The Laws of the Game: Proposed Changes & General Discussion

Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by deejay, Aug 28, 2014.

  1. almango

    almango Member+

    Sydney FC
    Australia
    Nov 29, 2004
    Bulli, Australia
    Club:
    Sydney FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Australia
    I agree with you in principle but not sure how we would put it into effect. Right now say a player is down near the goal line just inside the edge of the box with his back to goal if he can draw a foul he can earn his team a penalty. Not really a fair thing for the defending team but great for the attacking team. With the black and white law as it stands there is no discretion, however if we put the discretion with the referee to only award penalties when there is a genuine goal scoring opportunity then we will get more inconstancy as we not only have the ref adjudicating on a foul, we also bring the referees opinion into it. I hate a law that relies on opinion.
     
  2. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    I also like to see another card, an "orange", added to the arsenal of cards which can be handed out. An orange card would basically allow the referee more tools to regulate the play without having to sometimes choose between the very harsh choice of a red card (e.g., 2nd yellow or when a foul deserves more than a yellow but not a red) and no card or a yellow that doesn't help the opponent that is being unfairly fouled and may instead merely help its competitor by merely helping to disqualify a player in a future match. The consequence of an orange card would be to temporarily disqualify a player (e.g., for 15 minutes). This card should be used against a player who commits a serious enough infraction or, alternatively, a player who is committing a lot of fouls even if none warrant a direct red or even a 2nd yellow/red.
     
  3. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    While I also like to limit the referee's ability to decide a match and don't like his powers in this regard expanded, it is also true that referee discretion is involved in all the decisions that are made, including whether to call something a foul in the first place. Which means that he has the option now of potentially deciding the match on an incidental infraction in the box or, alternatively, close his eyes to it. To be sure, we can and should have some guidelines as to which kind of fouls in what circumstances constitute preventing a dangerous chance to warrant a penalty and which should be penalized by indirect kick in my proposal.
     
    almango repped this.
  4. HomietheClown

    HomietheClown Member+

    Dusselheim FC 1971
    Sep 4, 2010
    Club:
    --other--
    I say review all scoring plays and Penalties. Have the replay official/officials collaborate with the Referee and determine if it warrants a penalty shot or an indirect kick.

    Also, something I hear FIFA really is considering is awarding a goal to a team that get's "Suarezed". If Camera angles show that the ball would have crossed the line but was impeded by the hand the goal should be awarded.
     
  5. Q*bert Jones III

    Q*bert Jones III The People's Poet

    Feb 12, 2005
    Woodstock, NY
    Club:
    DC United
    That is just an awful precedent. Awful. You can't just make up "What If" scenarios. And once you open that Pandora's Box, there's no stopping it.
     
    guri and AlbertCamus repped this.
  6. almango

    almango Member+

    Sydney FC
    Australia
    Nov 29, 2004
    Bulli, Australia
    Club:
    Sydney FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Australia
    I disagree. Its a concept that is applied in other forms of football. There are some pretty obvious cases of deliberate handball that costs a team a goal. They aren't "what if" cases and you don't need video tracking to see that a goal would have been scored.
     
  7. guri

    guri Member+

    Apr 10, 2002
    So then if you allow the goal the player should not be given a red card, right?
     
  8. guri

    guri Member+

    Apr 10, 2002
    The more I watch this "possession" game and how boring is getting, the more convinced I get that we need a big change. I'm getting really tired of "the pass back" to the goalkeeper or to the backs. Nobody takes a risk anymore.
    I propose the same rule that basketball has: Once the ball goes past the midfield line it can not be passed back over it. If you do you lose posession.
     
  9. almango

    almango Member+

    Sydney FC
    Australia
    Nov 29, 2004
    Bulli, Australia
    Club:
    Sydney FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Australia
    That is my opinion, but still have a yellow for deliberate handball. I would only use it for a handball that stops a ball that was definitely going in (what is currently a red card offence).
     
  10. JLSA

    JLSA Member

    Nov 11, 2003
    The "Pandora's Box" here is why we would limit it just to deliberate handballs? If a player has rounded the keeper and then gets dragged down from behind as he is about to shoot, why shouldn't he be "given" a goal - it's just as much as foul as a handball.

    Surely, anything covered by DOGSO would have to be an automatic goal or nothing at all.

    However (and while I'm not sold on the idea), an expanded version of your suggestion (ie, expanding it to any DOGSO situation) it does have a massive advantage that "goal and yellow card" is a neater (and conceivably more equitable) punishment than "penalty and red card".

    That is true both for attack and defence. For the attack they get the most important benefit - a goal, rather than a bit of a lottery. It also takes away the defender's thought that they could turn a definite goal into a penalty at the cost of being sent off. You're not stopping the goal, so why bother. I don't know if you (almango) were watching Fozz during a recent SBS broadcast explaining why he was against the diminution of the triple punishment as it increased the temptation for defenders to tackle cynically in the box. Take away the key benefit and you improve the game.

    For the defenders too it has an advantage - the referee doesn't have to send the player off for a questionable handball on the line. Take HK in the World Cup against Ghana - the call was ridiculously harsh and Ghana still got the goal - would have been much fairer if HK has got a yellow and Ghana given the goal straightaway.

    J
     
  11. almango

    almango Member+

    Sydney FC
    Australia
    Nov 29, 2004
    Bulli, Australia
    Club:
    Sydney FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Australia
    I wouldn't use anything other than a deliberate handball simply because in the example you use a player could still miss. A penalty is the right compensation for that. On a deliberate handball going into the goal there the shot has already been taken and it would have been a goal except for the handball. No Pandora's Box about it if its implemented the way I would do it. If you start to then decide if a player would hit or miss then that's the Pandora's Box.
     
  12. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    Hey man, all handballs in football, by its nature are deliberate.

    When the ball hits someone in the hands or the arms, its not a handball, but a rebound on the hands or arm, instead, which isn't called out as a handball, as it isn't deliberate. There is no such thing as an unintentional handball. For referee's they use the expressions "hands to the ball" (deliberate) and/or "ball to the hands"(unintentional), to diferentiate one from the other, being only the first type called out as handballs.

    When you continue using the expression "deliberate handball", the only thing you are really doing, is being redundant.
     
  13. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    Possession playing is not the worst.
    To me, the worst is the zonal or parking the bus style of defending, what is highly unatractive to most viewers, and what really makes a match turn boring, as only one team may appear as trying to do something, taking more risks, while the other doesn't risk much staying back and mainly playing on occasional counters or simply by playing long balls.

    From basketball (specifically NBA), I would prefer to implement only "man to man" defending, where if by any chance a team decides to do zonal defending and gets caught on doing it, the other team gets a free kick from outside the penalty area ....
     
  14. HomietheClown

    HomietheClown Member+

    Dusselheim FC 1971
    Sep 4, 2010
    Club:
    --other--
    This was the old NBA rule as zonal defending is now allowed, but I get your point.
     
  15. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    There's a third possibility: Ball hits the arm/hand in an "unnatural position" without the hands moving towards the ball.
     
  16. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    If it hits the arms/hands in an unnatural position, it is considered as being a deliberate movement, which can be perfectly avoided but still being done, in which case it is handling, and therefore called as such, a handball.

    Once again, in this case, its "hands to the ball"
     
  17. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    true, but they replaced it with the 3 second rule, where no unguarded defender can stay within their zone more than 3 seconds, or else, their team gets sanctioned a technical.

    For football viewers, something like this would do wonders, as no bunkering would be possible (maybe even better than the man to man defending).
     
  18. celito

    celito Moderator
    Staff Member

    Palmeiras
    Brazil
    Feb 28, 2005
    USA
    Club:
    Palmeiras Sao Paulo
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    Absolutely not. You'd have defenses making more fouls on the side of the boxes to stop a dangerous play. Unless if you'd say the indirect free kick is always from the PK spot or another central location. But still, any rule change like this will have the unintentional consequence of the defense abusing the rule to their advantage.
     
    AlbertCamus repped this.
  19. celito

    celito Moderator
    Staff Member

    Palmeiras
    Brazil
    Feb 28, 2005
    USA
    Club:
    Palmeiras Sao Paulo
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    I'd have no problem with the Suarez goal. It'd have to be pretty clear that the ball was going in uncontested as it was in that case.
     
  20. celito

    celito Moderator
    Staff Member

    Palmeiras
    Brazil
    Feb 28, 2005
    USA
    Club:
    Palmeiras Sao Paulo
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    What ? Ok ... let's stop the game even more and give the other team possession. I think that'd be more annoying. Want to stop possession football ? Maybe the other team shouldn't park the bus. That's when it becomes annoying.
     
    Rickdog repped this.
  21. HomietheClown

    HomietheClown Member+

    Dusselheim FC 1971
    Sep 4, 2010
    Club:
    --other--
    It may get to the point where it is like in the National Basketball Assocoaition where they differentiate flagrant fouls/intentional fouls.
    Replay could help see if it was a blatant foul with no attempt at going for the ball and/or if it was just a clumsy play where a guy touches the ball with a hand or accidentally steps on a shoe inches in the box.
    But I see where you are going with this and it may just be easier to keep it the way it is.
     
  22. celito

    celito Moderator
    Staff Member

    Palmeiras
    Brazil
    Feb 28, 2005
    USA
    Club:
    Palmeiras Sao Paulo
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil

    That can be very subjective even on replay (attempt to play the ball).

    Ball to hand used to be indirect free kick in the box back in the day if I remember right.
     
  23. HomietheClown

    HomietheClown Member+

    Dusselheim FC 1971
    Sep 4, 2010
    Club:
    --other--
    #174 HomietheClown, Apr 27, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
    It is subjective and not easy to differentiate at times but sometimes it seems obvious. And I think there is a valid argument when someone says "Should we reward the same penalty to a blatant foul of an attempt at goal the same way we reward a penalty for a clumsy accidental foul way outside of goal with no realistic angle to score but it happens inches inside the box?" Or vice-versa.

    It may get too convoluted and confusing to nitpick and differentiate so things will probably stay the same but I can see both sides of the argument here.

    And I remember it being that way too on the hand ball issue.
     
  24. AlbertCamus

    AlbertCamus Member+

    Colorado Rapids
    Sep 2, 2005
    Colorado, USA
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    I like the way it is. Players should just not make clumsy fouls in the box. Guys score because defenders are afraid of making fouls. I don't want to go back to 1990 scoring rates.
     

Share This Page