What rule would you change or bring in?

[Schumi]

Just turn a blind eye to any fouls on the guy in the corner. If he gets a shove in the back and knocks the ball out and no free kick is given, the practice would die out.

Obviously dangerous fouls would be called.

[Na Chlairsigh]

It's not really a rule, more so that referees have gotten more lenient with it over the last few years......

but it really annoys me how much protection goalkeepers get, any kind of contact and they are looking for a free, there's nothing worse then seeing a goalkeeper flapping about like a fish when he was been legally challenged for a cross. They already have an extra avantage of using their hands, surely a little bit of contact souldn't effect them. If the "challenge" was to take place anywhere else around the pitch then a free wouldn't be given, but because it's a goalkeeper the ref always gives it.

A fair, legal challenge for a header against a goalkeeper using his hands should be allowed. Not like the olden days when you could practically charge the goalie into the net, but it's getting redicioulous at this stage.

[ken foree]

It's not really a rule, more so that referees have gotten more lenient with it over the last few years......

but it really annoys me how much protection goalkeepers get, any kind of contact and they are looking for a free, there's nothing worse then seeing a goalkeeper flapping about like a fish when he was been legally challenged for a cross. They already have an extra avantage of using their hands, surely a little bit of contact souldn't effect them. If the "challenge" was to take place anywhere else around the pitch then a free wouldn't be given, but because it's a goalkeeper the ref always gives it.

A fair, legal challenge for a header against a goalkeeper using his hands should be allowed. Not like the olden days when you could practically charge the goalie into the net, but it's getting redicioulous at this stage.

absolutely, drives me mental. a yank (from upstate NY incidentally) was always disagreeing with me saying goalies always get more protection in pro sports. ahh how i loved that argument :rolleyes:

[CollegeTillIDie]

I think the 10 yard penalty for dissent or bad behaviour when a free kick has already been awarded is a good idea.
I.E. The team is penalised by having the free kick moved 10 yards closer to their own goal.

[John83]

...Some sort of sin-bin ala rugby. Opposition teams recieve zero benefit from a yellow card...
Interesting one. I've seen many players booked for fouls that were actually dives by the 'victim'. I imagine that diving would continue as long as it continues to come out ahead on average - it's not punished hard enough often enough.


...Video replays are helpful, but ultimatley, inconclusive... Every game you watch there are contentious issues and the replay does not always solve debates.
Having a referee on the pitch doesn't sort everything. It doesn't lend any merit to suggesting we'd be better off without them.

I think video referees could be used successfully, and until experiment proves me wrong, I'll continue to. Blatent dives, at least 75% of incorrect offside calls and the odd other incident would be corrected. The only issue to my mind is whether or not it would substantially slow the game, and I don't think it would - there's usually a consensus among the commentators before play is restarted as is.


I hate when defenders 'shepherd' the ball out of play for a goal kick... I'd call that obstruction unless the defender actually touched the ball... similar in its ethos to the back-pass rule... I agree fully. I think it's already covered, but not enforced.


Linesmen in football are only ever linesmen.
Touch judges in rugby are also referees and they alternate between the jobs. The touch judges have much more influence in rugby than linesmen in football and much more off the ball incidents are dealt with. Not true. Certainly in the world cup, they're all referees. I think the same is true of the Champions' League, and I have a feeling that lower division referees often act as linesmen to get experience even in the eL. Can anyone clarify?


...[in] rugby you rarely see the players complain to the ref and never surround him looking for frees.
That wouldn't require a rule change, just a change of refereeing style. They just have to get brutal about it for a few months and keep it consistant after that, and it'll die out. It helps too that the video ref means that the ref's decision is trusted more by the rugby players.

[pineapple stu]

I think video referees could be used successfully, and until experiment proves me wrong, I'll continue to. Blatant dives, at least 75% of incorrect offside calls and the odd other incident would be corrected. The only issue to my mind is whether or not it would substantially slow the game, and I don't think it would - there's usually a consensus among the commentators before play is restarted as is.
Noooo!!!

How on earth can you think video replays won't slow the game down?! Who calls for the replay? The ref? Naturally not - he thinks he's right and doesn't have to call for a replay. Even if he does, he has to stop the game, contact the video ref, tell him what he wants to see and then wait for the decision. All the time, the game could be going ahead. How do you restart the game if the ref's wrong ? Can you imagine a case where a player's clean through and the ref wants to see if he was offside? He stops the game, sees he was onside...and then starts with a drop ball which ruins the player's team's attack. Or else he waits until the ball goes out of play - waits as the keeper saves...and waits another three minutes for the ball to go out of play...which happens when the opposition score. Then what?! It'd be farcical. And it'd slow the game.

Do the managers decide maybe? Can you imagine how often Arsene would call for a replay?! Then who decides whether he gets to object? The ref in a quick discussion? Slowing the game.

You're making the quite erroneous assumption that only incorrect calls would be challenged. This wouldn't happen obviously. To correct one erroneous call, you'd probably have to have three or four replays (bottom line - at the top level, referees are actually quite good and get a lot of close calls right).

Commentators can indeed make a quick call on decisions. Trouble is, they're talking through their bottom and quite often show a remarkable amount of ignorance in coming to the wrong conclusion.

Video replay is a quick-fit solution which has absolutely no place in the modern game. It's favoured by people who think technology is all-powerful - engineers and the likes.;)

[John83]

How on earth can you think video replays won't slow the game down?! Watching it happen on TV, watching it happen in rugby. Some semblence of logic applied to the problem.


Who calls for the replay? The ref? Naturally not - he thinks he's right and doesn't have to call for a replay. Yes, of course he calls for it. If referees are never unsure about a call, they're among the stupidest people on earth. Linesmen are forever calling offside when they're just not sure. Maybe they should just indicate uncertainty!


Even if he does, he has to stop the game, contact the video ref, tell him what he wants to see and then wait for the decision. That takes seconds. If you use it judiciously, it takes time that's spent getting a football back on the pitch - someone's either just scored or just conceded a free kick. The ball is dead.


Can you imagine a case where a player's clean through and the ref wants to see if he was offside? He stops the game, sees he was onside...and then starts with a drop ball which ruins the player's team's attack. Or else he waits until the ball goes out of play - waits as the keeper saves...and waits another three minutes for the ball to go out of play...which happens when the opposition score. Good god, I hope you're never asked to design anything.

Lets stick with the offside for the moment. The ball goes over the top, the linesman flags "don't know", the ref presses a button (hell, the video ref will have seen the don't know, and will already be working). BTW, the technology here could easily be smaller than a biro. Hell, you could build it into the pen he uses to take bookings, etc.

Now, there are two possibilities:
A) The player is onside. This case doesn't affect anything at all - the game continues as normal.

B) Player is offside. Four further possibilities:
B1) He scores, starts celbrating. He's just gotten as far as the corner flag, where he's busy waving at the home fans, when he spots that the linesman has just raised his flag. "Late call!" complain the commentators, forgetting that late and wrong aren't exactly synonymous.
B2) He puts it wide. The keeper collects it, and the referee could indicate to pause - frankly, he might as well not, as there's no real advantage lost.
B3) The keeper saves. The referee indicates to pause, or not, as in B2.
B4) The ball is cleared. The game continues as normal, or is stopped almost immediately in the case where the attacking team hoofs it back into the box.

In none of those scenarios does the game get held up substantially. The outcome of the game could be very, very different though.

Of course, offsides aren't the only decision in question. How about a red card? Ref can't see who kicked who first, calls them both over, gives out to them about their behaviour, then gets his call from the video ref. He sends off the right guy, a really, really massive impact on a game.

Or how about penalties? Wouldn't it be nice to actually have anti-diving rules made feasible? They're often blatent on replay, but the ref has bugger-all chance of seeing them correctly. I agree with you that top flight referees are for the most part bloody good, but they're not superhuman.


Do the managers decide maybe? Can you imagine how often Arsene would call for a replay?! In American football, each coach has three calls like that. After the third one, he can shut up. But why even bother. Why would the manager, at pitch level, at least as far away from the referee, be able to tell any better than him?


Commentators ... quite often show a remarkable amount of ignorance in coming to the wrong conclusion. Sure. Video refs wouldn't be chosen from the ranks of commentators though, would they? They'd be referees, able to make quick decisions.


Video replay is a quick-fit solution which has absolutely no place in the modern game. It's favoured by people who think technology is all-powerful - engineers and the likes.;) Two can play at that. Video replay is an interesting possible solution which should be tried in the modern game. It's opposed by luddites and the instinctively conservative - accountants and the likes.;)

[Schumi]

If referees are never unsure about a call, they're among the stupidest people on earth.LOL. Perish the thought. :D

[pineapple stu]

That takes seconds. If you use it judiciously, it takes time that's spent getting a football back on the pitch - someone's either just scored or just conceded a free kick. The ball is dead.
I think I had a programme article on this a while back. (a) It doesn't take seconds; in fact, you're seeing 8 or 10 minutes of injury time in rugby games with video replays, and that's just for tries. (b) An experiment can be carried out - say with a watch and a rugby match - that video replay decisions take the guts of 30 seconds or a minute to make a call. And even then, they're not necessarily right.


In American football, each coach has three calls like that. After the third one, he can shut up.
You wouldn't advocating the adoption of American norms into football now would you?;)


Sure. Video refs wouldn't be chosen from the ranks of commentators though, would they? They'd be referees, able to make quick decisions.
The point was that you said commentators can make quick decisions. But that doesn't mean that correct decisions can be made quickly. In fact, the video replay ref would likely have to go through various clips of the incident before he found one which was at the right angle to make a call, then watch the pass in slow motion while getting out his pen and drawing lines on the screen. Then he'd get into character and mutter "Terrible defending Gary" or some such, realise he'd missed what he was looking for and have to start all over again.*

A further issue is where do you apply this? Can you imagine a video ref in the press box in Belfield Park, looking at a decision on TV3 quality footage while play goes on and suddenly the ball comes flying into the press box, breaking his screen? FIFA's fundamental concept of football is that the rules are the same at all levels of the game. This would obviously break that. Also, giving refs a safety net to check their decisions would, I would argue, make them less sure about their own decisions (why would they need to make a call when the telly can do it for them?) and necessitate a lot more video decisions. You'd actually end up with weaker refs as a result.

Also, one factor everyone overlooks is that there is no general conspiracy against your team and that these decisions balance themselves out over the course of a season or so.

* - May not actually happen.

[ken foree]

games are held up all the time for injuries so i wouldn't mind the extra wait if if meant eventually banning diving, better enforcement of offside, and better penalty decisions. i would welcome 8-10 mins extra if it meant all these things drastically improved. under-age tournament should be given a trial at first obviously and perhaps only in certain aspects of the game (at first), ball over the goal-line/penos and offside decisions. i think the ol' tony adams hand in the air would die a swift death if he knew there was a replay being shown somewhere :D

[John83]

games are held up all the time for injuries so i wouldn't mind the extra wait if if meant eventually banning diving, better enforcement of offside, and better penalty decisions. i would welcome 8-10 mins extra if it meant all these things drastically improved. under-age tournament should be given a trial at first obviously and perhaps only in certain aspects of the game (at first), ball over the goal-line/penos and offside decisions. i think the ol' tony adams hand in the air would die a swift death if he knew there was a replay being shown somewhere :D
My feelings exactly. What's another five minutes to get it right?

[Bald Student]

It doesn't take seconds; in fact, you're seeing 8 or 10 minutes of injury time in rugby games with video replays, and that's just for tries. (b) An experiment can be carried out - say with a watch and a rugby match - that video replay decisions take the guts of 30 seconds or a minute to make a call. And even then, they're not necessarily right.

You're using false arguments here pineapple. Rugby has 8 to 10 mins of injury time bacause it's a sport with a lot of injuries. Also, the time a ref spends talking to players is added on. Very little of it is because of video ref decisions.

The decisions being talked about here for football are much simpler than the ones in rugby. Did the ball cross the line or who was in front when the ball was played? In rugby a ref has to look at several angles to try to find one where he can best see a ball under a big pile of players or to find an angle where he can see the ball being touched down in the same shot as the player touching the corner flag.

[CollegeTillIDie]

Well here's one "rule" I would change.
Only have actual League Champions play in the "Champions League" or else make them change the name of the competition. Any other activity so blatantly inaccurate would be taken to court under the Trade Descriptions Act !

[The Stars]

That wouldn't require a rule change, just a change of refereeing style.
Read my post,thats why I said not so much a rule change......:mad: