santa sangria
RefChat Addict
1 and 2 are good.
With the timekeeping, football has an easy benchmark to study, not rugby, but futsal.
Law change you would make?
- Thread starter PinnerPaul
- Start date
With the timekeeping, football has an easy benchmark to study, not rugby, but futsal.
one
RefChat Addict
I believe the issue was that a FK outside the area + dissent = penalty was considered too harsh. Plus there are issues with angles and also the idea that a FK literally on the border of the PA might actually be harder to score from than one 28 yards out.
Personally, I have a general problem with the concept of the penalty kick being determined only by location on the pitch with no consideration for nature/severity of foul or goal scoring likelihood. Other sports allow the referee to use his judgement to upgrade the severity of a penalty if appropriate - for example a penalty try can be awarded in rugby if something normally only penalty/scrum-worthy is done deliberately to stop a try, or something that would normally only be a short corner in hockey can be upgraded to a penalty shot. I'd be interested to see something like that considered in football.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
With recent law changes, the pendulum is swinging the other way--not opening up judgment, but trying to constrain it.
Most of my preferred changes would be elimination of many of the recent changes.
And, not a change, I'd love to see them start over with the drafting of Law 11. For example, we still have "gaining an advantage" that exists for historical reasons, not because the words make sense. It could quite easily be restructured to say what it actually means.
It works in rugby because the game is much more about territory - getting ten metres for free is a massive gain.
In football, ten metres forward or backward doesn't usually mean a lot, and can make things worse if the team is already in a good position.
Maybe "ten metres directly towards the penalty mark" would be a better adaptation, since it actually achieves the desired result (compared to rugby where anything at their end is a scoring zone) and means you'll eventually get to a DFK inside the PA becoming a PK... but that's now effectively awarding PK outside the PA for something that really should be a card instead.
For comparison to a more similar sport, hockey got rid of the ten yard march years ago, because almost nobody ever used it and it was a waste of time even when they did. Instead players who do dumb stuff after the whistle just get a personal penalty (go to the naughty chair and think about what you've done) and other rules are applied to create an actual disincentive.
Hockey allows only getting a PC inside the attacking quarter, and only getting a PS inside the circle, so there's almost no difference from what football currently does in terms of awarding kicks.
If however, the laws had PK for all DOGSO regardless of location, you'd get the same result of discretion to penalise all goal-stopping fouls and not arbitrarily cutting off, without making it carte blanche to award PK from the other end of the field because "I'm the referee and it's my opinion".
I'm not against position being a factor in a PK/FK decision, I just don't like it being the ONLY factor. Even minimum requirements of still having to be in the opponent's half to award a penalty would be fine, I just don't like the arbitrary 18yard rectangle being the most important thing in a match.
I'm thinking particularly of the ones where an attacker has the ball just inside a corner of the PA, is shielding the ball with their back to goal, feels a touch from the defender that's come in and goes down to win a penalty. That's in no way the same thing as when a player is bearing down on goal and gets taken out, but it gets given the same punishment.
I haven't fully thought through changing this system, but like @socal lurker wanting to look at law 11 from scratch, I think it's worth considering what options exist if we were to just completely bin off the current penalty system and start again from the beginning.
Fair enough. It makes perfect sense to use the circle in hockey because you can't score from outside it, whereas football allows a goal from anywhere by (almost) anything.
Even if it was limited to the attacking half, it would make far more sense than some arbitrary box.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Goal kicks can be taken from a moving ball, possibly defensive free kicks in the 18 also
Red card for simulation in opponents box.
Maybe, subs as per rugby, esp in games where there is a 4th
Professional games i would have no dug outs, grounds would be equipped as per, Old Trafford, and managers are not allowed to come out.
As things are at moment, I would allow for the 4th to dismiss coaches, without the intervention of the referee.
quick word to those suggesting a pen is pen and no rebounds, are two of the most exciting and dramatic passages of play in modern day english football not, Watford and Doncaster? scoring one end to other after rebounded pens?
Red card for simulation in opponents box.
Maybe, subs as per rugby, esp in games where there is a 4th
Professional games i would have no dug outs, grounds would be equipped as per, Old Trafford, and managers are not allowed to come out.
As things are at moment, I would allow for the 4th to dismiss coaches, without the intervention of the referee.
quick word to those suggesting a pen is pen and no rebounds, are two of the most exciting and dramatic passages of play in modern day english football not, Watford and Doncaster? scoring one end to other after rebounded pens?
It's been a while!!! Welcome back. We need some excitement back in our lives
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
The problem with making simulation in the PA a red is that it would make it less likely it would actually be called at all because of the heavy consequence.
I agree on PK rebounds. I think it’s just plain silly to make it a dead ball event.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
you have hit the nail on the head. But, hear me out. As referee we dont set the punishment, we are there to apply the laws and make our judgement calls.
At the moment when we go, dive!!!, we are, in reality, saying, your cheating, and trying to deceive me etc... so, currently, we are already are making the call. The punishment would not be our doing, Take it to the other end of the park, , do we make less " last man" calls for fear of sending the guy off?
dont want sent off for simulation? Dont simulate. ( i was staying clear of var but lets say the man in the truck, like the onfield ref, has no doubt)
it also should be referred to by the media as, cheating, not, a dive. Or, hr felt contact, or whatever. If your officially guilty of the offence, the bbc match report says. ' in the 88th min xxxx was sent off for cheating', not 'going down too easy in the box"
its hard enough for us to spot genuine fouls at real speed without cancers of the game setting out deliberately to deceive us
The difference is that DOGSO is often very obvious, certainly far more obvious than simulation, where it is often still hard to tell even with replays. We've disagreed on here enough times collectively as to whether something was simulation or not and we are all referees.
I'd fully support a retrospective red card for simulation, but upgrading it to an in game red card means there will be pretty much no sanctions issued out. Cautions for it are low as it is as you are effectively accusing the player of cheating and have to be 100% sure, changing it to a red ups that bar even more.
There was a ‘dive’ in the SHUvARS game, I was there and about 30 yards away, Live I thought it was a pen as Pepe keeled over, Mike Dean was the referee and called it no-pen and YC, I’ve watched it numerous times and can convince myself either way depending on the angles viewed... Some dives are pretty obvious and need retrospective bans but some are so borderline they should be judged by experienced ex-players and referees on a Monday and acted on if they’re in agreement. I’m sure their is something similar already in Scotland.
Last edited:
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
If a referee has judged something as simulation, and no sanction is forthcoming, then we, the officials, are the problem. We are equipped with the tools that we need to manage a game, well, if we are ( too scared? ) ( not strong enough?) to use them, then we are the masters of our own downfall
Just to clarify. am no meaning those, oh, maybe ones, am talking big team 1 down at home, throwing kitchen sink at opponents and trying everything possible to get something from the game...
Last edited:
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Old chestnut, the impending two game ban for the diver is great, but the damage is done, team game and all that, he has by this time won the pk, and even probably scored it, three points his team, none to the ones who were cheated, and now misses two games were he could be on the park to do the wronged team a turn and score or dive against them....
Yes but if he does it twice then my idea above is the double ban, players missing games and the loss of repetitional trust going forward would be immense. Nobody wants a diver with a reputation, he’ll miss games and would be a liability. Slowly it would drain from the game!
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
or deal with correctly at the time.....
agree, no doubts its a toughie, and of course I appreciate they are not linked but having to send off a defender for handball because the ball was battered at him seems unjust to giving benefit of doubt to a deliberate act of cheating
VAR takes 30 seconds to 4 minutes and still makes admitted errors....A slower considered reflection on a Monday with a digestive and a wee dram can & should lead to be better outcome and the correct justice if required....
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
The Inverness v Rangers debacle was maybe over looked on here..
In short, player was barged over, not in a month of quarantine could it be simulation, yet, ref went yellow, course already been booked, off
panel reviwed it, and upheld the decision
it then transpired one of the panel never actually looked at the clip, second hearing, caution revoked
strong stuff the drams here