KFTM to win a knock-out match: Instead, after FT, each team gets to choose one or two players from the opposition (not GK, and can't be more than one from each position group) that must leave the pitch. Play two more 5 min halves. Then again, pick, reduce, but start shortening the pitch, no more PA. Do this until someone scores, or you reach 4 v 4 5 v 5 or something. Oh, and the FIRST 5 minutes are to full extra time, golden goal starts in second OT period. Pretty soon, people will start wanting KFTM back and maybe will shut up.
After the 1st couple days of Euro qualifiers for the Women's World Cup saw several games with lopsided scores like 10-0, I guess it's time to revive my suggestion of capping the goal differential at, say, +5 or +6, for any single match for the purpose of tiebreakers. So a team which wins 10-0 only gets credited for the maximum of +5 for the match. Why would we place greater importance on whether a team wins 8-0 or 12-0 against a weak opponent as opposed to getting that 2nd or 3rd goal against a good opponent in group play? It won't end lopsided results but it could encourage teams to show some class and sportsmanship in the final minutes of regulation or in stoppage time and not press for one more goal (or two!) against a demoralized opponent. This is more a matter of rules of a competition or tournament than Laws of the Game but we've talked about at least one other suggestion like it here: using the ABBA method for PK Shootouts, an idea I heartily endorse. The 3 simple but good changes to competition formats I can think of are Capping or limiting the goal-differential used in tiebreakers to a maximum of +5 per game Using ABBA in PK shootouts Jonathan Wilson's idea on yellow-card accumulations — wipe out the group stage yellow cards AFTER the Round of 16 games (or quarterfinals if that's the first knockout round). That way a player in the final group-stage game can't play cynically knowing their yellow card will be immediately wiped out
My rule: if 4-0, then the leading team must have a player off the field. If 6-0, then the leading team must have two players off the field.
That is a common youth rec league rule. Doing that at the professional/international level would not make sense. One thing the local league here did this year was allow the losing team to add players as opposed to the winning team removing players. This helped in not hurting the playing time of the players on the winning team which is often difficult to manage under normal circumtances.
I'm not sure how you'd write this because there could be some unintended consequences. During a PK or KFTM, if a GK comes off the line early, BUT doesn't interfere with the kick (kicker doesn't put it on frame, it hits the frame of the goal and doesn't go in, etc), it's not a retake.
Does that apply to NFHS also? We had a KFTM to determine the winner, ball hit the post and rebounded back into the field. Refs said our GK left early and had the guy retake the kick (which he made).
Doesn't look like it. The magic table says it's a retake when the GK offends and a goal isn't scored.
Milan coach Stefano Pioli calls for a backcourt violation rule Milan coach Stefano Pioli says a backcourt violation rule could lead to more attacking football 👀 pic.twitter.com/0KNwa9MxyE— B/R Football (@brfootball) September 24, 2021 Of course the basic motivation is sound. Of course a single line for the purpose (the halfway line) won't work in soccer as it does for basketball. But what would work is disallowing teams from bringing the ball all the way back into their own 18-yard box and playing it there. This is the most conservative way to implement the idea and make it harder for teams when they simply want to play "keep-away". The older version of the idea I had was to add "blue lines" roughly around 35 yards from the endlines (Not literally blue but dividing the playing surface roughly into thirds the way ice hockey is). But this may be simpler, a more gradual change to the game, and doesn't require drawing new lines on the pitch.
Many don't even know the pre-passback days when teams would pass the ball back to their keeper who would stand around with it at his feet until an attacker got down that far just to make the keeper pick it up. The single line backcourt I can think of many reasons it would be horrible. Not allowing the ball back into their PA feels like it wouldn't do much with the keeper just playing it from top of the 18. It takes a few yards off the retreat, but really not enough to make any difference. Assuming we don't want other lines, maybe we take the passback rule one step further and not let the keeper touch the ball at all if the ball has passed the half, come back, and not been touched by the other team. Certainly a little bit better. I feel like this is a tough one to balance.
You could be right but it seems worth a try. 18 yards is almost a third of the typical "backcourt". How many times do teams not bother to press hard knowing their opponent has all that real estate to play keep-away in? Now if there was an over-and-back rule, when the GK is no longer a last resort (at least in the safety and comfort of their PA where they can use their hands if things started going really wrong), there's much better odds of a press succeeding. It's worth a try since it uses the existing lines. If it doesn't make enough difference, the next step would be to consider "blue lines" somewhere around 30 yards from the endline
I don't know what the answer is or if I'm even in favor of stopping teams from playing it back and looking for a better plan forward. The lines seem excessive to me. As with other major proposed changes, IF it's a priority then I'd like to see how it affects play at lower levels. If the goal is to have attacking play, adjusting the rules of the attack may be better. I'd rather try something like eliminating offside within 18 yards if the ball was last played inside the 18. In my mind, offside is to stop cherry picking and long balls. So why are we punishing teams for receiving a ball crossed from 15 yards from goal to a player 12 yards from goal? I'm sure there will be issues with that, but if we open that up more then we could get more opportunities once in the attacking end without affecting the nature of the game.
I don't know if a couple more lines ("blue lines") are excessive but I'm happy to try avoiding them, hence the idea to use the existing 18-yard box.* As for offside I agree with your basic reasoning. I've wondered about it, too. Are you sure you want to encourage me?! I seem to subscribe to enough heresies as it is! If you like it, you like it. But then probably a lot of people were content with the passback days and objected to any tinkering of the rules back then, too * For you ice hockey fans familiar with the rule changes to widen the blue lines, you can (if it amuses you) picture this as making a really really big blue line — and irregular in shape, too! Going all the way from the center to the 18-yard box and even going around the 18-yard box.
I would change that if any foul happens to the keeper when they are in possession of the ball (ball kicked from their hands, a regular or even reckless YC foul, etc.), that it should be a drop ball to the keeper to allow them the choice of what to do with the ball as if they hadn't been fouled instead of a DFK. GKs already really kind of have their own set of rules in practice now so it shouldn't be a big deal and I don't think many players/coaches would even care or even notice about a fouled GK keeping possession vs. a DFK.
With a new rule for YCs for Tactical Fouls In the Box (TFIB), this could be a yellow card even though Sophia Smith scored the goal. Sophia Smith!#PORvHOU | 2 - 2 pic.twitter.com/2t6iJQgPw8— The Equalizer (@EqualizerSoccer) October 7, 2021 Fortunately, Smith kept her feet here and scored but how often do we see the scoring chance diminish because the attacker can only get off a weak shot or the keeper's able to take advantage of the split second to cut down the angle now that they don't have to worry about being caught in no-man's land?
Ok. The LOTG in soccer is ********ing backwards in one aspect: There's but one official with a whistle, two schmucks with flags, a couple blind mice in the VAR booth, and a sideline asshole whose job could be done by an inanimate object in the 4th official. In tennis, there can be as many as 11 officials on the court. In the NBA, there are two with whistles, plus a sideline crew. In the NFL, there are 7 officials. In the NHL, there are 4 on ice officials, all with whistles, plus a few video officials as well. It ain't that hard to figure out how to have more than one person with a whistle, IMO. For me, the 4th official in soccer is the most useless waste of time and money in all of sports officiating. His/her job could be done by an inanimate object, such as a digital sign. For me, there's a better way: 1. ********ing replace the ********ing 4th official with a digital sign that can show the minutes of injury time and/or substitutions. It ain't ********ing 1975 any more, we have tech to replace the 4th official's role. 2. Move the 4th official onto the pitch with a whistle; the two center officials can then share the pitch rather than forcing ONE official to cover the entire pitch.
The NBA has 3 officials with whistles and instant replay. The 4th official is there as an alternate, in case the center referee or either assistant gets hurt. However, I do get your point about having the fourth official work on the field as a second referee with a whistle. Either R2 (the modified 4th official) would run on a diagonal track opposite the referee, or he would run up and down in parallel with the referee in an arrangement similar to Lead and Trail officials in a 2-official system. The difference is that neither referee would worry about offsides, because the ARs will be responsible for offside calls.
Why the hate towards a 4th? This reads like you've either had a completely inept 4th official or never have done a game where you actually benefited from having a 4th. managing the bench is a lifesaver in bigger matches. It also gives you an area where, with the right communication, you can have an extra set of eyes to help you on tight decisions. I don't love the idea of more whistles on the field. The downside is that subjective calls are different on one end compared to the other. The other sports you listed all have this problem. On one end of the court the key is allowed to be an area the big guys can battle, on the other you can't touch each other. That's dumb. It is hard enough to get consistency out of a single ref, asking multiple people to employ a consistent subjective line on fouls is damn near impossible. I think two more AR's that cover the two "open" sidelines in the current diagonal could help more, but would be a pain in the ass in deciding offside and in/out of play near midfield.
Actually, I find the being a 4th Official is more difficult than being a center referee. If done properly, a 4th Official is not just standing there for subs and injury time. A 4th Official should be managing the benches throughout the game; it's always fun to listen to the coaches when they don't like a call! They should also be watching the field to see if anything goes unnoticed by the referee.
Yup. I think the single referee with a single ultimate decisionmaker using his 'advisors' properly is a huge advantage over the other sports mentioned. It only becomes a problem if you have a really bad CR who also refuses to use his ARs, 4th, & VARs the way they are intended.
This is exactly what I had in mind. I've had some of the better matches, as both a ref and as a player with lead and trail.