six seconds starting when? If your team is ahead, the keeper now falls to the ground intentionally. and lies there six seconds. simulation for the drop to the ground?
I don't hate the idea of the start/stop clock, but also agree that you need to reduce the time from 90 mins to something much more reasonable in that scenario if you're going to stop the clock at every stoppage. I'm sure somebody has done research to figure out how much time the ball spends in play in the average match. I think it wouldn't be a bad thing for everyone to know how much time is left in a game. MLS had the countdown clock in the old days. Of course this wouldn't probably be applicable at lower levels. One argument used to be that the game was the same at all levels if you left it on the wrist of the referee. Of course now that we've got VAR the notion that the game is the same is well and truly abandoned. Personally I wish the referees would enforce the current laws more
I want some way that we can reduce dissent from players. This probably won't work, but something like only the team captains are allowed to talk to/at the referees; all others will be cautioned for doing so.
In other field sports ( Rugby, Lacrosse, football) referees are not at all shy about punishing the slightest dissent. Consequently, there is none.
I wouldn't mind implementing the "sin bin" on matches with a fourth official. Use it for dissent at minimum. I'm not sure what else I would use it for. But a temporary send off for dissent would cut down on it.
I agree with the need to reduce dissent. The problem is that there is only one sanction for all the things players do.....a yellow card. And if referees started actually sanctioning players with a YC for dissent, time wasting, faking injuries, etc. games would end up 5v5. Part of the problem is that there is no intermediate sanction written into the LOTG.....it's a yellow card or nothing.
I think "consequently" jumps to a conclusion that, at mnimum, is not easily provable. I've always been fascinated by the differences in officiating between soccer and rugby. But I don't think the vast discrepancies in overall player behavior are simply down to how referees act. I think an argument can be made that the culture of the respective games and their initial evolutions led to how referees acted, rather than vice versa. I also think the geographic developments of the two sports and the various social and political cultures where the games evolved also played a role. I've said before that there is probably a fascinating graduate thesis or doctoral for someone to produce on this. Because I don't think it's simple as "referees punish dissent, therefore there isn't any." To come at it another way, baseball punishes certain types of dissent with immediate ejections yet... it's part of the theater of the sport.
Whose "problem," though? This is where your response to @Pierre Head above is lacking in my eyes. Sure, you're not the only person who doesn't like some aspects of the LOTG. Everyone has something they would change personally because we are all human and not everyone agrees on everything. But, guess what? It's the most popular sport in the world for a reason. You start making major changes that aren't flat-out being demanded by some key constituencies (e.g. passback rule, DOGSO-yellow, VAR) and you're exposing the sport to serious risk. You're actually doing it with those type of changes, but at least there's evidence that a large group wants the given change. Where is the groundswell movement for an intermediary punishment between nothing and a yellow card? Which consituency of our game is going to leave if they don't get that and what new constituency is going to be attracted when it comes? If a change isn't mean to grow the game or prevent people from leaving it, what's the point (aside from more minor changes around general efficiency)? This thread may be a fun theoretical exercise (again, my argument for a semi-circle penalty area is real). But when we start saying things like "the problem is..." we have to demonstrate it really is a problem. And the vast, vast, vast majority of things that get complaints are not really problems. Because, if the sport had that many problems, it wouldn't be the most popular one in the world.
The fact that it's the most popular sport in the world (a questionable assertion given the popularity of the NBA) doesn't obscure the fact that there are many areas of the game that could be improved. Soccer is a "product", and smart managers/executives are always looking for ways to improve their product and make it more attractive to consumers. Just because it is popular now doesn't mean it's going to stay popular forever. The LOTG have not been significantly changed in a very long time....the game as it is played today is virtually identical to the game as it was 100 years ago. Meanwhile, pretty much every other major sport has made significant changes to the way their games are played (football and hockey added the forward pass, basketball added the 3-pt shot, baseball lowered the mound and added the DH, etc). It's about time soccer considered doing so as well. I'm someone who spends a lot of time around "causal" soccer fans....and believe me, there are a lot of things about the current rules that they find puzzling and would like to see changed.
A quick google search of viewership numbers shows that soccer is definitely more popular. The laws having not changed in a long time is a negative? If so, why and what evidence do you have for that claim? Change is often a good thing, but you haven't made the case for any major changes being needed, other than possibly changing the shape of the PA. Comparisons to other sports are basically useless because of their different natures, histories, social aspects, etc. There's a beauty in the simplicity of the game--if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it hasn't majorly changed in 100 years, that probably means there's something to how it's played, i.e., the "founders" got it right. There are some things that can be improved, of course. But to say a major overhaul is needed is baseless. The plural of anecdote isn't data, especially in today's echo chambers. I also hang out with casual soccer fans and I've never heard complaints about anything you've listed--the complaints I've heard have primarily been about diving and VAR.
No. If the time-wasting, dissent, simulation etc. were punished with YCs on a consistent basis, players would adjust very quickly and the number of YCs wouldn't be all that different. When I'm playing, if I notice that a ref is calling certain kinds of fouls very tight, I'm going to adjust my style of play to take that into account.
What? There's like, orders of magnitude, between the popularity of the NBA and soccer. Even if you expanded it to basketball vs. soccer its still not close.
I’d remove cards shown for coaches. Waste of time and energy trying to remember the stupid differences between what is considered a “warning”, caution or send off.
While I largely agree at the professional level, I think cards for coaches have been a great thing for youth soccer for two reasons. One, it is greater clarity to the coach of the warning. Two, for youth referees and other new referees, it is much easier and less scary to implement to change coach behavior. Given that the vast majority of the games covered by the LOTG are not-professional, I think they should absolutely remain in the Laws.
The problem is that in the instances I’ve seen now with the send offs and cautions it’s become a game to quibble over the right punishment was issued for the particular behavior. Which can’t have been surprising since we see so many arguments over the things the players do with regard to misconduct. If all that we cared about was the visual display then that’s all that needed to be added. But still leave the determination of what level of misconduct has been achieved up to the referees interpretation of behaving responsibly.
Exactly. The behaviors we all want to see less of would decrease.... The problem is that because 2YC=RC, refs are hesitant to give out YC's for "minor" infractions like these. That's why many people are advocating for some sort of hockey-style "sin bin" approach combined with the elimination of 2YC=RC. Players would face a more serious immediate sanction for a YC offense, and refs would become more willing to give out YC's since they would no longer have to worry about being perceived as having "decided the match" by giving out a second yellow.
While I agree with you that it SHOULD work that way. All that will happen is then the complaint will be is that the offence wasn’t worth making them play down for a period of time.
I will say that one of the best things about the sport is that it's played in a defined, reasonably short time window. My wife is a great example of this. If it weren't for our son loving the game so much, I am positive she wouldn't pay any attention to soccer. But he plays, and she watches a lot of matches (from his U13 games all the way up to elite international matches on TV). The two things she loves about the sport are the reasonably continuous action (she doesn't like baseball or American football because of this) and that a typical game is done close to 2 hours (why she doesn't like American football). I've also listened to Keith Tozer's World of Futsal podcast, and he's mentioned on more than one occasion that television likes two-hour windows for live events (his words, not mine). I think futsal matches are closer to the 1 hour, 15-20 minute time frame. To the overall topic of this thread, I respect that many (if not all) of these ideas will not ever be implemented. Others may eventually be implemented. However, it's completely acceptable to generate ideas about how we could envision the game in the future. Soccer is a great game, but it's not perfect. Ideas like the shot clock and 3-point shot were once ridiculed in basketball. We've seen changes like DOGSO, the passback law, and the evolution of the offside law over the years in soccer.
I'd be totally fine with that. But I think it is actually largely captured with the "usually" in front of warnings and the "but not limited to" language before cautions and send offs. So in my world, I'm not focused on the magic list, but simply the level of conduct. (If anything, the list is harsher from a technical perspective than I am going to be in the level of games I do).
Gee, pity that IFAB hasn't thought of this and put into the magic book as an option for competitions to choose. Oh, wait, they did, and its been being used in many places for several years.
OK....here's my case: First, there are three types of player behaviors that are pretty much universally despised because of the fact that they make the game less enjoyable to watch: 1) dissent 2) time-wasting 3) professional fouls which stop exciting counter-attacks in their tracks The current LOTG do not do enough to prevent these player behaviors, and therefore need to be updated/modified. Second, offside has become too "factual" and disassociated from both the context of the play and the original purpose of the offsides law (which was/is to prevent attackers from gaining an unfair advantage over defenders). As others have pointed out, no matter where you put the "offside line" its still a line. Therefore the solution might be to use less technology and to take the context of the play into consideration i(where was the offside on the pitch, by how much was the attacker offside, how long did the offside take place before the goal was scored, was the goal-scorer the player who was offside) in order to determine whether or not the advantage gained by the attacker who was marginally offside was in fact, unfair. Nobody likes seeing goals like the Pogba-Mbappe-Benzema combo for France ruled out after the fact by VAR because a player was offside by a couple of inches 5+ seconds before the goal was scored and 40-50 yards away from goal. Third....reducing high-stakes, match-changing PK calls....I discussed this in my OP, so won't restate myself again except to say that very few fans like seeing matches decided by controversial PK's in which the foul committed by the defender was not DOGSO (i.e. was at the edges of the box and/or not during a shot attempt on goal). Lastly...handball.....while the implementation of the law has gotten much better over the past year, with fewer PK's being awarded for questionable handballs, the law itself is still a mess. I would note that the law states that handball needs to be intentional to be an infraction, and that the attempt to ascribe "intent" to body position/shape and to determine whether or not they were "natural" is utterly idiotic. As a friend noted, having arms akimbo while in motion is actually much more natural than having arms crossed behind one's back, yet it is the latter "unnatural" position that is rewarded while the "natural" position is punished. And common sense dictates than "intent" requires purposeful action, i.e. a defender moving his hand/arm to block the shot/cross/pass after the ball is struck by the attacker. Anyway, that's my case.....feel free to shred it.... I'll just close by stating that no matter how successful something currently is, only those who are arrogant and complacent ignore the need to continually adapt and improve. Imagine if Apple had decided to stop trying to improve the iPhone after the first version was released because it was already the most popular mobile phone on the planet. Yes, soccer is very popular as is. That doesn't mean that it can't be improved.
My soccer genie wish would be for refs to have the ability to call fouls in the box, but choose not to award a PK. I would love the ability to award a DFK instead of PK. I hate it when I have a player in the box, but headed away from the goal and they get bumped (fouled) and my only choices are PK or nothing. I believe that many refs hesitate to call fouls in the box because the punishment can often be way out of proportion to the offense. And as a result, you get inconsistency on what is or is not called. And often no call at all. I know this would put all the pressure on the ref, and lead to tons of arguments about why they did not call a PK, but isn't the pressure on us already to call the PK. I think it would lead to more (legitimate) foul calls in the box and the excitement of a DFK close to the goal, instead of a no call. My 2nd wish is the sin-bin. The ability to tell a player to get out of my face and go have a time out for 2 minutes would be wonderful. And I believe it would lead to great reduction in dissent after a few seasons of diligent use by all of us. And yes, there would be tons of unintended consequences as teams stall while short handed, and the PITA of who is keeping track. I just feel like the all or nothing nature of cards does not give us enough tools to control the game (some games).
Not going to bother. Your case, and other comments, show your lack of knowledge of the existing Laws, so I see no point in further discussing with you how they should be changed. Your comments are more suited to a fan discussion board than a referee one.
Simplify the penalty kick. Make it more like a KFTM situation. Though in this case the restart after any sort of miss is a goal kick.