The Ref Stop

Penalty shootout coin toss proposed change

I dont really get the argument here. Are we saying because some clubs don't have away fans stand behind a goal (or make changes) then the law should not be changed?

I understand that in some cases it may not have as much impact and will not make it perfect but it still makes it a fairer overall system than what we have now.

I also don't see the complexity or any negative impacts on intruding (or at least trialing) it in the world cup before the start of round of 32. What can get worse or what is the worst case scenario if it is introduced?
 
The Ref Stop
one said:
I dont really get the argument here. Are we saying because some clubs don't have away fans stand behind a goal (or make changes) then the law should not be changed?

I understand that in some cases it may not have as much impact and will not make it perfect but it still makes it a fairer overall system than what we have now.

I also don't see the complexity or any negative impacts on intruding (or at least trialing) it in the world cup before the start of round of 32. What can get worse or what is the worst case scenario if it is introduced?
Click to expand...
Not suggesting it should prevent the law change, rather it might result in some clubs moving away supporters. Currently teams have a 50/50 chance of the kicks being taken in front of their own supporters, with the new law they will potentially have to give up the undoubted benefit of taking the first kick to get that other benefit.

My concern about the change is how it is being shoehorned in. There’s a process for law changes which involves submitting to IFAB and going through approval processes, then usually following a trial. If FIFA can just bypass those procedures what else will they get changed, perhaps say the hydration breaks have been a success (despite the boos at every game) and force 4 quarters into law. If you give Infantino an inch he will take a mile.
 
RustyRef said:
Not suggesting it should prevent the law change, rather it might result in some clubs moving away supporters. Currently teams have a 50/50 chance of the kicks being taken in front of their own supporters, with the new law they will potentially have to give up the undoubted benefit of taking the first kick to get that other benefit.
Click to expand...
This is not a logical/mathematical (mathelogical?) inference to me. With the current set up in order for them to get both first kick and home fans, they have to win two tosses (1 in 4 chance). But importantly they also have a chance of losing both tosses and getting neither.
Agree that with the new law they lose the possibility of getting both benefits. But in return they get the benefit of their opponents also losing that possibility. @RefJef can 'probably' help on the maths of it.

Any club seeking to have kicks being taken in front of their fans no mater what, would have put their fans behind both goals even with the current laws, as some clubs have already done so. The new law doesn't have any greater impact on that decision than the current law.


As for the process, they are there to serve a purpose. We don't do things because they have been done that way in the past. We do them because there is a purpose behind it and the process serves that purpose (google "5 monkeys in a cage experiment"). In a case where that purpose is no longer served, fully or partially, we should amend the process. In this case it is a partial amendment and the crucial approval from IFAB is still required. I am just as pi55ed off or more with how Infantino misuses his power. But that doesn't mean I will reject everything he wants to do.
 
one said:
This is not a logical/mathematical (mathelogical?) inference to me. With the current set up in order for them to get both first kick and home fans, they have to win two tosses (1 in 4 chance). But importantly they also have a chance of losing both tosses and getting neither.
Agree that with the new law they lose the possibility of getting both benefits. But in return they get the benefit of their opponents also losing that possibility. @RefJef can 'probably' help on the maths of it.

Any club seeking to have kicks being taken in front of their fans no mater what, would have put their fans behind both goals even with the current laws, as some clubs have already done so. The new law doesn't have any greater impact on that decision than the current law.


As for the process, they are there to serve a purpose. We don't do things because they have been done that way in the past. We do them because there is a purpose behind it and the process serves that purpose (google "5 monkeys in a cage experiment"). In a case where that purpose is no longer served, fully or partially, we should amend the process. In this case it is a partial amendment and the crucial approval from IFAB is still required. I am just as pi55ed off or more with how Infantino misuses his power. But that doesn't mean I will reject everything he wants to do.
Click to expand...
The point is it is more important now. Previously they had that 50/50 chance and it didn’t affect their chance of taking the first penalty. Now it does, and effectively to get “supporter advantage” they have to give up that first kick. If I was an owner I would be 100% relocating the away support location from behind the goal as we speak.

On the process issue I’m just convinced that if FIFA shoehorn this one through they will see it as a victory and use it as a precedent to do it for subsequent changes. And that is very dangerous when it is an organisation run by someone who demonstrates pretty much every sign of a narcissist. Same reason why Trump, who also demonstrates all such signs, can’t force through law changes without following due process (even though he tries his best to). I don’t disagree with the proposed change, but it should be submitted to IFAB like any other proposal to be discussed at their annual conference. Not rushed in whilst a tournament is ongoing.
 
RustyRef said:
The point is it is more important now. Previously they had that 50/50 chance and it didn’t affect their chance of taking the first penalty. Now it does, and effectively to get “supporter advantage” they have to give up that first kick. If I was an owner I would be 100% relocating the away support location from behind the goal as we speak.

On the process issue I’m just convinced that if FIFA shoehorn this one through they will see it as a victory and use it as a precedent to do it for subsequent changes. And that is very dangerous when it is an organisation run by someone who demonstrates pretty much every sign of a narcissist. Same reason why Trump, who also demonstrates all such signs, can’t force through law changes without following due process (even though he tries his best to). I don’t disagree with the proposed change, but it should be submitted to IFAB like any other proposal to be discussed at their annual conference. Not rushed in whilst a tournament is ongoing.
Click to expand...
Mmm - I’m not sure about that with your first para & could open up a can of worms. Although from other comments we are aware there are at least 3 clubs that house Away supporters at a stand alongside the touchline rather than behind the goal, that’s the vast majority who haven’t done that & to move away supporters just because of a potential advantage at a penalty kick seems a bit ott (to me anyway). Having said that, I am sure the Chairs of each club would give it at least some thought.
 
DavidObs said:
Mmm - I’m not sure about that with your first para & could open up a can of worms. Although from other comments we are aware there are at least 3 clubs that house Away supporters at a stand alongside the touchline rather than behind the goal, that’s the vast majority who haven’t done that & to move away supporters just because of a potential advantage at a penalty kick seems a bit ott (to me anyway). Having said that, I am sure the Chairs of each club would give it at least some thought.
Click to expand...
Everything in football at the moment is about squeezing out as much competitive advantage as you can, can’t see why they wouldn’t do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top