A&H

Law Changes

The Referee Store
I'm not sure they're rediculous, how about a debate??

It's good to see ideas that work well in other sports (hockey for example) being thought about for football.

1. As a fan I like this. No more time wasting as there's no point. Makes the job of refereeing easier as you'll not have to worry about time wasting either...however this would really separate the game further from top level and grass roots as there's no way you're doing this on your own.

2. No rebounds from saves. No, **** idea. It's part of the game.

3. Great idea, think it will really add value to the game and make it quicker. Even if implemented without the 1st proposal it'll help reduce time wasting as well.
 
I think consideration should be given to any idea that allows the game to flow better but to have 2 X 30 minute halves would be too much of a culture shock!
 
Kinell there are some strange ideas a little further down the article!

Rolling ball for goal kicks...Ok with that one, not a huge change

'Penalty goals' for handball preventing a goal - definitely against this one. Been having a running debate with a friend since the suarez handball.

Handling backpass / throw in = penalty - big no for me. It rarely happens as it is and if you make this change, anything remotely borderline will be deemed accidental.

I absolutely agree there should be a clearer and more consistent definition of handball, will have to wait and see what it is though

Only allowed to blow for full time / half time when ball out of play - only workable if linked to the stopping the watch when balls out of play idea
 
dribbling on a FK? That's going to be an absolute nightmare trying to work out if a player has 'taken' a FK in this fashion or not. Would have so much misunderstanding. Neither players nor referees will understand what's happening.
60min game? With no stoppage time? Stupid proposal.
GK don't have to leave the PA? I fail to see what problem is being fixed here. I can see more controversy and problems caused though as attackers press the defender in the PA.
Full time whistle only called when the ball is out of play? I'm actually supportive of that one, given this insidious idea of 'neutral territory' has already made a mockery of the duration of play anyway. Although we know what happens if you blow the whistle before a corner kick, or an attacking FK - so I wonder if this 'solution' is just replacing one problem with another.
No follow up off penalty kicks? So, what, if the penalty kick is saved, play stops?
Penalty goals for goal-line DOGSO-H. Not a bad idea - but precisely how far off the GL will this apply? Knowing how poorly IFAB usually write the laws, I bet they won't clarify this.
Backpass penalty? one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.

Who on earth is coming up with this garbage, and how the heck did they get such an important role when they clearly don't understand the game??
 
If the average game has in play time of around 60 minutes (average between 54 & 65 depending on level) what is the point of reducing the length of each half. All that will happen is the game time will shorten still further. It will be almost impossible to stop the watch for every moment the ball is not in play.

Surely the best solution is for the referee to allow for more than just the obvious time. I.e. We allow for subs,injuries involving physios and for lost balls etc but not always for the amble up the line or change of taker or the time taken during free kick routines or cautioning. These bits can soon add up

The rest seem to be an unfiltered brain storming session where no idea is seen as crazy. Someone forgot the next bit where you list them as good, bad or mad
 
Mostly beyond ridiculous! :mad:

Someone is clearly bored and got nothing to do, but screw up the laws of the game which for the most part work, although handball law definitely need reviewing, clarify and improving. Deliberate or not, goals like Sanchez scored against Hull should never be allowed to stand.

The goal kick being taken from the same side it went out used to be in the laws way back, was supposedly changed to help speed up the game, but for the most part is used as a time wasting tactic where a goalkeeper will take the ball to the opposite side from where it went out to slow the game down a bit more. :confused:
 
I'd love to see the 10 yard advancement for serious dissent... If it took it in the box then its a penalty... Sod em... it would sort out 99% of serious dissent overnight!!! They wouldn't be crowding any ref then!!!
 
The proposals for the shortening of halves is disguising the real intent behind the proposal.

Instead, there could be two periods of 30 minutes with the clock stopped whenever the ball goes out of play.
Click to expand...

My emphasis. If the clock is stopped whenever the ball is out of play, that means it doesn't matter how long the ball is out of play for, because it is having no impact on the clock. Surprise surprise, we will now have ad-breaks mid-match. And with the prospected of returning substitutes, we could also see teams swapping their side around based upon whether they have possession or not (you know, like having an offensive side and a defensive side). Next thing we know the colour of the referee's jerseys won't matter because they will all be black and white striped!

Stop this nonsense now!
 
Sheffields Finest said:
I'd love to see the 10 yard advancement for serious dissent... If it took it in the box then its a penalty... Sod em... it would sort out 99% of serious dissent overnight!!! They wouldn't be crowding any ref then!!!
Click to expand...
Aussie rules football is played on a 150m pitch and it has a 50m penalty for dissent. And yes, it is enforced. So no, you don't see players constantly mobbing and abusing the referee.

xPositor said:
My emphasis. If the clock is stopped whenever the ball is out of play, that means it doesn't matter how long the ball is out of play for, because it is having no impact on the clock. Surprise surprise, we will now have ad-breaks mid-match. !
Click to expand...

There is that. A futsal match is 20min with the clock stopped when the ball goes out of play - and I find a typical half goes for about 35-40min. Some halves have gone for close to an hour.

And there, the players don't have to go fetch the ball from a creek, play isn't stopped for subs, and once the ball is in position players have 4 seconds to take the restart or they lose it.

30min with every second of stoppage played? Absurd. Halves would be going for more than an hour.
 
The best solutions are the simple ones that are universally understood. With that in mind why not just play two halves of 1 hour duration with no added time for any stoppages other than serious injuries treated on the field of play. Thus guaranteeing a minimal playing time of 90 mins.
 
Not against 30 minutes periods, but there would still be an incentive to waste time, as longer periods would mean more time to rest and less intensity. On the other hand, you'd need to stay focused for a longer time (although with interruptions).

A combination of more added time (mostly 2-3 minutes now, could take that to 4-5 minutes for "normal" games) and more yellow cards (for blatant time wasting and for persistent infringement) might be the most effective way to deal with this issue. And you don't have to change any laws for this, you just have to apply the current laws.
 
Last edited:
I do think handball should be simplified and could be by simply adding the phrase ' gaining an advantage' thus most of the recent issues would not have occurred. If a team gains an advantage from a handball then it is a free kick, whether it is deliberate or not. Fairly simple to enforce as we judge advantage all over the field of play naturally
 
I'm not sure about that - you're not solving a problem, you're simply moving it. Currently there are 2 decisions to make - whether the ball hit the arm, and whether it was deliberate. In the vast majority of cases, even if you can't tell if it DID hit the arm it doesn't matter because you have no indication it's deliberate anyway. And judging whether it hit the arm is, IMO, one of the trickiest things to judge. If the player's body is oriented to yourself in an unfavourable manner, then a ball striking the chest will look like it his the arm sticking out to the side.
So, you're not making fewer incorrect decisions with the change your proposed - just making different ones.

But then again, there are a lot of scenarios where the law, as stands, doesn't really work. Player tries to control the ball with his raised thigh and it skims off to his arm, what to do about that? One problem with your law proposal is that you're encouraging attackers to deliberately kick the ball into the arms of a defender - and you ARE going to miss it when it does happen. But the incidents with the arms sort of by the body and being struck with the arm are so grey anyway, that may that change still has more positives than negatives.

Sometimes, of course, it will also be difficult trying to judge whether a 'benefit' (let's call it that rather than advantage) was gained - a shot is taken, accidental handling, then goes out for a corner - if you can't tell if the shot was on target, then is the handler benefitting or not?

Personally, I think if nothing else, it needs to be written to something like 'handles the ball - or permits the ball to strike the arm - when the player could otherwise reasonably have been expected to be able to avoid such contact'. 'Deliberate' is too highly misunderstood by both players and referees (how many referees have you heard say they carded a player for 'deliberate handball?')

Oh, and the 'backpass' law needs to cover all body parts. Want to keep the game flowing? Stop heading, kneeing etc the ball back to the keeper. The current law makes no sense. Gets rid of this absurd notion of 'circumventing the LOTG' as well (I'd be amazed if any other sport has anything that ridiculous)

Although if they want the game to flow they really should introduce a time restriction on how long the keeper is allowed to hold the ball. I propose 6 seconds as a reasonable timeframe.
 
Paul March said:
I do think handball should be simplified and could be by simply adding the phrase ' gaining an advantage' thus most of the recent issues would not have occurred. If a team gains an advantage from a handball then it is a free kick, whether it is deliberate or not. Fairly simple to enforce as we judge advantage all over the field of play naturally
Click to expand...
Would be an invitation for the attacking team to target defenders' arms in the penalty area. "Handball took out a cross or through-ball, team gained advantage, penalty".
 
NERef said:
http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40311889

Thoughts on this? I'm all for the proposals for occasions where referees stop their watches, not so sure about the law changes.
Click to expand...
As always when there is an article like this, there are omissions, mis-characterisations and errors. If you want the full, correct info on what is being discussed and/or proposed, you need to look at the official IFAB take on this, which is available on a new website they've created:

http://www.play-fair.com/

There's a lot of these ideas that I think are just totally wrong-headed and/or unworkable. For instance, the proposal that a goalkeeper handling a back pass should lead to a penalty kick is for me, a travesty of the concept of doing what should be considered fair and within the spirit of the game. Penalty kicks were adopted in 1891 as a way to deal with the problem of physical fouls (handing or contact fouls) by defenders in relative proximity to their own goal. Penalties are for actions that unfairly take away a potentially promising goal-scoring situation that the attacking team had, by foul means. They are also a way to restore the attacking opportunity that was lost. When a player kicks the ball to their own goalkeeper, this is not even remotely close to the kind of scenario that penalty kicks were designed for. A penalty kick is the closest thing to a guaranteed goal that a referee can award and should surely be restricted to relatively egregious breaches of the law that deserve the ultimate punishment. In the case of a 'back pass,' where the attacking team wasn't even in possession of the ball when the offence occurred, I can't see how gifting them an almost certain goal is in any way a proportionate response to the magnitude of the offence - an offence which in addition, was not even committed against an attacker.

Not to mention the fact that the very idea of giving a penalty for a goalkeeper using his hands inside his own penalty area when that is the main function of a goalkeeper in the first place, is just a complete travesty, as far as I'm concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top