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

Torturing this analogy even further, the issue IMO is that the grounding (ejection) is the same regardless of if you replace it (the PK) or not (DOGSO outside the box, which is just a direct kick from the spot of the foul). Those should not be equal punishments given that in one case the OGSO still exists, in the form of the PK, and in the other it doesn't.

 

Yeah and somehow the NCAA can bend the laws of space and time and make the last two minutes of a game in March madness last about 45 minutes

 

Wasn’t the reason that they put the DOGSO red into the laws was cynical fouls in the penalty area that prevented a goal/goal scoring opportunity? The original implementation treated both cynical fouls and standard careless fouls the same.

Where the law is now, it still provides for a red for a professional/cynical foul that denies the opportunity, but provides a means to have a less severe punishment for a normal careless foul.

The rule change allows the defender to be a bit more aggressive in challenges in the penalty area since the greater sanction being sent off isn’t as likely. They can defend a little more normally.

 

Oh okay I thought your objection was to the suspension, not the RC.

 

That’s how it was supposed to work in practice but in reality basically anything in the penalty area is expected to be a yellow now. Even some upper body fouls are given as yellow because it’s so expected now.

 

How about we eliminate the term "what football expects?"

 

After getting halfway through the first page and seeing bickering already beginning, I didn't bother reading the other 3.5 pages so maybe these were already mentioned and discussed:

• No more additional time and instead the referee indicating when the clock is to be stopped/started. This would be for instances where the referee is already (allegedly) added time (subs, injuries, time-wasting, etc.)
• The above leads to the half finishing at the 45- and 90-minute mark. Though not to the second like basketball or ice hockey. More like in rugby union where once the current phase is over, then the game ends.
• The advantage application being changed to where the referee signals it immediately but can bring it back for the foul if it doesn't materialize within 5–10 seconds. My observation is at least half of the advantages given don't end up being more beneficial than a freekick would have.
• Sin-bins being used for the more serious and impactful caution offences (dissent, DOGSO, delay restart).
• Dissent, both verbal and physical, actually being punished. Contact with an official actually resulting in a red card.
• Having the captain be the only player who is (generally) allowed to speak to the referee to question decisions and such.
• Allowing the communication between the referee and VAR to be broadcast in the stadium and on the broadcast so everyone (players knows what is being looked at, why it is being looked at, and how the decision came to be.

 

Wasn't one of the reasons for the Second Great Re-Write so that the LOTG would be more understandable to non-officials? At least, I remember being told that was one of the reasons.

 

Let me reiterate the law of unintended consequences….starting and stopping the watch will lead to halves that are 10-15 minutes longer than currently played. Trust me. High school stops/starts and some halves are ENDLESS slogs.

Match is 4-0. Stoppage time is announced as a minute, but if you changed the rule we’d only be around the 80 minute mark.

 

I remember being an AR for a junior college 10-0 blowout. Not only was the game terrible because one team dominated, but it took 2:45 to play because of stoppages for all the goals. You wouldn't think it would take that long, but with teams subbing after goals, the clock took longer to restart after goals.

 

Other sports do this very well.

 

A quick notification/announcement of what is being reviewed seems reasonable, but no way in my mind we should have the communication between VAR and the referee broadcast to the stadium while they're reviewing it. No other communication between CR and ARs are broadcast. I don't know why this would be any different.

 

1. Other's have commented about how this just doesn't work and leads to much longer games.
2. This isn't basketball or ice hockey. I've not heard of any legitimate reason to try and make it such. I also don't believe it works in basketball. It's a joke how the NBA has manipulated the end of the games to give every chance for a comeback and better ratings. I know you're not looking at that far, but that is the first thing I think of.
3. The referee has had the ability to bring back an advantage call within a few seconds. 10 seconds is LONG time on some plays, but is the amount of time the only thing you're asking for?
4. Being one player down for a short amount of time at the adult/professional level means little. This may have it advantages for youth games, especially teenagers who need to cool off, but in general I've always been against them. And I don't think we should change the game for people who need to cool off. Either learn to control yourself or sit out next week.
5. Asking to enforce the laws already on the books isn't really a change to the laws.
6. Is the reasoning to reduce dissent? If the referee actually cared, he'd discipline under the laws that are already there. This could tie the referee's hands in managing the game for sure.
7. I commented on this one already in reply to someone else. I'd rather allow the officials to get their job done than to have the entire stadium and teams reacting to every word they say. Referees have private communications all the time. I would be fine with announcing what is being reviewed only. Some leagues already do this.

 

Not something in the LOTG but something that varies widely in youth organizations ...

Sub on ANY stoppage, BUT ... stress that the ref doesn't have to allow the sub.

Rationale:

1. Youth coaches are often trying to balance playing time. Tough to do that when you don't get to sub for five minutes because you don't get a throw-in or a goal kick going your way.

2. The only reason not to allow subs is when they're being done cynically, to stop an attack or to waste time.

 

Isn't that already in the laws?

 

Kind of...it's in between the lines ("with the referee's permission" entails the not giving of permission).

 

I think Pittsburgh Ref is right. It's implied but not spelled out.

In fact, this interpretation (dated -- it's from 2012) is that a ref cannot deny a substitution unless the substitute isn't ready to come in: http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/manipulating-substitutions/

I'd like to see clarity on that and consistency in substitution rules across tournaments and leagues.

 

In the small sided Academy games I center, I tell the coaches before the game "It is my understanding you can sub at any stoppage with the permission of the referee. But if the attacking team has the restart in the attacking third, and the defending team is the only one with a sub at the midline, I don't generally allow the sub." They always understand then, and usually don't complain when it happens.

 

It’s a product of not being able to accept that added time clock procedure is superior.

So they are in fact amateurs.

 

I get what you’re saying but they are never likely to change that. If they do they are almost encouraging them to retaliate. And that opens up a whole mess of legal avenues for lawsuits.

 

Agreed but I think it would need to be more specific. I think we still want players to not be allowed to chase a spectator down on the pitch and clock him. We do want a player to be allowed to defend himself or others on the pitch if the spectator is violent or takes direct actions towards a player.