Irish FA propose sin bin to FIFA

The latter two make sense.

As much logical sense as it might make for a yellow card to also earn 5-10 minutes out of the game, there is no way. Soccer is too much rooted in tradition to make a big change like that.

 

Agree that the last two make sense, but I think the "sin bin" is bollocks.

15 minute half time is only at pro and college levels anyway; considering the economics of soccer, it is likely meant to allow more time for commercials rather than any extra rest or halftime coaching, but if that means ESPN can afford to broadcast more games I'm all for it.

The offsides rule is basically semantics, adding an interpretation which is fairly clear anyway in to the formal text.

The sin bin is the one that doesn't belong, for any number of reasons - forstarters, when you make the yellow card more tactical, you make refs much more hesitant to use it as a game control device, and consequently you will have a difficult time controlling matches. Bear in mind NFHS is just that player; because of limited substitutions, such a program in FIFA would have to mean playing a man down.

 

1) If I remember right the extending half time from 15 to 20 minutes was already brought up within the last 2-3 years (no more than 5 years). From what I remember the "basic" reason was 5 extra minutes would mean a LOT more beer sales (along with food sales but we all know beer is the money maker).

This time it seems that FIFA is the one requesting it and for the players saying that in some stadium the dressing rooms are so far away that 15 minutes aren't enough of a break, since the players spend most of their time walking between the pitch and dressing rooms.

Since this time the reason is for the players, I could see them seriously considering extending halftime.

2) Adding that clarification to the offside law is fine and can only help. Right now it's one of those "well it's known but not written down anywhere!".

3) The Scottish FA has suggested to increase the amount of substitutes from 3 to 4 when a match goes to extra time. I could see them possibly agreeing to this.

4) Finally, the "sin bin" idea I totally disagree with at any level of soccer where there is limited substitutions. It would change the game way too much.

I believe the IFAB will disagree also with this idea since it changes the game way too much with limited subs.

But who knows, maybe it could work you never know till you test it.

 

It is, really?

The proposed text:

"Any defending player leaving the field of play for any reason without the referee's permission shall, until he returns to the field ... be considered to be on his own goalline or touchline for the purposes of offside."

is horrible. (Did the ellipses leave out text, or are they actually part of the quoted text?)

If a defending player leaves the field of play without the referee's permission, shouldn't he be cautioned? Surely this new text is meant to apply to more players than only those that should be cautioned for leaving the field of play without permission.

A big part of the problem is that the caution for "leaving the field of play without the referee's permission" is easily misinterpreted. Leaving the field of play in the normal course of play has the tacit approval of the referee and does not require permission. In this situation, a player is not leaving the field of play with or without "permission". No permission is required, and none is granted. Permission to leave the field of play is only required when the reason for leaving the field of play is not considered by the referee to be in the normal course of play.

Instead, the new text could read:

"Any defending player leaving the field of play for any reason without the referee's permission shall, until he returns to the field ... or has been granted permission by the referee to leave the field, be considered to be on his own goalline or touchline for the purposes of offside."

But why only mention defenders? Surely attackers present similar issues. If an attacking player happens to be off the field of play when a teammate plays or touches the ball, shouldn't he still be considered offside if he is behind the second last defender?

And why is only his "own" goalline included? If a player on the defending team is behind his opponents' goalline, shouldn't be be considered to be on his opponents' goalline, and not a touchline? Of course, this player would never factor in an offside violation, but why beg an unnecessary question?

Instead, the new text should read:

"Any defending player leaving the field of play for any reason without the referee's permission shall, until he returns to the field ... of play or has been granted permission by the referee to leave the field of play, be considered to be on his own the goalline or touchline at the nearest location for the purposes of determining offside position."

 

"It would also cut down on a lot of paperwork and disciplinary meetings later."

"The offence would be dealt with on the day and the team offended against would be the team to benefit."

So apparently the Irish FA expects the number of yellows issued to decline with this policy and thus they wouldn't have to track as many players who run into yellow accumulation difficulties.

Both the expectation and the benefit seem a bit dubious to me.

 

The proposed text, as you note, has a key passage, but it is not the ones you highlight. The reason I see no problem with the addition is the section I have highlighted:

"Any defending player leaving the field of play for any reason without the referee's permission shall, until he returns to the field ... be considered to be on his own goalline or touchline for the purposes of offside."

In my opinion, that makes it quite clear that this note in no way applies to a caution for leaving the field; this addition only applies to offsides decisions, where it has no practical import beyond clarifying what is already "known." I understand your point, but think it is overthinking the issue.

 

Does this mean we get to talk about the penalty box again?

I think a better solution to this would be to lower the number of cautions needed to earn a mandatory 1 game suspension. Lower it to 3 (I think it is only 2 in the WC, but that is tournament play). Granted, they will just start rescinding cautions in England so their top players don't miss matches, but we can't do nothing because some other country will do things their own way. In a match with 4 referees, this MIGHT be manageable. I have no interest, or time, or available attention to give to managing this type of system in a 3-man. If they do this, they will also have to develop a system for punishing teams and players who cheat around the system. I think there are many more pressing problems that deserve more attention than this. I also echo the people who think this is too drastic a change and IFAB will never go for it.

 

Oh God, Don't start that again.

I do not like the idea of a sin bin, for most of the reasons stated on here. Plus, think about how much more the ref will impact the game. If you send a guy to the bin for 10 minutes you've seriously alteredthe fairness of the game, not his play nor calmed things down a bit. Additionally, how many times will a player get the bin before he gets carded? What would the difference in severity/type/location be to determine the punishment? what is more severe, the bin or the yellow? Yellows don't necessarily hurt that game, but shorthanded for 10 minutes can dramatically alter a match.

Also, while there migth be some clarifiaction necessary for offsides, I agree that there is room for improvement in the passage.

 

We are also going to need to stock up on blue cards with a big white "5" on them.

 

I wish I had that option! I like the sin bin idea, but I like the idea of having a separate card to send a player off for a short period and have the team play a man down better. Referees do not have enough tools to adequately control matches in some cases.

 

Go to fifa.com, news centre, media releases and you can find the text of the agenda: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/bodies/01/02/18/76/2009-12-ifabagenda2009-e.pdf

Regarding offside

(note the only text cut from the Reuters report was "of play")

I'm not sure what that amended proposed text is trying to say - if the player leaves, the field he has to stay off until the next stoppage?

With either text, I think it's clear what is intended, and we don't need the extra words suggested by PVancouver.


Regarding the sin bin:

 

Ok, so reading this over again I do have a problem with the wording of the offsides amendment. I think it does not make it sufficiently clear that it refers to "the closest point on touch or endline from where the player is standing." Without that modification, I could see the rule being interpreted to mean anyone who stops off is automatically on their own end-line... ut-oh.

 

Some additional comments:

[1] Implies that a player who steps behind his own goal line actually can place his opponent in an offside position. At a minimum, it does nothing to refute this interpretation.

[2] Implies that a player who leaves the field of play without the referee's permission will subsequently return to the field of play before being given permission to leave the field of play, which may not be the case. The player might not ever re-enter the field of play. Perhaps this is FIFA's issue. This is a minor issue for me, as, like with many other parts of the law, common sense would dictate that a player, once granted explicit permission to leave the field of play, would no longer be considered for the purposes of offside.

[3] Implies that a player can leave the field of play under only one of two circumstances: either "without the referee's permission", or, conversely, with the referee's permission (duh). Unfortunately, it categorizies leaving the field of play in the normal run of play (because of momentum resulting from on field play, or avoidance of an obstructing player, or to improve an angle of attack, or to take a throw-in or corner, etc.) as falling in the category of "without the referee's permission". Yet, if asked, the referee in each of these situations would give "permission" for all of these reasons. Such a player has tacit permission to be off the field of play, in my opinion. To declare such players as being off the field "without the referee's permission", with the only question to be asked concerning a caution is whether he left deliberately or not, is problematic. The form of a tacit permission to leave the field of play is different from an explicit expressed permission to leave the field of play. With the former, the player does not require permission to re-enter the field of play and is included in the offside position calculation, despite being off the field of play. This is not true of the latter. Even if the referee concludes that a player has deliberately left the field of play without his permission, until the caution is actually awarded, the player involved does not require explicit permission to re-enter the field of play and is included in the offside position calculation.

This avoids issue #2 but raises a new issues and retains issue #3.

[4] One could easily infer FIFA is trying to say that if a defender "accidently" steps behind his own goal line, then he remains on his own goal line for the purposes of offside until the next stoppage of play, which would mean a dramatic change in the current interpretation of the law. Since it doesn't matter where within the field the defender is at any time (only his distance from the goal line is important), the nearest location on either touchline will do. And since the touchlines overlap the goal lines, it might be helpful to eliminate goal lines from the text entirely. (A defender behind the goal line would be considered to be at the nearest corner.) This would eliminate issue #7 described below as well. The huge drawback to this line of reasoning is that what works acceptably for defenders doesn't work at all for offside attackers, because if an attacker returns to the field of play and is then found offside one would think that the restart would take place at his on-field location if the ball was played or touched by a team-mate when he was on the field and not when he was off. And if he was off the field behind the goal line when the ball was played or touched by a team-mate, the restart should take place on the goal line or in the goal area and not at the corner.

[5] A player who has "left the field of play without the referee's permission" but has not done so "deliberately" would not be cautioned at the next stoppage of play. However, such a player might be temporarily incapacitated player and could remain off the field of play, despite one or more restarts. He should continue to factor into the offside equation (as a defender) even following a restart, as he can re-enter the field at any time. If, during a stoppage in play the referee has the opportunity to ask the player if he needs attention, he should require the player to re-enter the field if he does not, to clarify for all his active status.

[6] I believe FIFA's decision to remove the text "or delayed his return to the field of play" was done to reduce unnecessary debate about a rather rare occurrence (which, nevertheless, was apropos to the inciting incident), prevent the introduction of a Catch-22 type argument (how can a player who has already left the field within the laws be subsequently cautioned for leaving the field?), rather than an actual disagreement that a player should be cautioned for such.



Additional issues:

[7] None of the options appropriately allows for a "defender", for the purposes of offside, to be behind his opponents' goal line, as moot as this case might be.

[8] None of the options consider how an attacking player who was legally off the field when the ball was last played or touched by an opponent but otherwise was in an offside position can be subsequently determined as offside or where the restart should be. Why not cover all the bases (to use an American expression)?

[9] The cautionable offense of "deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee's permission" needs additional clarification and re-interpretation. It should be interpreted as "Deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee's tacit or expressed permission". Deliberately leaving the field to take a corner or throw-in or to avoid or run around an opponent should not be considered leaving the field of play without the referee's permission (although no such permission has been expressly granted).

 

Nor should it. The way that things read now, the attacker IS placed in an offside position by virtue of the defender being outside the physical boundaries of the field, but we cannot penalize the attacker because of the defender's illegal act. The change would state the even though the defender is outside the physical boundaries of the field, he or she will be considered to be standing on the line that he or she crossed, where they crossed it, and therefore on the field. It should make teaching Law 11 to new referees easier, and also easier for the public to understand.

It does no such thing. If states that IF a player does those things, then you caution them. Nothing is stated regarding the intention of any player to return to the field without permission, just the punishment for doing so.

[

In the US, this problem is taken care of. Our 7+7 cautionable offenses memo states that the caution for leaving the field is reserved for a defender who leaves the field to place an attacker in an offside position and specifically states that it is not for a player who leaves the field during the normal course of play. You could also consider leaving the field of play during the normal course of play "trifling" as it pertains to leaving without permission and chose to do nothing about it.

This is a "kill 2 birds with one zone" thing. It encompasses the defender intentionally leaving the field to place an attacker in an offside position, and the EURO 2008 situation with the injured defender off the field over the goal line. It seems to me that this is the purpose of the change, and nothing else. There is nothing in here that has anything to do with how to handle an attacker being whistled for offside and the location of the restart. It's about how to handle a defender who is off the field (for the pusposes of offside) and the misconduct associated with it.

If the player is still down when the ball goes out of play, the referee should hold-up the restart and check on the player; he should take the opportunity to check on the player, not wait until it is convenient. Just because the player is outside the physical boundary of the field doesn't mean that we no longer bear responsibility for them. Also, if the player has not moved by that time, the trainers are probably on scene or on the way. After that permission is now needed to return. If the referee does his or her job, and checks on the player, the situation takes care of itself. If the player states that he is ok, then he is considered to be on the goal line or touchline. If he is not OK, then he is off the field. Either way, take the guess work out of it for the player, and tell him that he needs your permission to return to play. Problem solved.

Another way to look at this is that since the team is playing a player down, to delay re-entry to the field is only placing that player's team at a greater disadvantage. If the player want's to be an idiot and make his team play short, who are we to stop him? Why would FIFA care if a player intentionally hurt his own team? The LOTG game are in place to make the game fair, not to protect a player from his own stupidity.

If the defender is beyond his opponent's goal line, he is probably an attacker now. Additionally, since offside is only determined in the defending half of the field, this defender (turned attacker) would not be in any position to effect the attacker's offside position anyways. I think this is left out because it doesn't matter, in addition to the fact that this has nothing to do with the purpose of the proposed change.

That is not the purpose of this change. It is exclusively to clarify how to handle 1. A defender who steps off the field intentionally to place an attacker in an offside position and 2. that a player who leaves the field, intentionally or unintentionally is considered to be on the line that he or she crossed, where they crossed it, for the purposes of offside. FIFA/IFAB do not make changes to "cover all of the bases". They make changes to clarify or modify a specific issue for specific purposes.

[/quote]
9. I don't know about reinterpretation, but as far as clarification goes, it is already clarified for those of us in the USA. A caution for deliberately leaving the field of play is for the sole puspose of punishing a defender who leaves the field to place an attacker in an offside position, and does not include a player who leaves the field during the course of normal play. (cautionable offense #7)
(http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/7+7Memo2007PRO-AMENG.pdf)

This change is being proposed for a very narrowly tailored reason. I find it ironic that the change is being proposed to eliminate confusion, and we have managed to create more confusion than currently exists. For us to sit back and hem and haw about every thing that COULD come up or that we think SHOULD be included is an exercise in futility. I know we are a breed that tries to read any possible meaning, whether intentional or not, into the letter of the text in front of us. In this instance, the change is being proposed to state in print something that is already understood. If a defender leaves the field to place an attacker in an offside position, the attacker is not guilty of offside, even if he or she gains an advantage (et. al.) from being in that position, and caution the defender. If a defender leaves the field without the referee's permission for any reason, they are considered to be on the field at the position where they crossed the line FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING OFFSIDE POSITION. How hard is that?

Reading that post seemed like looking through the NCAA rulebook. Do A, B, and C, unless one of the things in Rule 37.2.8.9.4.2 paragraph Q subsection 55(T) exists. Despite the exercise that the NCAA has made the reading of the LOTG, it is not that difficult. If there are those here that need EVERY little scenario, happenstance, and possible situation dictated to you in black and white, then I submit to you that you are refereeing the wrong version of football.

 

On the other hand, The extra sub for the extra time seems like a humane thing to do.

 

Just about everything that is wrong with these boards is on this board.

The sin bin idea is not some frivolity. The Irish FA would not even consider this unless they already have tacit approval of FIFA. In other words, dill weeds, FIFA wants a Sin Bin but being FIFA they want to try it out and act as if they do not.

So, that is not good enough for this thread. A major, major change in the game and the way it will be played -- oh no, let's dismiss that out of hand and get into a bizarre rumination on the particulars of the off-side rule. You want to discuss the off-side rule? Start or go to a thread on the off-side rule. I want to discuss the Sin Bin, which my friends, may very well be coming.

Questions:
What about the Goalie? Goalies get yellow cards. Do they go to a Sin Bin?
Or, what about more than one Sin Bin card at a time for a side? Two or more players in a Sin Bin?
Or, is mouthing off to a Ref a Sin Bin offense? Is it?
Or, does a Sin Bin offense carry into over time?
Can a Sin Bin player participate in a shoot-out?

Enough of the minutia of the off side rule. If a Sin Bin possibility cannot get you to thinking, nothing will.
AND FIFA IS ALREADY IN FAVOR OF IT, no matter what you think. I will give a sin-bin rule 50/50 odds right now.

 

You seem to know about the politics in the IFAB.

Why would FIFA have the Irish FA act as proxy? FIFA have 4 votes so they cannot pass anything on their own, but they can prevent anything from passing. If they are for it then they only need to convince the FA of England, Scotland, or Wales. But if the are against it, or pretending to be against it would be a disincentive for any of the other three FAs to even consider it.

What gives?

 

With All Due Respect. . .
What planet are you on?
FIFA's rules are the World's rules. What the English, Scotish, or Irish FA decide is nice, but has no final say.
What I am saying Sir, is that the Irish FA is not so damnably stupid as to even consider such a major change in the rules of Soccer unless and until they used back channels to broach the idea with FIFA at the highest levels!

Indeed, it is ridiculous to even think that the Sin Bin is the Irish FA's idea in the first place. It comes from FIFA, and they are asking Ireland because they want to see if they can test it out in a comparable FA that receives little media attention and has a sports going public that is fully aware of the use of Sin Bins as in Rugby. I guarantee you that the Rugby model is excactly what FIFA is thinking of.

 

How does rugby deal with these questions?

 

Well, a bad idea or not, the idea that a Ref will be less inclined to card a trip to the sin bin for more than one player is not correct.

First is the fact that playing one player down is not a disaster. I know you have seen many sides score goals one player down. Two down, and they go into a defensive shell until the penalty is over. Indeed, that would be the strategy with one off. No, the Refs will not be disuaded. It is the play that will change after the first foul. More cautious, more defensive, more careful to avoid the another card.

And that may be why the Sin Bin fails. It does not create a real chance for the non-offending side. It just forces the short side to play defensively, as if the Game needed more of that.

Then why do it at all? Because it removes the red card, except for the most exceptional and outrageous fouls. By taking a player off for ten minutes, more games will be played by 11 until the end.

And it will add an element of drama, and interest. One can even imagine the situation where a top player induces a foul to gain 10 minutes of quality rest, only to return and use that rest to his or her advantage.

I don't think that is an especially good thing, but it is worth thinking about.

 

I have to ask some questions: Do you know what the IFAB is?
How are the LOTG modified?
If FIFA's rules are the world's rules why does the FIFA LOTG page say:

Here is the link to a PDF of the LOTG as published by FIFA:
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/81/42/36/lotg_en.pdf

After several of the Laws there is a section titled "Decisions of the International F.A. Board." Why is that? If FIFAs laws are the world's laws, why aren't those sections titles "FIFA Decisions?"

Could it be that when it comes to the actual laws that FIFA is subject to another body? Let me check:

Yep. Check out pages 131-135 in the above-referenced pdf. It says that "[t]he objects of the Board shall be to discuss and decide proposed alterations to the Laws of the Game..."

It also says that "[t]he Football Association (England), The Scottish Football Association, The Football Association of Wales, The Irish Football Association and the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)... shall constitute the Board..."

The Irish FA does not need to approach FIFA at the highest levels because the Irish FA has a seat on a body that is even higher up than FIFA.

When it comes to passing a change to the LOTG four of the associations (England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and FIFA) must be represented. Passage requires 3/4 of those present and entitled to vote (page 132 of the pdf).

 

Are you a Republican?
You will not let the facts get in the way of the truth.

"FIFA frequently takes active roles in the running of the sport and developing the game around the world. One of its unique policies is to suspend teams and associated members from international competition when a government interferes in the running of FIFA's associate member organisations or if the associate is not functioning properly.

A recent high-profile suspension was of the Greek Football Federation for political interference.[2] Another recent suspension was on the Kenya Football Federation because it was not running the game in Kenya properly[3] and also of Iraq."
Wikipedia.

You want to tell me who the IFAB can suspend?
You may think they are above FIFA, but they are a wholly owned subsidiary.

I can hear the laughter in Zurich right now.

 

Really? Then I guess Wales was damnably stupid last year to suggest that Law 1 be changed to standardize the field size for International matches. Because for some reason that proposed change never made it into the Laws. I guess the votes of IFAB do matter.