If you could change the LOTG, what changes would you make?

Discussion in 'Referee' started by mfw13, Jun 16, 2021.

  1. mfw13

    mfw13 Member+

    Jul 19, 2003
    Seattle
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    Not sure if this is the best forum for this thread, but I couldn't find any specifically for discussion of the LOTG.

    Anyway, title is self-explanatory....here's what I would do.....

    1) Move to start-stop timing, like in the NBA, where the clock always stops when the ball is out of play. It's not just the injuries and VAR checks...it's the 60-90 seconds from when free kicks near the box/PK's are awarded until they are actually taken, as well as all the other time-wasting.

    2) Change the offside rule so as to require clear daylight between the attacker and defender for the attacker to be offside. If any part of the attacker is onside, then the play is onside. Pretty much the opposite of how things are now. I'm tired of seeing terrific goals ruled out for marginal offsides calls. Another option worth considering/testing would be an offside line (as in hockey).

    3) Change the shape of the penalty box and move the penalty spot back, in an effort to reduce the number of high-stakes PK decisions and make them less contentious by reducing conversion rates. I would favor an 18-20 yard semi-circle with the focal point being the midpoint of the goal line and the penalty spot being at 18-20 yards instead of 12.

    I would also continue to modify the interpretation of handball (although I'm not sure this would require a change to the LOTG) to emphasize the intentionality and reaction time aspects, i.e. it's not handball unless the defender actively moved his hand/arm into position to contact the ball AFTER the ball was struck by the attacking player.
     
  2. code1390

    code1390 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 25, 2007
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    On 2) that doesn't eliminate marginal offside calls. It just changes the line. You'll still have calls where the player is on or off by millimeters.
     
  3. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    As you know from the other thread, three is something I favor (the semi-circle, not the moving the penalty spot back).

    @code1390 nails #2. You're just re-arranging deck chairs with that.

    I couldn't disagree more strongly on #1, and I know some serious people are pushing it. It would just change the game so much. There's a beauty in knowing, basically, that you have a 2-hour window to watch a soccer game. If that means the ball is only in play for 55-60 minutes, so be it. The game has gone on like this since its inception and only grown in popularity. I have never understood the desire to make the sport more like less popular sports by completely revamping the timekeeping. If we think we can squeeze out 5-10 more minutes of the ball in play, there are ways to do it without changing to a stop/start clock that will result in 3.5 hour games.
     
  4. Pierre Head

    Pierre Head Member+

    Dec 24, 2005
    Pointless discussion IMO!

    PH
     
  5. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, that too! But I felt like being generous since my comment elsewhere helped prompt #3.
     
    frankieboylampard and Pierre Head repped this.
  6. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    I agree with the responses above that 1 and 2 are bad ideas. I like 3, but the odds of it ever happening are about the same as me reffing a world cup game.

    On things that are at least remotely possible, some thoughts are

    4. Get rid of the stupid caution to GKs for moving too soon
    5. Change IFKs in the PA to a short corner taken from the intersection of the PA and GL
    6. Rewrite the language of Law 11 to be more readable (in particular, get rid of "gaining an advantage," as the words are totally unaligned with the meaning)
    7. Adjust the 6 second rule to get to something close to enforcement--R warns at 6 actual seconds and whistles the infraction 3 seconds later.
    8. Simplify the offenses off the field and other things that almost never happen that become traps for the referee to get restarts wrong in the unlikely event they happen
    9. Abolish VAR (oops, these were supposed to be things remotely possible . . .)
     
  7. DaveRef

    DaveRef New Member

    Buffalo Stallions
    Jun 13, 2010
    Geneseo, NY
    Club:
    Rochester Rhinos
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Given the recent evolution of the dropped ball, I wonder if it could ever morph into something that does not require direct referee intervention besides a whistle. Place the ball on the ground at spot of stoppage, all others 4m away, referee blows whistle, player awarded "drop" can continue play however they choose, with the exception of scoring a goal before the ball has touched another player.

    Our state's HS org required IFKs in place of DBs during COVID-19 with all of the Rule 13 crap that goes along with it... Seems like it would be easy to administer a "drop ball (NFHS term)" without the drop.

    Is that ridiculous?
     
  8. mfw13

    mfw13 Member+

    Jul 19, 2003
    Seattle
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    Yes, that's true. But you'll have fewer goals being ruled offside. That's the purpose of my suggestion.

    Yesterday's Pogba-Mbappe-Benzema combination was a thing of beauty....it was a shame to see the goal ruled out because Mbappe's knee was six inches ahead of the defender (which gained him a miniscule competitive advantage, if any).
     
  9. code1390

    code1390 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 25, 2007
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Won't attackers just adapt their runs in an attempt to still be barely onside? We would probably have more goals, but not fewer being ruled offside. I also think it would be such a huge advantage to the attacking team that defenses would probably have to adapt and play deeper and it could actually hurt the game in terms of entertainment.
     
  10. mfw13

    mfw13 Member+

    Jul 19, 2003
    Seattle
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    This is a discussion board....90% of the threads on all discussion boards (including BigSoccer) are pointless.....that's doesn't mean it's not fun to discuss things anyway.

    Why bother to post on a discussion board to state that the discussion is pointless ???
     
    AremRed, Scrabbleship, akindc and 7 others repped this.
  11. mfw13

    mfw13 Member+

    Jul 19, 2003
    Seattle
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    Perhaps.....

    But I'd still like to see the idea tested out by FIFA.....would be a great idea to test in 3rd/4th divisions around the world....
     
  12. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    I'm not convinced it would result in more goals. It would force defenses to bunker more as high lines would become substantially riskier. So I think the result is likely both fewer goals and less attractive soccer in trying to get those goals. I don't see any upside to it at all.

    I also think that for those of us not relying on VAR it would be harder to AR than it is now. What exactly does daylight mean? Does it mean we only consider torsos? or are we trying to compare lead foot with trail foot?
     
    Beau Dure repped this.
  13. MetroFever

    MetroFever Member+

    Jun 3, 2001
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    Croatia
    Not an issue at the pro level obviously, but it would be this one regarding throw-ins:

    Law 15.1- "If the ball touches the ground before entering, the throw-in is retaken by the same team from the same position".

    Remove the whole sentence.
     
    superdave repped this.
  14. TheRealBilbo

    TheRealBilbo Member+

    Apr 5, 2016
    Doesn’t this more or less convert the drop ball into an indirect free kick? If drop balls are now non-competitive, then why not change them to IFKs?
     
    voiceoflg repped this.
  15. DaveRef

    DaveRef New Member

    Buffalo Stallions
    Jun 13, 2010
    Geneseo, NY
    Club:
    Rochester Rhinos
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It doesn't make it an IFK... 1) Ball can be dribbled by the taker if they choose (no 2nd touch violation); 2) Opponents only 4m away; 3) Goalkeeper can play ball with hands if desired. Only change I propose is that the referee no longer drops the ball, but uses a whistle to declare it ready for play.
     
  16. Pierre Head

    Pierre Head Member+

    Dec 24, 2005
    Because it is!
    Most other topics discussed here are interesting and worthwhile.
    Crackpot ideas about changing the LOTG because one person doesn't like them are worthless. This kind of thing has been coming out (especially from the US) for decades.
    The fact is that the Laws are changed only gradually, and initiated by a small number of people in positions of authority. Input may be taken from member associations, top level clubs, and prominent figures in the playing and refereeing areas. Many suggestions even from these sources are rejected. They couldn't care less what some obscure person somewhere in the world thinks should be changed.

    PH
     
  17. Pierre Head

    Pierre Head Member+

    Dec 24, 2005
    Suggest this be locked before someone proposes that players be allowed to pick up the ball and run with it, because it would be more exciting. :D

    PH
     
    frankieboylampard, socal lurker and Geko repped this.
  18. TheRealBilbo

    TheRealBilbo Member+

    Apr 5, 2016
    #18 TheRealBilbo, Jun 16, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2021
    Something should be done here, in combination with the fact that defenders can’t prevent the goal keeper from releasing the ball into play. It seems that there is an informal allowance to the goal keeper for the time it takes attacking team to retreat.

    Six seconds is often not enough time on a play with multiple attackers inside the area, and the keeper going to ground to make a save.

    Maybe the 6 seconds doesn’t start until all opponents have left the penalty area… this will motivate the attack to pull out of the PA, and maybe encourage quicker release by the keeper if enforced.

    Edit to add that once the attacker is required to be outside the PA, it essentially eliminates the need for the rule about preventing the goal keeper release. The goal keeper will have plenty of room to safely release the ball into play.
     
    superdave repped this.
  19. mfw13

    mfw13 Member+

    Jul 19, 2003
    Seattle
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    That's a reasonable perspective. My question to you then is what other suggestions do you have to deal with the time-wasting that is endemic (and boring to watch) at the end of games? Refs flashing the occasional YC isn't getting it done, and time added on is a farce, because refs never add on enough time to make up for all the time that is being wasted (although they're doing a much better job now than they used to).

    Perhaps some sort of compromise might work, with the clock stopping for formal breaks in play (injuries, VAR reviews, substitutions, setting up DFK's and PK's), but not for throw-ins, goal kicks, & corner kicks.

    However, as long as you tolerate time-wasting, and refs get better at adding on the correct amount of time, games are going to get longer no matter what timekeeping method you use.
     
    espola repped this.
  20. mfw13

    mfw13 Member+

    Jul 19, 2003
    Seattle
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    If you think that I'm the only person who doesn't like many aspects of the current LOTG, you must be really out of touch with the everyday fan.

    None of the ideas I mentioned are "crackpot" ideas, nor did they originate with me. I'm just the person who started a thread about them...

    If you don't think this topic is worthy of discussion...fine. Then just stop reading and posting on this thread....
     
  21. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think I would start by challenging the implied premise (at least if you take it to its logical conclusion) that anyone really wants or needs 90 minutes of the ball in play. I know you didn't actually say that. And I know the most serious proposal calls or a 60-minute stopped clock. But I think that needs to be clearly stated when these discussions pop up. Because people end up talking past each other.

    If one's goal is 90 minutes of ball-in-play time, then they're nuts. We already have players stretched to their limits at the professional level with fixture congestion. You make players active for that much time and you'll end up slowing indiviidual games and burning players out quicker than they already are doing in the current system. It's an impossible goal that no one should hold if they actually stop and think about it. It would make games unwatchable and the sport worse as a consumer product.

    So, if you're goal is to get to 60 minutes of ball-in-play time, I'd point out that you're not too far off already and the problem is not as big as it appears you suggest. Moving to a 60-minute stopped clock is a cosmetic change that I just don't think is necessary or serves the game, as I said above. Anyway, the first Google hit on this topic shows a study that had the ball in play for 56 minutes in the Bundesliga. I also know that FIFA has touted progress at major tournaments when they've seen measurable improvement. The point here is that small changes--like instructing referees to truly account for lost time--has helped. If the goal is marginal gains in time, many competitions get them and have sustained them in recent years. MLS went from an era where referees were told not to add too much time for television considerations to one where VARs are helping ensure all time lost is accounted for. If some competitions--cough, CONCACAF--aren't as serious about recovering lost time, they are becoming more and more of outliers.

    In sum, I think (or maybe hope) your issue is with very specific acts of objectionable timewasting. To which my answer is for competition authorities to continue to drill into referees that they should be carding such behavior AND accounting for the lost time. This is on referees.

    On the other hand, if you really have an issue with the ball being out of play for 25-32 minutes or whatever of a 90-minute match, I'd simply suggest you need another sport. Because 90 minutes of ball-in-play time isn't happening. It would be awful.
     
    GlennAA11 repped this.
  22. RefIADad

    RefIADad Member+

    United States
    Aug 18, 2017
    Des Moines, IA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm also much more in favor of a futsal-style penalty area. I know "that's the way we've always done it" and that sort of thing, but it just seems logical

    Regarding 5, another potential option would be to take the IDFK from the top of the penalty arc. That would be the same distance from goal (22 yards) as what you're saying. However, I can absolutely support the "short corner" or even a traditional corner kick for an IDFK. I would imagine even attacking teams would prefer having a bit more room for those types of kicks.
     
    Beau Dure and DefRef repped this.
  23. RefIADad

    RefIADad Member+

    United States
    Aug 18, 2017
    Des Moines, IA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Since we're doing "blue sky ideas" here, I'd consider two separate ideas for penalty areas.

    1) A single futsal-style penalty area with the top 16-18 yards from goal. For goal kicks, I'd give the keeper a distribution where he could either release with his hands or set the ball and kick it from a dead ball situation. So, in other words, basically what you suggested but slightly smaller.

    2) A more radical idea (and one I wouldn't support because there would be too many subjective calls around the SPA/DOGSO fouls) would be two futsal-style semicircles. One is marked at 12 yards and the other at 22 yards. Any foul in the 12-yard semicircle is a penalty kick from 12 yards. Any SPA or DOGSO foul in the 22-yard circle is a penalty kick from the top of the 12-yard circle. Otherwise, the attackers get a direct free kick from the closest point on the 22-yard circle. The theory behind this would be to not award penalty kicks from those fouls where the attacker has no real chance to score but is still fouled in the area that is currently the penalty area.

    Like I said, 2) is pretty radical and something that I would never see practically applied. But it's fun to think through some of these things!
     
  24. threeputzzz

    threeputzzz Member+

    May 27, 2009
    Minnesota
    Dissent towards a match official shall result in a goal being awarded to the opposing side, and parents of players are not permitted to attend matches :).
     
    kolabear, Beau Dure, jayhonk and 6 others repped this.
  25. mfw13

    mfw13 Member+

    Jul 19, 2003
    Seattle
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    Actually, it isn't any more radical than having both a 6-yd box and an 18-yd box.....
     

Share This Page