Good. The right call is what I am asking for. Hopefully it does not disrupt the flow of the game, but if it does so be it. The gamesmanship and blatant cheating must be punished appropriately & accurately during a match.
IFAB decided at their preliminary meeting on Thursday [January 7] to recommend to their AGM in March that trials are begun with a view to the system becoming law in two or three years. Why wait so long? Until the 2018-2019 rulebook is out? "The main objective is to try to eliminate clear errors by the referee. You will never eliminate all errors from the game, but this is a major step forward in reducing those errors." And this is something that the NFL is still struggling with. It seems that the only plays reviewed are the football over the goal line, and toe-dragging on catches. They stay away from anything that they deem "official's judgement." video replays would not be shown in the stadium Old-fashioned thinking. Teams are slowly showing replays in the stadium. And fans see the plays instantly on their phones and pads, anyway.
Phones yes. They are starting to ban IPads at stadiums though. I personally have no problem with video being only shown in an isolated place where officials can see it as long as they get the call right. Then maybe an explanation over the PA announcements would be good.
I think they are talking about the 'triple punishment' issue. It refers to the ruling that a player who prevents a clear goalscoring opportunity in the penalty area concedes a spot-kick, is sent off and incurs a suspension
I do hate that one. Spot kick and yellow, I say. Plenty bad enough, especially since what constitutes a goal scoring opportunity has been abused at times, I feel. Especially given the meager calibre of so many strikers today!
It was brought it to try to stop (or at least properly punish) professional fouls, where a players takes another out to stop them getting a shot away. These days, with the minimal contact needed to get a "foul", it means players are being sent off for accidentally committing a "professional foul", which makes no sense at all. You could say only give a red if the ref feels the foul was deliberate, but you then get into the grey area of a ref trying to interpret a player's intentions. On the other hand, reducing it to a yellow would be little deterrent at all if the player wasn't in the box yet.
The rugby codes award penalty tries where they think a side would have scored except for the illegal play of the opposition. Examples where this could apply are handball on the goalline, deliberate fouls where they were the last line of defence (normally by the keeper) and maybe a couple of other situations. The triple penalty can be harsh at times. We copped this in the 2010 world cup where Kewell was sent of for a goal line hand ball when he was attemping to pull his arm away. Having it out in the first place made it a handball and Ghana would have scored had it not hit his arm, but the shot was hard at almost point blanck range so Kewell couldn't do much about it. It ended up a penalty (Ghana scored that one, we weren't as lucky as Uruguay), a red card and also a suspension of a then key player for a final match where there was still an outside chance of qualifying. I think a penalty goal and a lesser penalty for the player would be afairer result. I know the rule was brought in to prevent deliberate fouls (and there were far too much of them back then, I'm old enough to remember) and its done its job in that respect, but maybe a better way can be found.
I'm simply inclined to think a straight red should be reserved for violent acts and maybe for deliberate handballs in the box that clearly stop a goal. Our own Per Mertesacker was given a straight red this weekend for a tackle where he arguably didn't even touch the attacking player. Because he was in a "goal scoring opportunity" the rule was correctly applied, but in context the striker was still some 50 yards from goal, with other defenders racing back at angles that would've at least made it less than a clear breakaway. The defender was stupid to slide in but the only difference between that being a red card and that being a penalty with no card involved was the fact that the defender was immediately behind the defender as opposed to being even. IMO, that's an absurd jump considering the circumstances. A yellow card is still a good deterrent, IMO. Players on yellows are less aggressive throughout the match and cumulative cards can still equate to suspensions. and the degree that a break away from midfield can be considered a goal scoring opportunity is pretty subjective. (Then again, I was a defender so...!) And if it's in the box you'll still get the PK. I probably wouldn't be as emotional about the matter except as has been noted, offensive players now drop so easily it's ridiculous, and I feel they're doing so because the rules are so quick to punish defenders and the punishments are so severe. I don't like violent conduct and don't want to see anyone get hurt, but this is a physical sport. So long as the rules take drastic measures against minimal contact, offensive players will overreact to that contact and the games will suffer.
One rule I would like changed and it revolves around the discussions above is that a review board can review plays that the ref saw and chose to rule or not rule on. So...the player who grabs his face after NOT being hit in the face gets a yellow for simulation and the like. It would tone down some of the silliness. The game is so damn fast nowadays, it would help address some of the wrongs.
I'd favor tighter clock regulation, as long as the game doesn't end on a buzzer. I like what Rugby does, when time is done, the game ends the next time the ball goes out (or a goal is scored). Obviously if the winning team has possession, they kick out, but the loosing team gets to finish their attack. The ref could signal time has expired by putting both hands in the air (or the 4th official could signify it some way). I don't like ideas for expanded subs, subs interrupt the flow of the game; this is noticeable during friendlies when teams get 6 subs and use them all during the second half. I don't like re-entry either, rested players play defense better so you'd have less goals, and I love the end of games when everything goes all ragged due to tired legs and minds. I also don't like the idea of an extra sub for goalies. One reason is when a field players ends up in goal it is really entertaining. The other reason is the current set up favors teams that are behind and thus ends up in closer games. This happens because winning teams don't want to make the 3rd sub because they don't want to not have a replacement for their goalie. But loosing teams don't mind, because they have less to, duh, lose. Thus they effectively have an extra sub. I don't like 10 minute penalty box ideas because I think teams would just play defensely. I don't mind the early red cards because then defenders, fresh legged at the beginning of the game, don't pull down attackers when they are beaten. In other words, the threat of early red cards increases scoring in the 1st half of games. I do like the ideas to change or lessen automatic suspension rules. In the last the World Cup in the Brazil - Columbia game the ref let so much go, I think in part because he did not want stars to get suspended due to soft yellow cards. This affected that game (I think Columbia would have won otherwise). I think, as people pointed out here, yellow cards force defenders to play soft so they have an effect on the game regardless. I am OK with an automatic suspension for 2nd half red cards (# of games we can debate) because otherwise players might fault in the last minutes with little consequence. Interested in ideas to change the shape of the box, I'll have to give that some thought.
The trend in football over the last few years has been for referees to exercise a bit of judgement when calling full time. If the game is close (less than a goal difference) you rarely see full time blown when the losing team (or either team if scores are level) is in an attacking position with the ball. They usually wait until that attack breaks down before ending the match (ball could go out, be cleared by a defender etc). I can't remember the last time I saw a referee in a senior game call full time whilst the game was in balance and a side was on the attack.
True. The only time I can remember it was when America de Cali was in the Championship a few years back but I don't expect you to know about that instance. IT was a huge deal in Colombia because the Ref uncharacteristically blew the whistle when a team was in full attack mode.
The way it ends now is fine too, I was just responding to people who called for stopping the clock during goal, injuries, etc... If time is taken away from the refs control, I don't the change to result in a buzzer ending.
I can't recall all the ideas about change of the box. I did think of something that I think I like this morning. It goes like this: 1- Consider a half circle of radius 18 yard, centered in the center of the goal, on the goal line. Top of circle would be be at top dead center of current penalty box. All fouls occuring inside this half-circle would be penalties, with the kick at the present spot. 2- All other fouls inside the penalty box would be penalty fouls, but the kick would take place at the spot of the foul. Comments?
The was a Welsh referee, Clive Thomas, who was known for reffing the game "by the book". He was even known as Clive "the book" Thomas, because of it. He disallowed a goal for Brazil in the 1978 world cup, because it was scored two seconds after the game ended. Arguments about timekeeping accuracy aside, I think that's right. Why should a team be allowed extra time to score?
I can see both sides of the argument. It just does not seem to happen often when a team is in the middle of a counter attack and a Ref blows the whistle.
I've seen it happen many times, but the ref normally blows when the ball is around the halfway line rather than more advanced. Refs do generally seem to wait for a convenient stopping point, as that will seem less controversial, although I'd say allowing a team a goal - perhaps a critical goal - after the game has ended is more controversial. With only the ref knowing the actual time the game should end though, nobody else will be able to prove that.
I sort of like #1 but your #2 definitely needs some work. Any foul near the end line would be like no punishment at all since the angle for a shot on goal would be too sharp. Getting back to #1, I wouldn't go as far as to have a semi-circle. I would just create rounded edges. Currently those corners stick out pretty far - approximately 26 yards from the nearest part of the goal. Seems too harsh to give a penalty for a foul that is that far from the net (and attacking from an angle too).
Here's a crazy rule change just for the heck of it. I say there should not be any offside called on any dead ball. It is already applied for throw-ins and Corners. Why not other set pieces?
Agree with first paragraph. The problem with making the "box" smaller is that the defense would now be committing professional fouls even closer to goal. How many times do we see that foul just outside the box, now we will see it even closer to goal. A smaller box would allow for even more cynical play on defense.
That's not really what I'm saying though. I'm just saying round off the corners which are 26 yards (!!) from the net. I think your argument applies more to those central positions. I agree, the box should be kept 18 yards out from the endline centrally.
Glad for the discussion. The original half circle was my idea. It is admittedly an idea which needs work. I continue to be happy with the general size of the box. However I still think what is needed is a 2-part approach because while "fouls near goal" require some sort of penalty because they hinder serious scoring opportunities, a foul on outside corner of the box is not as serious a problem as one 15 yards from goal, straight out. So, perhaps we do this: Box stays the same, except a new curve is put in place. This curve is in the outer corners, and will take the outer 9x9 yard square corner and make it a circle. Now, every foul in the box is a penalty. Fouls inside the "corner curves" are kicked from the usual penalty spot. Fouls inside the box, but outside the curve, are kicked from the point of the foul.