A&H

Laws You Would Like To Ammend/ Change ?

Why are you running halfway across the pitch? most of my games have roll-on roll-off subs. There's absolutely no point in attending every substitution. You don't need to record details, and if somebody comes on too fast, a quick toot of the whistle corrects that. Easy.
 
The Referee Store
CapnBloodbeard said:
Why are you running halfway across the pitch? most of my games have roll-on roll-off subs. There's absolutely no point in attending every substitution. You don't need to record details, and if somebody comes on too fast, a quick toot of the whistle corrects that. Easy.
Click to expand...
Because part of the official substitution procedure is to (re)check the kit of the oncoming player (p70 of my LOTG) .. even if he's been on the FOP previously. And this aspect was reinforced at our recent promotion workshop. I don't like it, the players don't like it ... but it would be an extremely irritating and unhelpful point to get picked up on in an assessment ...
 
Bin the indirect free kick. An blatant attempt at impeding an opponent can be more tactically advantageous to a defending side than a cynical hack. The player is stopped and his team denied any real advantage.

An as for shooting from an offside decision, the game has changed massively. More and more teams are now going short on defensive half free kicks than hoofing upfield.

Perhaps more controversially - handball. No more grey areas, it is or it isn't. I say controversially because this inevitably cues comments such as "All I have to do is kick it at the defender's arm in the area and I get a free shot at goal? Thanks very much" to which I follow with "You're not that good" #ipredictariot
 
Russell Jones said:
Because part of the official substitution procedure is to (re)check the kit of the oncoming player (p70 of my LOTG) .. even if he's been on the FOP previously. And this aspect was reinforced at our recent promotion workshop. I don't like it, the players don't like it ... but it would be an extremely irritating and unhelpful point to get picked up on in an assessment ...
Click to expand...

Laws can be bent. Thus, you can satisfy rechecking the equipment with 'looks good from over here!'.
But if you've been told t run over at each interchange, then you're stuck with it. I love it when people make decisions and policies purely for the sake of making decisions and policies :p
 
Not so much at our level, but I'd love to see referees at the top apply Law 12 rigidly and caution a player for USB when he is seen to deliberately play-act, feign injury or suddenly throw themselves to the floor writhing in agony in order to exacerbate a sutuation and/or get a fellow player cautioned/dismissed. We can do it for an obvious dive in the penalty area and we're allowed to judge whether or not a player handled the ball deliberately, so why not make a call on these things as well? It's weakness in my opinion.....
 
Beezer said:
Here are the 2 that don't sit well with me .......

1. Penalty Advantage

Lets have a rugby style Advantage for fouls committed in the Penalty Area , so we can let the move continue in the knowledge that if the team don't score everyone on the pitch is aware we will be coming back for a penalty kick .

2. Second Phase Offside .

Any player who is in an Offside position during a passage of play stays Offside for the duration of that move and may not be involved in play .

Seen it so many times when a striker is 10 yards offside the ball gets pinged wide to the winger , striker turns ,runs toward goal takes the pass and taps it in .....No defence to be seen

Unfair and Offside

Anyone else fancy a go ? feel free :)
Click to expand...


Have a rugby style penalty goal for DOGSO offences, yellow card only, why should next weeks team get an advantage of perhaps the star defender being suspended?

As for those who fake and dive, if they put an opponent at risk of being s/o by their cheating, instant red card for them instead when they are caught, serious foul play could easily be used to encompass that?
 
I like the "carelessly handles the ball" idea.

This would give more scope when there is ball to hand to control the ball that is not deliberate but gives a big advantage (long ball bounces off thigh to hand and leads to break away etc.).

Fix the "corner stunt" loophole (pretending not to play the ball)
Fix the backpass interception by GK loophole
Fix the offside interfering loophole

I would like to see it clearly worded that fouls "after the shot/cross/pass has been executed" are to be treated like any other offence, wherever they are on the field - even raising the offence to DOGSO. Even without the DOGSO sanction defenders would be wary, attackers would have more time to cross and shoot and there would be more goals.
 
I would make it an offence for the keeper to handle the ball when deliberately played to him by a defender from any part of the body. Why is it only illegal with the foot? You have just as much control from the head, knee, chest, shoulder, etc....makes no sense.
 
santa sangria said:
I like the "carelessly handles the ball" idea.

This would give more scope when there is ball to hand to control the ball that is not deliberate but gives a big advantage (long ball bounces off thigh to hand and leads to break away etc.).

Fix the "corner stunt" loophole (pretending not to play the ball)
Fix the backpass interception by GK loophole
Fix the offside interfering loophole

I would like to see it clearly worded that fouls "after the shot/cross/pass has been executed" are to be treated like any other offence, wherever they are on the field - even raising the offence to DOGSO. Even without the DOGSO sanction defenders would be wary, attackers would have more time to cross and shoot and there would be more goals.
Click to expand...
if a team are clever enough to use the corner stunt as you call it why should they be penalised the same with accidental handball
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
I would make it an offence for the keeper to handle the ball when deliberately played to him by a defender from any part of the body. Why is it only illegal with the foot? You have just as much control from the head, knee, chest, shoulder, etc....makes no sense.
Click to expand...
I agree, except for head, I think that is ok. Otherwise hoofing it over the defender's head would be a much more attractive tactic as the defender would have to deal with the ball by putting it out for a throw.
 
Tealeaf said:
Bin the indirect free kick. An blatant attempt at impeding an opponent can be more tactically advantageous to a defending side than a cynical hack. The player is stopped and his team denied any real advantage.

Perhaps more controversially - handball. No more grey areas, it is or it isn't. I say controversially because this inevitably cues comments such as "All I have to do is kick it at the defender's arm in the area and I get a free shot at goal? Thanks very much" to which I follow with "You're not that good" #ipredictariot
Click to expand...
I agree with banning the indirect free-kick, but I would like to restrict the ban only to those offences that involve direct disadvantage for the opposing team: dangerous play and impeding. Those should become direct free kicks. Off-side, stopping play for certain incidents (entering field without permission, not observing goalkeeper substitution procedure, etc.) can remain IDFKs in my opinion.

As for handball, there is a similar rule in field hockey where if a ball hits a defender's foot inside the goal circle, it's a penalty corner. Some teams with good penalty corner routines take advantage of this by deliberately playing the ball onto defenders' feet (which is why you often see defenders jumping when a ball is shot inside the circle). But a penalty corner is far from a free shot at goal, which a penalty kick in football would be (if the handball is in the penalty area). Football does not have the penalty corner award for non-deliberate handballs inside the penalty area. Perhaps an indirect free kick would be a good penalty against non-deliberate handballs? ;)
 
I think the laws around when the match ends and stoppage time desperately needs to be tidied up. This whole 'last attack' thing - the only reason we actually do that is because we have the culture in refereeing of sacrificing the laws to not upset the players, so it's symptomatic of some deep problems within football culture. What's worse is that example of the Corner Kick in the 70s, where FIFA went all Gestapo and ended the career of a referee who did the right thing.
If FIFA want the last corner kick or the last free kick or the last attack to be played out, then that needs to be written into the laws. Stoppage time needs to be clarified - the notion that somehow every half has an amount of stoppage time that ends on a round minute figure is hilarious in its absurdity. We need clear rules over when stoppage time is applied - at the moment it's completely random and arbitrary.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
I think the laws around when the match ends and stoppage time desperately needs to be tidied up. This whole 'last attack' thing - the only reason we actually do that is because we have the culture in refereeing of sacrificing the laws to not upset the players, so it's symptomatic of some deep problems within football culture. What's worse is that example of the Corner Kick in the 70s, where FIFA went all Gestapo and ended the career of a referee who did the right thing.
If FIFA want the last corner kick or the last free kick or the last attack to be played out, then that needs to be written into the laws. Stoppage time needs to be clarified - the notion that somehow every half has an amount of stoppage time that ends on a round minute figure is hilarious in its absurdity. We need clear rules over when stoppage time is applied - at the moment it's completely random and arbitrary.
Click to expand...
The Problem is @CapnBloodbeard all stoppage time as it stands is at the discretion of the referee therefor he surely has to show a bit of it ....when a team is heading for goal as the watch beeps ?

The only way round it is to maybe have an official time keeper ? but then the problem becomes how long is added on for what ?
 
RefereeingBooks said:
I agree with banning the indirect free-kick, but I would like to restrict the ban only to those offences that involve direct disadvantage for the opposing team: dangerous play and impeding. Those should become direct free kicks. Off-side, stopping play for certain incidents (entering field without permission, not observing goalkeeper substitution procedure, etc.) can remain IDFKs in my opinion.

As for handball, there is a similar rule in field hockey where if a ball hits a defender's foot inside the goal circle, it's a penalty corner. Some teams with good penalty corner routines take advantage of this by deliberately playing the ball onto defenders' feet (which is why you often see defenders jumping when a ball is shot inside the circle). But a penalty corner is far from a free shot at goal, which a penalty kick in football would be (if the handball is in the penalty area). Football does not have the penalty corner award for non-deliberate handballs inside the penalty area. Perhaps an indirect free kick would be a good penalty against non-deliberate handballs? ;)
Click to expand...

Hang on....a player blasts a ball from 5 yds away...it hits his opponent on the arm.....and you want to penalise the opponent?
 
Padfoot said:
Hang on....a player blasts a ball from 5 yds away...it hits his opponent on the arm.....and you want to penalise the opponent?
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm opposed to penalising this. I was only pointing out the similarity with field hockey and the options available. It was a reply to Tealeaf's suggestion to penalise all handballs the same way.
 
RefereeingBooks said:
Actually, I'm opposed to penalising this. I was only pointing out the similarity with field hockey and the options available. It was a reply to Tealeaf's suggestion to penalise all handballs the same way.
Click to expand...

Looks like I was right - controversial and predicted a riot :)

I like the hockey reference as it's a good illustration of a possible outcome. I suggest it as a way of making life somewhat easier, there is no room for doubt under that approach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top