Radical 5 points change of rules proposal by KNVB?

Discussion in 'Referee' started by feyenoordsoccerfan, Jun 18, 2024.

  1. Soccer Dad & Ref

    Oct 19, 2017
    San Diego
    "Luckily for fans of the English game who are concerned about big changes making their way over from the Netherlands, it's highly unlikely these proposals would be approved in England.

    The KNVB are not board members at IFAB - football's rule making body.

    As such the Dutch FA cannot table these proposals for approval by IFAB and of the ideas put forward only one, the sin bin concept, has been up for initial debate by the self-regulatory body."
     
  2. Beau Dure

    Beau Dure Member+

    May 31, 2000
    Vienna, VA
    Some of these things were beta-tested in the USL in the 1990s. They didn't work.
     
  3. superdave

    superdave BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Four of those are IMO awful and not worthy of consideration at the highest level.

    Im willing to listen to kick ins replacing throw ins. Seems to me it’s bad because it would slow the game down. It would add to the least exciting part of soccer, setting up for free kicks into the box. It would take away from the best part, the free flowing nature of the sport.

    But maybe I’m wrong and experimenting is good.
     
    Beau Dure repped this.
  4. Supposing the rule you can't be offside with a throw in ball is maintained with the kick in, as the defending team you would be stupid to linger at the kick in spot, as the distance that can be covered by the kicker is far greater than a player throwing in can. So the kick in creates great danger in front of the goal. Soon players/coaches realize it's not a good idea to kick the ball out on your own half.
     
    superdave repped this.
  5. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    And a kickin would be more beneficial than a FK from a similar spot . . .

    at non mini-soccer levels, a kick in just strikes me as simply stupid . . .
     
  6. Uhm, no. When you look at how throw ins, these take time to be executed by the thrower, finding someone safe to throw the ball toot finding one uncovered. This all goes out of the window with a kick in, as in that case it's bloody stupid for the opponent to mark players close by as the kicker can find a player free as a bird on the other side of the pitch.
     
  7. In the trials I saw a few years ago, the kick in was most effective, as it didnot take long for the defending team to learn the hard way the antics used by a throw in were counterproductive applied against the kick in.
     
  8. Beau Dure

    Beau Dure Member+

    May 31, 2000
    Vienna, VA
    We tried it for a while in the USA. It didn't catch on, with good reason.
     
  9. Which were?
    edit: and when was that?
     
  10. Beau Dure

    Beau Dure Member+

    May 31, 2000
    Vienna, VA
    Early to mid-90s.

    The changes were all seen as needless gimmicks. The USA tried all of these changes for 15 years or so, and none of them helped the sport break through. Now MLS plays with the same Laws as everyone else, and it's doing just fine.
     
  11. Kit

    Kit Member+

    Aug 30, 1999
    Herkimer, NY, USA
    Club:
    Everton FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Beau Dure repped this.
  12. jarbitro

    jarbitro Member+

    Mar 13, 2003
    N'Djamena, Tchad
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    As someone who played with some of these rules (the kick-in, a wider goal, the blue card for DFKs, and "stampede shootout") here is my perspective. The blue card actually affected players psychologically around the fifth foul (iirc it was 7 blue cards to a stampede). But it radically increased dissent and incentivized the referees to come up with excuses to call IFKs instead. It increased dissent for sure.
    The kick-ins had the affect of slowing the game down big time. The league I was in used them inside the 35 yard line (or around there), and that made every throw-in into a long restart. Teams had set pieces. Every "throw in" became a production, complete with the referees stopping it to warn players to "knock it off." it was a mess. For the second season of the two that we used that, the league went to a a 30 minute clock that stopped when the ball was in-touch. That was supposed to help with the kick-ins taking so much time. Narrator: "It did not help."
     
    Beau Dure and davidjd repped this.
  13. Beau Dure

    Beau Dure Member+

    May 31, 2000
    Vienna, VA
    I could see a couple of reasonable changes to timekeeping:

    1. If the referee surmises that a stoppage is going to take longer than one minute (most usually a medical stoppage), then stop the clock. Use a signal so scoreboard operators know to stop the clock so everyone has a good idea of how much time is left.

    2. There will still be some "stoppage time," but it would mostly be for goal celebrations and substitutions. It shouldn't be more than five minutes.

    3. If there are any stoppages in stoppage time, stop the clock.

    4. When the clock shows the end of stoppage time (if it's given as four minutes, then when the clock hits 94:00), play continues until the ball crosses midfield or goes out of play for anything other than a corner kick. Basically, the team on the attack gets to keep attacking.
     
  14. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This one is interesting to me. Because it inherently creates drama and tension and it's not that big of a lift for an officiating team. I think your #1/2 just moves the problem or creates more, because then it's all about discretion and there would be so many arguments about a referee wrongly stopping or not stopping the clock in time. Like, I probably couldn't pan the #1 suggestion enough because I think it would add controversy opportunities where none exist now ("did he add enough?" is a much easier question to address than "he didn't stop it twice when our guy was down but then did when their guy was down for only 45 seconds" etc., etc.). But anyway...

    Moving to a stopped clock for stoppage time only, though, I could see as a solution to an actual problem and one that adds drama. Feels like a win-win. You could probably introduce a mechanism where the VAR or AVAR can just control the clock after it hits 45:00. At that point, stoppage time is ONLY for the ball in play. Given how long stoppage time might feel at that point, maybe referees would need to calibrate down a bit when actually adding stoppage time (e.g., ball-in-play is around 60% so if you add 6 minutes today, you're likely getting 3.5 minutes of play or so--with this change, you'd get a full 6 minutes, which could take like 10+ actual minutes).

    I'm usually not one for "radical" changes but I like this one. It cuts out the issue of needing to add stoppage time to stoppage time (and addresses the issue of referees failing to do so).
     
    Beau Dure repped this.
  15. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And I should have said that I'm ambivalent about #4. If you create the drama that would come with #3, where everyone knows when the clock actually is supposed to end, I'm not sure you need #4. Plus, if it's not a tied or one-goal game, this seems like a very bad or at least totally unnecessary idea.
     
  16. MetroFever

    MetroFever Member+

    Jun 3, 2001
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    Croatia
    I know that indoor soccer is a whole different animal because of the size of the goals, the size of the fields, being usually 6 vs 6, a faster paced game, etc, but when leagues in my area changed from throw-ins to kick-ins over the years, it probably added another 45 seconds of playing time to each match (assuming a 30 minute contest). Games were more smoother, with quick short passes (in most cases) instead of chasing a bouncing ball.

    It's disappointing to hear that it didn't work out in your case in an outdoor full-field match. I've always felt that kick-ins will eventually replace throw-ins, but "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" might apply here.
     
    jarbitro repped this.
  17. Sharper

    Sharper Member

    Charlotte FC
    United States
    Aug 23, 2022
    Kick-ins seem to work well at TST and similar futsal-ish tournaments, but they also have rules about losing possession if you don't take the restart within 5 seconds of when you should (with the referee performing a visible finger count), which significantly cuts down on delay.
     
    ilyazhito repped this.
  18. ilyazhito

    ilyazhito Member

    Manchester United
    Spain
    Feb 9, 2021
    I would couple kick-ins with a basketball/futsal style count. If the ball is not put into play in an appropriate amount of time (e.g. 5 seconds), the other team gets the restart. A similar concept can be applied to goal kicks corner kicks (5 seconds from when the ball is placed).
     
  19. Beau Dure

    Beau Dure Member+

    May 31, 2000
    Vienna, VA
    Would No. 1 be better if there was a set amount of time after which the clock is stopped?

    I know the clock stops for lightning delays (or lighting delays). I can't remember if it has stopped for catastrophic injuries that require 10 or more minutes of treatment.

    I like the additional suggestion here on stopped clocks in stoppage time. The one caution I'd offer is that I think this suggestion would be problematic without No. 4 -- the rugby-style "play until the current attack is over" rule. In early MLS and in the NCAA, I haven't enjoyed the countdown clock going to the precise second, in part because of the awkwardness of having a shot headed toward the goal when the horn sounds.
     

Share This Page