The Ref Stop

Law change you would make?

socal lurker said:
It's a lot more neutral than an IFK from the same place.

In the US, high school soccer makes its own rules and for a long time used an IFK instead of DB any time a team had possession. The downside was that in the attacking third or so, instead of being neutral, the IFK-in-place-of-DB creates a scoring opportunity that did not exist.
Click to expand...
6 yards more neutral?
 
The Ref Stop
GraemeS said:
Unfortunately, I think the concept of drop ball being neutral went out the window with the latest update. You can make it difficult to score direct from, but as soon as you're giving the ball to one team and enforcing the other team being a certain distance away, it isn't a neutral restart any more.
Click to expand...
socal lurker said:
It's a lot more neutral than an IFK from the same place.

In the US, high school soccer makes its own rules and for a long time used an IFK instead of DB any time a team had possession. The downside was that in the attacking third or so, instead of being neutral, the IFK-in-place-of-DB creates a scoring opportunity that did not exist.
Click to expand...
That the point behind my suggestion. Replacing it with goal kick or throw in will bring it back closer to neutrality and solve some other issues as well.
 
GraemeS said:
6 yards more neutral?
Click to expand...

Seriously? It's not just the 6 yards, which is a big deal, but also the difference in who controls the timing and the difference between a still ball and moving ball. The IFK is a huge advantage over even a modern DB.

(I've said on here before, I'm not a fan of the new DB for a variety of reasons. I think the TI/GK would be better than what we have now. (But I'd still go back to the old DB if I was the grand poobah of the Laws; but I'd also permit the referee to permit (but not require) a player to commit to a sporting restart and caution him for violating what he agreed to.)

Sheffields Finest said:
Just make all Free Kicks direct, simples....
Click to expand...

A PK for 6 second violation! More seriously, I'd be OK with going to DFK for everything except GK violations. (And I wouldn't mind getting rid of that crazy near goal IFK (nothing I like less than managing those IFKs less than 10 yards from the goal) by going a step further and saying a GK results in a CK, or we could borrow from field hockey and have it be a "short corner" from the edge of the PA.)
 
socal lurker said:
I'd be OK with going to DFK for everything except GK violations. (And I wouldn't mind getting rid of that crazy near goal IFK (nothing I like less than managing those IFKs less than 10 yards from the goal) by going a step further and saying a GK results in a CK, or we could borrow from field hockey and have it be a "short corner" from the edge of the PA.)
Click to expand...

I like that idea. Another idea would be for any indirect free kick offense in the penalty area resulting in an indirect free kick at the top of the penalty arc. I know that's kind of close, but since it's indirect there could be some other set plays that teams could draw up.
 
socal lurker said:
Seriously? It's not just the 6 yards, which is a big deal, but also the difference in who controls the timing and the difference between a still ball and moving ball. The IFK is a huge advantage over even a modern DB.

(I've said on here before, I'm not a fan of the new DB for a variety of reasons. I think the TI/GK would be better than what we have now. (But I'd still go back to the old DB if I was the grand poobah of the Laws; but I'd also permit the referee to permit (but not require) a player to commit to a sporting restart and caution him for violating what he agreed to.)



A PK for 6 second violation! More seriously, I'd be OK with going to DFK for everything except GK violations. (And I wouldn't mind getting rid of that crazy near goal IFK (nothing I like less than managing those IFKs less than 10 yards from the goal) by going a step further and saying a GK results in a CK, or we could borrow from field hockey and have it be a "short corner" from the edge of the PA.)
Click to expand...
Yeh, why not, problem sorted eh!
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Yeh, why not, problem sorted eh!
Click to expand...
You'd just end up with the classic issue that any referee who actually enforces this would be in for a barrage of abuse (as per GK encroachment). Granted, it would get rid of the problem - but I don't think in the way you're intending!
 
GraemeS said:
You'd just end up with the classic issue that any referee who actually enforces this would be in for a barrage of abuse (as per GK encroachment). Granted, it would get rid of the problem - but I don't think in the way you're intending!
Click to expand...
Things would be chaos initially but they’d quickly learn the DFKs can cost goals! They’d have to adapt and behave
 
socal lurker said:
Seriously? It's not just the 6 yards, which is a big deal, but also the difference in who controls the timing and the difference between a still ball and moving ball. The IFK is a huge advantage over even a modern DB.

(I've said on here before, I'm not a fan of the new DB for a variety of reasons. I think the TI/GK would be better than what we have now. (But I'd still go back to the old DB if I was the grand poobah of the Laws; but I'd also permit the referee to permit (but not require) a player to commit to a sporting restart and caution him for violating what he agreed to.)
Click to expand...
I just don't see it as a neutral restart and I don't think it is even really intended to be any more. For me, a neutral restart gives both teams an equal chance of gaining possession - giving the ball directly to one team and forcing the other team to be a distance away means it 's not fully neutral. You can tell me all the ways an apple is like an orange, but those similarities don't stop them still being separate things.
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Things would be chaos initially but they’d quickly learn the DFKs can cost goals! They’d have to adapt and behave
Click to expand...
Again, I don't think you would because I don't think any referee would want to deal with the fallout. You have to consider the unintended consequences
 
GraemeS said:
Again, I don't think you would because I don't think any referee would want to deal with the fallout. You have to consider the unintended consequences
Click to expand...

But then, never said it was neutral. It's closer to neutral. The point of the change ( in broad brush and very roughly) was to restore the status quo ante. The limitations on the one-team DB does that far better than an IFK in the attacking third as the IFK can create a scoring opportunity where there was none. (Outside the attacking third, not much difference.)
 
The Law which upsets players, is that which forces them to leave the FOP after treatment
The ceremony of calling the player back on straight after the restart, is daft
 
Big Cat said:
The Law which upsets players, is that which forces them to leave the FOP after treatment
The ceremony of calling the player back on straight after the restart, is daft
Click to expand...

I kinda agree with this at lower levels. It’s a rule that makes sense at the professional level, and there’s a reason it was adopted. (IIRC, for a brief period at the professional level it went farther and players were required to leave on a stretcher.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top