty area? Or a goal kick, for that matter?

Anybody really care that the ball must go forward from a kick off?

Sort out the bloody offside once and for all. What is its purpose? Isn't it to prevent goal-hanging? So what then does it matter whether a guy's one inch offside or not? That's boring and pedantic. But I understand you've got to draw the line somewhere. It's just about okay, but I don't like the way attackers who are definitely interfering with play are currently deemed 'not interfering' (see this thread for examples).

Still, if we're gonna have offside it might as well be consistent. Why no offsides from goal kicks or throw-ins? Doesn't make any sense. (Anyone wants to argue it, please discuss why an attacker should be offside from a free kick two yards from his own goal line, but not from a goal kick.)

That's all for now. :)
 
Last edited:
frank_ref said:
Throw-in law changed so it doesn't matter too much about exact technique, so long as no significant gain in distance is made. Who cares whether the ball leaves the hands when they're in front of the forehead? Big deal.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that that would be a foul throw, Frank? - certainly every player and his dog seems to claim it as such on the parks at the weekend. o.k. maybe not the dogs.

To quote from the FA Basic Referees Course

'Law 15 states 'the thrower shall deliver the ball from behind and over his head'. This phrase does not mean that the ball must leave the hands from an overhead position. A natural throwing movement starting from behind and over the head will usually result in the ball leaving the hands when they are in front of the vertical plane of the body'

and the only stipulation is that 'the throwing movement must be continued to the point of release'
 
:)

Throw-in law changed so it doesn't matter too much about exact technique, so long as no significant gain in distance is made. Who cares whether the ball leaves the hands when they're in front of the forehead? Big deal.

Control of time removed from referee and placed off-field. Ref's got enough to worry about. Someone with keeping track of stoppages as their only job would do it better. Plus it removes instances of refs letting a side have "just one more attack"/blowing up when they're about to go for goal (as happened to Swansea the other day). The stadium clock would accurately reflect the amount of time remaining. It would be exciting.

Changes to the penalty area. Keep it as it is as far as where the keeper can handle the ball. But make it more flexible with regard to fouls. A player with his back to the goal and eight defenders around him and no support should not receive a better reward when getting a little shove than a player through on an open goal taken out just outside the box. The first is rewarded with a virtual goal; the second most likely not. Ref should have the freedom to think which deserves a penalty and which should be a free kick, regardless of where the foul took place. Would improve all the argy-bargy at corners if free kicks could be given "in the box", and would eradicate the scenario of the exact same challenge being either punished/waved away depending on which side of the line it was on. Basically, fouls in the box never going to result in a goal: direct free kick. Fouls outside the box likely denying a goal: penalty. Wildly unpopular and idealistic proposal, of course, but an improvement, in my opinion.

The goals become bigger. When the size of the goals were determined people were, on average, a lot shorter. Base the goals on the size of the average keeper. Bigger goals equals more goals scored. And goals is what it's all about.

Players not allowed to come within ten yards of the referee when he's talking to someone. Players not allowed to talk to the referee other than to say something like, "can you explain that one please? because I don't understand and having you explain will help me and my team-mates calm down please sir. Thank you." Special exemption made for the captain, who is expected to be his team's representative and to relay necessary information to his boys. Failure to comply punished with bookings/free kicks/yardage awarded to opposition. All foul and abusive language equally punished. (I believe we have a Law already for that, buried somewhere in the book, but not many people know about it.)

Three cards instead of two. Sin bins introduced.

Video technology applied to penalty decisions and sin bins/red cards. It wouldn't take long. Probably about as long as it currently takes for players to argue their case and the referee to calm everybody down. If a mistake is made - such as an incorrectly given yellow - VT has opportunity to rectify and rescind "in game" while play goes on.

Any good reason why a free kick has to leave the penalty area? Or a goal kick, for that matter?

Anybody really care that the ball must go forward from a kick off?

Sort out the bloody offside once and for all. What is its purpose? Isn't it to prevent goal-hanging? So what then does it matter whether a guy's one inch offside or not? That's boring and pedantic. But I understand you've got to draw the line somewhere. It's just about okay, but I don't like the way attackers who are definitely interfering with play are currently deemed 'not interfering' (see this thread for examples).

Still, if we're gonna have offside it might as well be consistent. Why no offsides from goal kicks or throw-ins? Doesn't make any sense. (Anyone wants to argue it, please discuss why an attacker should be offside from a free kick two yards from his own goal line, but not from a goal kick.)

That's all for now. :)[/QUOTE]

Frank its not April 1st yet mate!!! :)
 
Bin offside.
No-one talks to the ref except the Captain and he calls him Sir or Ma'am.
Any "free" kick should be kicked in any direction and at any distance. Bin IDFK.
 
How about a multi-ball hooter which when it sounds 3 extra balls get shot into the pitch? ;)

I would love to see the stupid sock tape law scrapped. I am also a massive fan of a rugby styled 10 yard penalty for dissent rather than straight to caution.
 
Supermonkey said:
How about a multi-ball hooter which when it sounds 3 extra balls get shot into the pitch? ;)

I would love to see the stupid sock tape law scrapped. I am also a massive fan of a rugby styled 10 yard penalty for dissent rather than straight to caution.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what they tried already in the Premier League a few years ago? Just led to deliberate dissent to get the ball moved closer to the goal so the attacker couldn't get his free kick up and over the wall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top