A&H

Michael Cox article on football pitch markings

RefIADad

RefIADad

RefChat Addict
https://theathletic.com/4690849/2023/07/25/should-football-pitch-markings-change/ (subscription required)

I don't foresee any of these changes happening anytime soon - if ever - but the article and proposed pitch markings from Michael Cox (shared below with an explicit credit to his article above) generate some interesting possible ideas.

If I could make changes to the current Laws or field markings, these are the two I'd implement as quickly as possible.
  1. Make any indirect free kick offense in the penalty area have a restart on the closest line on the penalty area.
  2. Make the penalty area more of an arc like in futsal (second photo below, which also includes the futsal IDFK procedure I'd advocate for the outdoor game.
1690307397227.png

1690307435141.png
 
The Referee Store
CaptainsPlease said:
It's a lot easier to check the length of straight lines than arcs.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's true for these markings? You just pace from the centre mark to the arc in the same way you do in the centre circle or the pen spot to edge of the arc.

It's definitely easier for clubs to mark out straight lines than arcs though!
 
The biggest thing I see with the "arc vs box" comparison for the penalty area is the nature of the punishment for a foul in the upper corners of the penalty area compared to the fouls that happen there. In my opinion, these are the two most common types of fouls that happen in the corners around the top of the area.
  1. Handling, which we all know is a challenging foul to call in the best of times in a lot of cases.
  2. The situation where a player gets the ball with his/her back to goal and is either carelessly charged from behind or clipped on the heels.
Again, my opinion, but I just don't see where a penalty kick with a 75-85% chance of success is a proportionate punishment for that type of foul.

The counterpoint, which I think is legitimate, is you could see more SPA/tactical fouls occur in these areas. However (and I can't take credit for these two points - very experienced referees whose opinions I trust a lot presented these), there are two offsetting points to this.
  1. An arc reduces the area where keepers can play with their hands, which could result in more attacking chances.
  2. Free kicks in those corner areas have the chance to produce more highlight-worthy goals from bending free kicks or set pieces.
Like with anything else in sports, the only way you could possibly prove any of these points would be to do experimental A/B testing. I don't think we'll ever see this, but it would be interesting to see some sort of extended event like the Leagues Cup in the United States and Mexico try this out. They are already experimenting with penalties after 90 minutes where the following point system exists in group play.
  • Win in regulation - 3 points
  • Win in penalties after 90 minutes - 2 points
  • Loss in penalties after 90 minutes - 1 point
  • Loss in regulation - 0 points
I don't mind experiments like this in competitions outside of the traditional competitions, and I'm fine with the US being the experimental ground. Some ideas will work, some won't, but I'm never against trying different things to see if they work.
 
RefIADad said:
Like with anything else in sports, the only way you could possibly prove any of these points would be to do experimental A/B testing. I don't think we'll ever see this, but it would be interesting to see some sort of extended event like the Leagues Cup in the United States and Mexico try this out. They are already experimenting with penalties after 90 minutes where the following point system exists in group play.
  • Win in regulation - 3 points
  • Win in penalties after 90 minutes - 2 points
  • Loss in penalties after 90 minutes - 1 point
  • Loss in regulation - 0 points
I don't mind experiments like this in competitions outside of the traditional competitions, and I'm fine with the US being the experimental ground. Some ideas will work, some won't, but I'm never against trying different things to see if they work.
Click to expand...

This is interesting. But I think it would be more effective to have it 3-2-0-0. With the 3-2-1-1 there are still incentives to play for the draw--and probably more incentives to play for the drawn than with the current model, as the draw guarantees 1 pt with the possibility of 2. And if we had more draws it not only would be less interesting, it would radically change the random element of who advances. (Yes, KFTM are not completely random, but ...)

An interesting exercise (that I don't have the time or patience for) might be to take some recent groups and apply the model to see how standings would have looked (using a coin flip for the KFTM). It wouldn't be a true test, as it doesn't account for changes in behavior, but could be interesting.

All in all, I think the field change suggestions in the article were mostly silly and solutions looking for problems . . . and I hadn't even thought of the horrors of what grassroots fields would look like if those arc PAs were being used. I already see enough trapezoids and badly mis-sized PAs.
 
RefIADad said:
I don't mind experiments like this in competitions outside of the traditional competitions, and I'm fine with the US being the experimental ground. Some ideas will work, some won't, but I'm never against trying different things to see if they work.
Click to expand...
It boils down to this ☝️.

There has to be a legitimate reason for the changes mentioned above and I can't find one. Such radical changes almost constitute it being a new sport, not a change to the mainstream. A bit like rugby league and rugby union splitting back in the 1800s.
 
Brian Hamilton said:
It boils down to this ☝️.

There has to be a legitimate reason for the changes mentioned above and I can't find one. Such radical changes almost constitute it being a new sport, not a change to the mainstream. A bit like rugby league and rugby union splitting back in the 1800s.
Click to expand...
Agree. Radical changes require radical reasons. Even giving credence to some of the reasons for, I don't think any are strong enough for such a radical change. Of course, that could change in the future.
 
Maybe if so many games weren't decided by fluky penalty kicks awarded by over zealous VARs desperate to use their tech, such ridiculous notions of morphing the game into a different sport, wouldn't exist
 
Big Cat said:
Maybe if so many games weren't decided by fluky penalty kicks awarded by over zealous VARs desperate to use their tech, such ridiculous notions of morphing the game into a different sport, wouldn't exist
Click to expand...
Even as someone who would still readily throw out VAR altogether, I think this is a very exaggerated take as to effects and also very unfair to VARs in general.
 
socal lurker said:
Even as someone who would still readily throw out VAR altogether, I think this is a very exaggerated take as to effects and also very unfair to VARs in general.
Click to expand...
Quite right, but easier to pin things on the Law Maker's Jewel in the Crown than right an essay
Anyway, too many games decided on Acts of God in the PA one way or another
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top