Marco Van Basten touched on some of this in the Confederations Cup press conference (available in that thread) earlier today. None or almost none of these topics are new--they are things that the IFAB has been talking about the past 2 years. Still very interesting to see it all in one place and to see the IFAB pushing/branding all of this itself. Shows exactly how much Elleray wants to take back the stewardship of the Laws from FIFA. http://www.play-fair.com/#introduction
I've got to say, that if the stricter calculation of stoppage time was adopted, we'd probably be looking at a total average of about 20 minutes of time added on in most professional games (and that's one without a ton of cards and without VAR intervention). I can understand the push to add slightly more time, which we debated in the CONCACAF thread. But in an era where we are adopting water breaks and pushing for additional substitutions, both for the health of the players and because the product on the field often diminishes as the game progresses, what exactly is the virtue of prolonging a match to get us closer to having the ball in play for 90 minutes rather than 60? There is a lot of interesting stuff up for discussion in this initiative, but I just don't understand the apparent guiding principle that a 90 minute match of soccer should have the ball in play as close to 90 minutes as possible. We made it 150 years without thinking like that.
I was typing the same thing sorta, in the actual presentation they say "fewer than 60 minutes of actual play" so they are looking for 30 minutes added? Not to mention the extra time that would be needed in that extra time but you are looking for people to be up and active for an hour plus per half, including the referee team who really doesn't get a break when play stops as we should be ever vigilant. **edit** I guess they address this later with the stop the clock possibility, the halves would be shorter? but only account for actual play.
Yeah, that's the thing. I've heard people before argue that the game should be, let's say, 60 minutes but you stop for every stoppage, thereby ensuring 60 minutes of playing time (think I've read or heard an argument for 70, too). But I've never heard the argument from a serious person or organization that we need to get 90 minutes of playing time, but that's what is implied here (maybe more like 83-85 or so, since it isn't saying to stop on every goal kick and every free kick). Given all the other concerns about the stresses on players at the professional and international level, that seems crazy and hypocritical.
Wow. Some radical ideas in there . . . And some so.utions seeking a problem to solve, IMO. Making pass back a PK offense? What real problem would that solve? And if that. Hangs got made, would it ever be called again?
But not really, because the suggestion to stop time, let's say, every time a card is issued and every time 10 yards is counted off, is part of the "could be implemented immediately" category whereas the shortening of the halves is in "for discussion." Plus the "could be implemented immediately" stuff is about calculating additional time by stopping the referee's watch, not actually stopping a stadium clock. If that's the sentiment they wanted to convey, it was very sloppily done to the point that it's not what they are saying. And note that Van Basten today referenced this section as something that could be addressed at the Confederations Cup. He even quoted, it seemed verbatim, the paragraph about 1 minute for the first half and 3 minutes for the second half. It's going to be very interesting to see how much stoppage time occurs at the Confederations Cup. I bet we're just going to see a few more minutes each half. But if this discussion guide is taken literally, we're in for a total revolution.
Yes, chapter 3 has a few doozies - referee can award a goal that did not cross the goal line - wow! Along with the awarding a PK for the back pass it also says "and appropriate disciplinary sanction" meaning DOGSO? So is it handling (should not be as the keeper can not be guilty of handling within their own PA - oh, but now they can?? - sorta and I guess it is a deliberate play for the ball so DOGSO YC except handling is always DOGSO red (per LOTG) because only a non GK can handle the ball inside the area, oh wait.... ugh!!
why is a player not allowed to touch the ball a second time after a free kick, goal kick, corner kick (or penalty?) until someone else has touched it? Football already enjoys/encourages the ‘quick’ free kick but this could be even better if the ‘fouled’ player could play the ball more than once – it would encourage attacking play as the player who is fouled can, for example, stop the ball and then immediately continue their dribble/attacking move and could ‘speed up’ the game. Historically, in the ancient game of Harrow Football, the fouled player could carry on dribbling and this was allowed in the original 1863 Laws of the Game. Hmmm. Never really thought of that or that it was that large of an issue. To me that would just increase the need for the defender to stand in front of the ball more. Maybe more cautions from that. So the player that fouled said attacker and is only 2 yards away when that player starts dribbling the ball, now he can defend again even without being 9.15m away? I can see that just getting ugly. The moving GK thing could happen though. I had a HSG team this year that would place the ball on one corner of the goal area. and sit if substitutions were coming in. Then when I would whistle to play after the substitution was made, they would walk up to the ball and walk it to the other corner to kick. After they did that a second time I told them I would caution for delaying the restart if they did it again. They never did, but if it was like a corner kick where they had to kick it from lets say the center of the GA to the side that the ball went out of, I could get behind that. and if the ball is rolling when the GK is being taken? I already consider that trifling.
Well at least we can ignore double touch at kickoff then? I'd had two of those this season, one was at U19.
Guarantee Elleray wrote this passage himself. As to the substance of the rest of your post, I agree. Seems like it would only make life more difficult and confusing. More FRD cautions for sure. And also a lot more situations where it's confusing as to whether or not the attacker was really restarting or not--you can totally picture scenarios where an attacker takes a dribble or two, realizes they made a huge mistake, and then puts their hand on the ball to reset for the "real" DFK. Absolute nightmare for referees in the middle third of the field.
That used to be the requirement -- anywhere in the half of the GA where the ball went out. I believe it went away in the first great re-write. I don't do HS, but I believe the HS rule is that once you put the ball down for the GK you aren't allowed to move to the other side.
Considering that he was a teacher and House Master (we all know what this is nowadays thanks to Harry Potter) at Harrow School I would certainly agree! Incidentally Winston Churchill attended Harrow School, a place of extreme privilege for very wealthy people. Based on this, how much of the other 1863 Rules does he want to go back to? Sounds ridiculous to me! I don't think he has thought these things through properly. There are good reasons why most of the criteria were put into place. PH
While it may not be clear, I presumed when I read the clock stoppage section that halves would be reduced in length so that games will still run 90 minutes as they do now, just the halves will be 30 minutes (for example) and you gain 10-15 minutes from the time stoppage.
http://www.soccermetrics.net/team-performance/effective-time-in-football has data for the 2010-2011 Premier League. The effective time had a mean of 55.1 minutes and a median of 55 minutes. In addition to playing more time being harder for players and referees, it would make games need more than 2 hours of TV coverage and increase the standard deviation of game lengths. La Liga starts games 2 hours 15 minutes apart and the Premier League starts games 2 hours 30 minutes apart. If games had 30 minutes of stoppage time the space between games would have to increase. If games have 30 minutes plus stoppage time each half, it would affect statistics about what range of minutes goals were scored in. No goals could be scored after the 60th minute, and a much greater percentage of goals would be in stoppage time. I don't think it's a big deal if players who are subbed on in stoppage time get credit for playing 0 minutes, but it would be a big deal if a player could be subbed on in stoppage time, play 15 minutes, and not get credit for time played. Changing the amount of regular and stoppage time would affect statistics just like it would if the NBA went from 12 minute quarters to 11 minutes quarters. In addition to having stoppage time for substitutions and injuries, I could see adding stoppage time for long breaks in play, which can be caused by penalty kicks and arguments, including arguments due to red cards. I don't think referees should have to keep track of how long the ball was not in play for every throw-in and set piece.
I get the feeling some may be looking at 60 minutes with the clock stopped at every stoppage so they can put TV timeouts in the middle of halves. Right now hockey has TV timeouts at the first stoppage inside 14, 10 & 6 minutes, with a few exceptions. Will we ever see TV timeouts at the first stoppage inside 8, 16 & 24 minutes of each half?
But it's not just unclear, the website explicitly de-links the two ideas. The adding of stoppage time for all those things is something that could be implemented now and, if you watch the press conference from Moscow yesterday, is something FIFA has said it will work on during the Confederations Cup. The idea of shortening the match and having a clock that stops is an idea for discussion.
I think the stricter calculation of 'additional time' as described for immediate implementation wouldn't be terribly unreasonable, except maybe for stopping the clock for the marking off of 10 yards. Some of the situations listed (time from goal being scored until kick-off, and from referee's signal for a substitution until play restarts) are moments in the game that can increase the temperature of the game (fighting for the ball after the goal, players from the opposing team trying to get a substitute to exit the field quicker) and if players could be certain that the clock was stopped in those situations, it might make it easier to manage the game. It would also make it pointless to really drag out various time-wasting scenarios. (For instance, it might still help somewhat to lay on the ground to break up an opponent's momentum, but there would be no point in staying down for a full minute after the trainer reaches you. The stricter calculation for red and yellow cards could make it more practical for cards to be issued in certain circumstances. Maybe I am way off base, but I feel that in pro games, when one team is clearly trying to kill the clock, sometimes a ref might not issue a card for time-wasting or some other non-physical offense just to keep the game moving. (For instance, if a team is taking an excessively long time to take their throw-in.) I don't see the point in stopping the clock for marking off 10 yards, though. The foam spray generally keeps those situations moving along quickly enough that people don't seem worried about the wasted time in those scenarios. This would be a real change, for sure, but I think if you adopted the stricter calculation of added time, there wouldn't be much push to switch to effective time, which seems like overkill to me.
I wonder if people would be more comfortable with this if those goals were only allowed if confirmed through VAR that the ball would have gone in without the handling. It seems a bit unfair that a sure goal can be taken away and your reward is only an 80% chance to score the goal. As it stands now, late in a game where your team is ahead or even, the smart play is to handle the ball and take the red card. It doesn't happen a lot, but it can happen in high-profile situations.
On the restart portion I at one point argued for the ability to award a goal in response to the substitute that stopped a ball that was obviously (very likely) going into goal when the restart was only IDK. Now that it is properly a PK I don't feel as strongly but you are right, if it is very VERY likely the ball was going to be a goal and illegally stopped, an awarded goal is far better than a PK and would possibly eliminate any reason to commit this RC offense. I still worry about just how far away from near certain goal to a likely goal to a maybe goal this could go. Considering it will rarely happen it probably isn't a huge concern but when it does the offending team will cry forever that it wasn't going in.
A lot of radical ideas for sure. It may be fine at the higher levels to have this stoppage on every time the ball goes out of play, but there's already plenty to keep track of at the lower levels. Expecting the referee to stop and start the clock on every stoppage seems like it's asking for trouble. Unless they think somebody is going to rustle up timekeepers in addition to the on field officials. http://soccer.nbcsports.com/2017/06/17/ifab-proposing-significant-changes-including-match-duration/
A number of these items seem like proposals to fix something that really isn't broken. Looks like a very slippery slope that doesn't really appear to benefit the game. Just because you can change something should you?
I agree it is more to do but we already should be tracking some of this for added time so it is really only adding a few "have to stop" situations. Some referees already use watches that have that feature (I believe Spintso does and possibly the app for the Garmin watches mentioned in another thread). Also as you mention the LOTG are written mainly for higher levels and many of the proposals have the televised professional matches in mind thus they allow lower levels to make changes that make sense. This change could easily be excluded from youth (grass roots) as the length of the match is already.
Funnily, most of those things were already brought up by him in 2002 to produce discussion. https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/marco-van-basten-wants-new-rules.18597/ https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/com...al_director_marco_van_basten_reveals/dcltj5s/ https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/com...al_director_marco_van_basten_reveals/dcl3vs2/ The original text written by him in 2002: http://www.hardgras.nl/uit-het-blad/marco-van-basten-schrijft-nieuwe-spelregels/