And what’s the problem with that? Yet again, another problem that soccer has to “fix” becuase it’s the only sport in the world where endless time wasting is a plague. Baseball was one of the last competitors in that space, and even they made the pitch clock which has revolutionized the game. If they’re not going to deviate from a running clock, then great, do everything you can on every restart to facilitate quick restarts of play. I mean look at that agenda. Throw in and corner kick timewasting. Injury time timewasting. Substitution timewasting. It’s just silly at this point. But plenty of people will quote me on here, tell me that I’m trying to ruin and Americanize the sport, I don’t understand the culture of timewasting and how it’s great for the game, etc.
I don't think a single person on here has supported time wasting. Disagreeing about a stop-clock as the solution is not supporting time wasting. The suggestion I loathe is about DOGSO. We added DOGSO to get rid of cynical fouls that mar the game. Then we softened it to only a caution if advantage is played--OK, I can live with that. But why, oh why, would we want to not sanction at all the cynical play if a goal is scored? It was still a cynical play that we want out of the game. (Aside: I could pretty much live with it if we did something to make it only non-cynical fouls that escaped sanction--but we know the exception would swallow the whole and nothing but a horse collar from behind would be considered cynical.)
Because baseball games were taking four hours and losing fans. Neither of those things apply in soccer. VAR aside, soccer games take two hours and the ball is in play for about 55 minutes. Do we want to find an extra 5 minutes of ball-in-play time? Yes. We do. Do we want to be the NFL, NBA or NHL? No. At least I don’t. Stopped clock sports don’t last two hours. You talk of a “plague” of timewasting. But you want to trade it for a plague of 3-3.5 hour games.
We don’t have to go to a stopping clock. But if we don’t, then trying to legislate out of the game every way in which players endlessly waste time that’s mostly unique to this sport is a great development. Forcing injured players to go off the field for a time period was a great start. If they start turning over the ball for throw ins, corner kicks, goal kicks, free kicks, even better. Penalize Substitution and injury time wasting, great. It would be great to see it get to a point where players actually run to the ball to do restarts because they know if they don’t they get turned over
Regarding the DOGSO change, the real reason is because almost nobody was actually enforcing the law as written even in scenarios where it was a 100% clear DOGSO foul. I do agree that it’s bad to take this yellow card away, but also it’s not even a change so much as a surrender to the way of refereeing where the path of least resistance of “the attacking team doesn’t care because they’re celebrating a goal, may as well not get the ire of the defending team” wins out 99 times out of 100.
https://theifab.com/news/ifab-annua...s-further-measures-to-improve-match-flow-and/ So the last part, if taken literally, contradicts what I had previously heard. Only wrongly awarded corner kicks would be reviewed and not wrongly awarded goal kicks. I just have to believe that's incorrect. It must be. If you go back to WC2010, wasn't one of the big Dutch arguments that Webb & co. missed a clear corner kick somewhat immediately prior to Iniesta scoring the goal on the other end? If what's written by IFAB is correct, that possibility still exists. We could have a WC Final won by a team off a goal kick that should have been a corner kick. In 2010, that's a "meh." But if we're living in a world where wrongly awarded corner kicks get cancelled, why isn't the opposite true? Similarly, the language above speaks of wrongly awarded second yellows but says nothing about missed clear second yellows. This one is less surprising, but I still think it's a joke. Eventually all yellows are going to be reviewed; might as well rip that band-aid off now. And sandwiched in between is new language about "cases in which the wrong team is penalised for an offence resulting in a red or yellow card." I'm trying to imagine both what prompted this and how it would be used. If it's used very conservatively, for simply phantom decisions that almost amount to mistaken identity, okay. But I have a feeling it would be used more liberally... meaning situations where a clear hold is given against Team A but there's evidence of a more minor, prior hold by Team B. I could be wrong, but I worry this little clause will open the door to even more VARing and even more defensive refereeing. Good thing everything is clear heading into a World Cup summer, huh?
That seems like best case scenario. And probably vice versa (SPA card outside area that was simulation—in fact, I bet this one is more in mind for people since simulation outside the area is so rarely called). But I think it obviously opens a can of worms and creating a standard you can drive a truck through. Because it’s essentially inviting VARs to review all yellow cards and not just ones that could be VC or SFP. Couple this with the desire for competition authorities to get the most optimal call and not just reverse clear and obvious wrong calls. You’re on the fast path to re-refereeing every decision where a card is produced.
Do you guys think it would be any better if yellow cards being given/rescinded by VAR was done without needing to go to the monitor, just the VAR telling him in the headset before the restart, so the monitor delay would be avoided? Or is it just the entire re-refereeing concept that you don’t want to see
You will never have cards given/rescinded by VAR without going to the monitor...and yes, the idea of re-refereeing should be repugnant to everyone involved in our game.