UEFA set to experiment with new 'ABBA' penalty shootout system: http://www.espnfc.com/blog/uefa/258...eriment-with-new-abba-penalty-shootout-system
It may seem weird to most around here but as an American College football fan I can see how it plays out. The overtime in CFB has similar rules. First team get's a chance to score, then the other team get's the next two possessions to score, etc. As Ale Moreno says in the ESPNFC video it is really not need and should be low on the priority list of changes but I don't really mind it that much.
IFAB steps in to curb video ref decision power: http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2017/06/02/ifab-steps-curb-video-ref-decision-power/
Van Basten & Busacca talk VAR, rules and 'play fair!' http://www.fifa.com/confederationsc...cca-talk-var-rules-and-play-fair-2895206.html
FIFA’s lawmakers consider huge changes to soccer "IFAB, the body that FIFA adopts its “Laws of the Game” from, is considering a batch of radical new rules that could change soccer as we know it... ... • Players allowed to dribble and play free kicks to themselves instead of kicking to a teammate • Referees stop the clock whenever the ball is out of play • Match length changed from 90 minutes to 60 minutes without stoppage time • Goal kicks don’t need to exit the penalty area • The full-time whistle can only be called when the ball is out of play • No follow-up attempts allowed off penalty kicks • Penalty goals are awarded for goal-line handballs" http://www.foxsports.com/soccer/sto...oppage-time-clock-free-kicks-world-cup-061717
My take: 1) I actually like the idea of skillful player trying to dribble past the wall on a free kick. 2) No 3) No 4) Doesn't bother me.If a team wants possession that deep in their area, go for it. 5) I kind of like this idea as long as they don't blow the whistle right before a corner is taken. 6) In theory I like it, however I don't mind the trick penalties that much. 7) I think it is fair as long as it can be determined with video evidence that the ball would have gone in. We have like 30 different camera angles to look at.
I might reorder a bit. With the better ones first. • Goal kicks don’t need to exit the penalty area Seems reasonable - I don't see what the current law actually adds to the game as it is. As long as the other team are outside the area when the kick is taken it should be fine. • Penalty goals are awarded for goal-line handballs" Ambivalent I suppose - but I wouldn't be that concerned if it came in. It does seem "fairer" - particularly if they also lowered the penalty to a yellow card for the defender (as you have no longer denied the goal scoring opportunity). The only issue would be how they define "goal-line handballs" so I'd probably need to see that before saying yay or nay. • Players allowed to dribble and play free kicks to themselves instead of kicking to a teammate • No follow-up attempts allowed off penalty kicks Now these sort of seem contradictory to me. In one you are loosening up the rules, in the other you are tightening them. Maybe this is because my view is that the penalty is just a "special" free-kick rather than some completely different animal - but this says - for some kicks you can just dribble, but for others you can "only" hammer it at the goal. I don't think I like the second one - and that sort of means I would have to not like the first (due to the contradiction). Otherwise I'm not that against the first option - there are even times would it would probably be good for the flow of the game - but allowing it (so making free kicks and penalties utterly different) would mean you would have to completely remove any penalties from the flow of the game - effectively everything "stops" until the penalty process is over - effectively you make penalties in normal play like penalties in penalty shoot outs - yet penalty shoot outs are not part of the "game" just a method for determining who advances. • Referees stop the clock whenever the ball is out of play • Match length changed from 90 minutes to 60 minutes without stoppage time • The full-time whistle can only be called when the ball is out of play Again, these seem contradictory. One seems to suggest the clock only runs when the ball is in play and you get exactly 60 minutes - the clock then stops if the ball is out - but the referee can only end the game when the ball is out - when the clock isn't running. How does that work? This frankly seems like a dumb set of ideas to me. To be honest the last two groups of ideas make me think that the "taskforce" has just thrown a whole screed of ideas at a page to justify the expense of getting them together, rather than actually thinking about how the whole thing would fit as a modification to the current game. J Oh yeah, and the change to ABBA from ABAB thing seems sensible enough as well - it has a logical reason, doesn't really take much effort to implement and the current rule seems inferior.
It's like that in rugby. After the time is over, the play continues until the ball is out of play (goal, foul, off field, etc). It's meant to prevent the referee from stopping an attack play.
I have to say one week into the Video Review USA/MLS era and it has been pretty good. I think it does help that these crews have been working together and preparing for weeks and weeks and weeks before it being applied. Maybe FIFA should consider having crews from the same country along with the VAR officials in the television studio. It could make things more efficient with less confusion. Anyway, there was a goal disallowed in MLS this week because VAR officials caught a player kicking the Keeper in the stomach/groin area before the goal was rebounded to a teammate who slotted it home. (It happened so fast in real time and the kick in the stomach was a bit subtle that I can see why it was not called initially.) I like that. I like that a lot actually. It will cut down on the Luis Suarez-esque shenanigans and dirty play that can't be seen by assistant refs many yards away or refs viewing from bad angles from behind. Defenders usually get a bad wrap for gamesmanship but there are plenty of strikers that also try to cross the line to score their goals.
I feel like having a ref watching with multiple camera angles calling down potential calls and corrections to the center ref would greatly improve reffing in just about every sport. Obviously the on field ref should have final say, and be able to trump the off field ref. The added input of a person who has a more of a bird eye view would could only improve it. This way you have someone in the thick of it who can see things that you can't see from a distance, but you also have someone with a more universal angle that can see things that can easily be blocked from view on the field.
Yes. The way it is set up is that the Ref on the field has a chance to look at it for himself and does have the final say which still keeps with tradition. And technically, talking to VAR officials kind of keeps with tradition in the sense that Refs consult with each other all the time. VAR officials just have the luxury of technology.
I've proposed before that is an elimination game ends 0-0 after extra time, both teams should get knocked out. If it is the final, the championship should go to the 3rd place game winner (bonus: the possibility would up the stakes in that game). But, less radically, and less complicated logistically, a rule change I'd make is that if teams tie 0-0 in a league game (or group game) they both loose a point. A 0-0 tie would be worse than a loss.
You said you like this one as long as the game doesn't end while a team is taking a kick. In Rugby they do this, if it is full time, they team can still put the ball in play, the game ends the next time the ball is out of play. I agree this would be good. A team has a chance throw everyone forward.
This rule would also help me win/draw more FIFA video games on my Xbox. It seems like nine times out of ten the whistle blows for halftime or the end of the match when I am attacking.
I propose a new rule. If you bite someone, spit on someone, send bodily fluids of any kind, or touch someone's privates on purpose you will be banned from the sport forever. There is no need for any of that El Salvador and Uruguay and Chile.
Perhaps. But instead I'd make all goalies eat hash brownies before every game. Comical goal keeping is entertaining.
Another VAR controversy/ case study. Within the Montreal-Toronto match in MLS there was a goal allowed even though the sequence of play should not have initially been allowed to develop. There was a throw in that should have been ruled as foul because the player only had one foot on the ground. the ball goes to a winger who then runs down the sideline and crosses it to the forward who has a relatively easy tap in for a goal. Now this is where things get a bit cloudy. The reasoning given by the commentators was that VAR does not go back that far to determine if a play is legal or not. The only part that can be reviewed is when the attacking player crosses the ball to the guy who scores the goal. I know there are good intentions and logical reasons for this sort of rule (How far back do you want to go in order to nitpick something illegal?) We could be there for hours looking at video instead of playing the match But it still leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. Maybe there should be a challenge system in which each manager has 2 challenges so that something like a foul throw that starts a break that leads to a goal can be looked at. I am sure there are other circumstances that will occur due to this ambiguity..
Now a case that gets my approval. Within the Cologne-Hamburg match there is a Hamburg defender who get's bumped in such a subtle way by a Cologne Forward. The Defender overreacts like a baby and flops down to the ground in agony rolling on the floor for a few minutes, basically forcing VAR to review the play. After VAR suggests to the ref to look at the play, he does and gives the Defender a yellow for simulation. Justice is served and this sort of thing get's my huge thumbs up. Hopefully this will eradicate play acting within a few years. You are only going to look like an idiot and get carded if you fall down in fake agony and VAR is watching.
Totally agree with you about the play-acting use of VAR. The encouraging thing about VAR is the behavior it will stop. For instance, the famous Henry handball goal against Ireland, he does not do that if he knows VAR will catch him and he'll get at least a yellow. On the first one, I have big hesitations about a goal being called back due to a slightly foul throw. I like goals, I don't think a foot on the line is much of an advantage. I'd rather see a gold like that stand. In a recent Rapids game there was a goal called back because at the beginning of the play (deep in the other half) a defender starts the attack with a foul on a striker that the ref saw but didn't call. I have hesitations about this one too, because the ref saw it, and also because the foul was so far back (although only about 12 seconds in the past). On the other hand, the foul did start the counter attack, BUT, on the first hand, it the foul was in the other half, so the defending team had chances to defend the attack. I'd be OK with this one being called back if the ref had NOT seen the call, but since he saw it, I think the goal should have stood. I really want to avoid this being like North American sports, where everything is reveiewed and games have no flow. And sport is dominated by technicalities and videographers.
Rules are rules though. If a player only has one foot on the ground it is an illegal throw in. And that illegal throw in caused a break that ended up in a goal.
Yes but if that foot is so slightly off the ground that the officials don't notice it, then do we want it reviewed? We're not designing a bridge to be earthquake safe, we are just setting boundaries for a game.
Yes, I would want it reviewed. Just as I would want it reviewed if a Keeper takes more than a step off the line on a penalty. But that is my personal preference.