I think I've written this before, but I really wonder what the conversion rate is for IFKs within the PA (at least the ones very close to goal). And even if the CK is less of an actual scoring chance (let's say for xG purposes), it's still viewed as a standard scoring chance. So I just think the incentives for a referee might not shift that much. Literally giving a team a corner kick is still going to be a tough hill to climb mentally. That said, I do actually like your idea of "all attacking IFKs become short corners." If you were making that blanket change and had a standard restart that was a lot easier to administer and it was for very particular offences... you might have something there. Or maybe it could be an IFK all the way out at the corner of the penalty area... that could be interesting, too. I guess I just think the "there's no way you'd send me off for this" is right on par with "there's no way you're going to give them a corner kick in a one-goal game for this." Sure, in games with a larger margin in the scoreline you might get referees more willing to gamble with this. But surely the point is mostly for 1-goal games in the late stages. And I just don't see referees pulling the trigger. There's no historical evidence to support the idea they would.
Short of turning soccer referees into basketball referees where we physically have to do the six second count like basketball referees have to do when it comes to the 5 second in bound rule, there is no law change or instruction that will make referees enforce and punish goal keeper time wasting. And even basketball officials conveniently have a lag/delay built into their count when they get to 5. Even they give leeway in close games to the inbound team where they essentially get a 5.5 or 6 seconds to inbound the ball. As long as you give referees any discretion, leeway, and/or judgment when it comes to deciding what is time wasting they will always, always go low and look for a reason not to punish it. As @MassachusettsRef said turning the punishment for time wasting by a goal keeper into a corner kick instead of an IFK will not suddenly lead to a mass increase in referees suddenly pulling the trigger and awarding corner kicks for six seconds by the goal keeper. They just won't do it because no referee wants to be seen as a traffic cop/hall monitor deciding games on technicalities.
All fair points. I suppose I think it’s worth trying because what we have now isn’t working. For GKs a way to deal with it would be for Rs to signal they are adding time—and actually do it. Instead we see ARs caution a GK for delay during added time, and then still end right at the exact time they added. Being clear to everyone that the GK’s taking one for the team successfully shortened the game. For 6 seconds, since the ball is in p,ay, the R doesn’t have the option of adding time. I think the Game needs to find someway to stop the ridiculously long GK holding the ball routines. Right now there is no reason at all for a GK up by a goal to take less than 10-15 seconds to release then ball. Heck, even a TI for the other team at the penalty area line extended might do something to stop the nonsense. (Hey, how about a tiebreaker? We assign a timer to track how much time each GK holds the ball, and if the game is tied, the team with the shortest average time wins? And it could replace goal diffential in pool play too!!!)
Total aside, but that place is (at least in my eyes) surprisingly excellent. Niche museums run by organizations can often be underwhelming. Not so with this one. Just as a fan of the sport, it was great. And then there were a lot of referee nerd things, too. I thought all the attached were particularly cool/noteworthy. You can probably guess who wrote the report for the Uruguay-Italy match.
Hang on, do I mount my Valkeen (or Chinesium knockoff thereof) upside down on the flip grip or does Nishimura?
The "LinesWoman" badge is interesting by itself (it changed to Assistant Referee in 1996), but even more so is the letter which talks about trialing a timeout during the WWC.
That's why I took the photo the way I did! I was cognizant of WWC95 but didn't watch it (as I believe you couldn't in the US?) and you were in the pre-pervasive internet days (more or less). I had no idea about the timeout provision. And the lineswoman badge was interesting because I believe 1995 was the only year it existed (I'd be surprised if it existed in 1994, but I suppose it's possible).
Definitely agree this is a worthwhile place to go if you can. Was a really fascinating look at the history of the game and lots of referee trivia to enjoy (suspect most people who post on this board would enjoy it) interestingly I went there recently and the 1995 lineswoman badge and the ITA-URU report weren’t on display. They did have these which I thought were pretty interesting.
Yeah, my photos are from 2017. The ITA-URU report was from a temporary WC2014 section (downstairs--there probably is or might be a 2022 exhibit there now). And I believe the WWC95 stuff was in a dedicated women's section, so maybe the material there rotates in and out. The whistles you have were there; I just didn't take a picture! Three additional ones below that are interesting for our purposes (or likely to the audience here)--not sure if these are permanent or not.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/02/08/blue-cards-to-be-introduced-for-football-sin-bins/ Paywall - excerpts follow: A blue card is to be introduced to football as part of sin-bin trials to be announced on Friday. Telegraph Sport can reveal the game’s lawmakers, the International Football Association Board (Ifab), has signed off on what would be the first new card to be used in the sport. (…) The new protocol announced on Friday will limit the new card to fouls that prevent a promising attack plus dissent, as well as confirming a player should be shown a red card if they receive two blue cards during a match or a combination of yellow and blue. (…) Sin bins will not be used in this summer’s European Championship or next term’s Champions League after the president of UEFA, Aleksander Ceferin, told Telegraph Sport last month he was completely opposed to them, adding: “It’s not football anymore.” (…) The trials have been fast-tracked amid dire warnings from the IFAB’s leaders about player behaviour, of which they said: “This might be the cancer that kills football.” (…) my thoughts - I am not sure this is the solution to any of the problems discussed above. if referees aren’t using the tools they have (and have had for decades) what makes people think they’ll use the new ones. and for the record, yes, I think referees hold some of the responsibility for what’s happening in the game but pretty sure most of the issue isn’t due to referees. There’s a cultural shift in how the game is played and everything that surrounds it - can’t fix that in 90 minutes
[QUOTE="SouthRef, post: 42001142, member: I am not sure this is the solution to any of the problems discussed above. if referees aren’t using the tools they have (and have had for decades) what makes people think they’ll use the new ones. and for the record, yes, I think referees hold some of the responsibility for what’s happening in the game but pretty sure most of the issue isn’t due to referees. There’s a cultural shift in how the game is played and everything that surrounds it - can’t fix that in 90 minutes[/QUOTE] Refs don’t use tools because they are in the Laws; they use tools because those that oversee them and give them assignments want them to be used and reward them for doing so. I do think it is an improvement to get away from the idea that sin bin and caution are different. Sin bins for dissent will only help if accompanied by strong instructions to refs to sanction dissent and strong support for referees who do. Otherwise, it will simply reduce the frequency (already rare’ with which dissent is sanctioned (see the lack of impact when cautions to GKs for leaving the line early on PKs was introduced).
Just dumb. If Michael Oliver doesn't want to show a second yellow in the 25th minute of a Man City vs. Arsenal game because he "doesn't want to negatively affect the game by overreacting" what makes you think he's gonna give someone a second blue card or issue two blue cards to the same team for a single incident of dissent? The reaction in England to VAR has been overwhelmingly negative. I can't imagine the arbitrary nature of who gets sent to sin bins and who doesn't won't lead to similar outrage. Can't wait for the Dale Johnson paragraph of "why X player was sent to the sin bin and why X player wasn't."
Imagine the time wasting when you have your player in a sin bin. A throw in will take 45 seconds, a goal kick a minute and a half. Subs will take forever. Sin Bins will eventually get “binned” as they say in England.
Wow, it’s so cool seeing a referee match report from such a famous game, and it looks almost just like any written report you’d see grassroots referees fill out at any old tournament. There’s an irony that this report is in the museum and yet the most famous/notable incident in that game is not mentioned!
Same, and the color of each part is different. But I’m pretty sure the orientation shown in the picture is how it’s “supposed” to go. Whatever suits you, though!
As a fan, I think the blue card is a very stupid idea. The biggest reason is that as a fan, if I’m watching a match and there’s a blue card issued, I know that the next 10 minutes is going to be boring cynical time wasting 2 minute penalties work in hockey because hockey doesn’t use a running clock. Using timed penalties in a sport with a running clock is dumb.
While I don’t disagree a 10 minute 11v10 session will be a bus parking mess, it’s not really fair to compare it to a power play in hockey. The 5 on 4 power play is a significant advantage, so much so that the defense is allowed to ice the puck without a penalty to help balance it out. Playing 11v10 just isn’t that big of a deal, at least for professional teams.
I don't understand why they are introducing a new color of card....why not just make all YC's "sin-bin" offenses?
Because there is no desire at all to have that happen. All of the discussion has been around using it for certain offenses. Grass roots in England uses it for dissent; refs there have mixed feelings of how effective it is for game management.
https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/guidelines-for-temporary-dismissals/ Here's what I don't understand. We already have tools to handle all of these instances and referees refuse to use them. What makes them think referees are going to start enforcing them with an even stricter penalty of time out?
Don’t you remember? When they added cautions to PK encroachment by GKs stopped completely, as refs were happy to hand out both the retake and the caution. Oh, wait, no, nothing changed at all in GK behavior, as they still knew it wasn’t going to get called. It only stopped when VAR was used to monitor and encroachment was actually enforced. (Yet IFAB clings to the wholly unnecessary caution (albeit watered down) so they don’t have to admit how stupid the idea was in the first place.) Competition authorities demanding cautions for dissent and supporting cards given is what will change behavior. SPA is an interesting difference though. Right now, players happily take the SPA caution because they think it’s worth it. If they also have to sit 10, it might not be worth it to take one for the team anymore, so it could reduce the incidence. But unless competitions are strong on it being enforced, the stronger punishment will lead to it being called less.