"He got the ball"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

That passage only highlights a flaw in the argument that technology can eradicate refereeing errors.

---

There's no disputing the fact that technology isn't going to eradicate errors but at least it'll take the burden off the man in the middle of everything. Plus, it would sort out a massive percentage of the stonewallers which is the main thing. If a decision is that subjective then nobody is going to be that hard done by. I don't see a negative side really while appreciating that it wouldn't be as smooth as it is in rugby.

I had another look at the third Bournemouth goal and I'd have to agree with you. There's one angle in particular (from behind Cech's goals) that shows the push pretty clearly. I'd feel for Oliver becasue in most of the other angles it wasn't nearly as clear, including his own. He could have just copped out as refs usually do with those ones but he was brave and got it wrong. They seriously need some assistance, one way or another.

I suppose this is our "Laws of the Game " thread..

What are the thoughts of Van Basten's plans?

Some good? Some bad?

Quote:

---

PENALTY SHOOTOUTS
Rather than burdening players with an additional 30 minutes of action when cup games are level after 90 minutes, Van Basten is suggesting going straight to penalties.
'I think everybody is pretty tired after 120 minutes,' Van Basten said.
Now penalties are a test of nerves with players having one chance to beat the goalkeeper from the penalty spot.
'Maybe the player should start 25 metres from goal and then you can dribble the goalkeeper or shoot early,' he said. 'But you have to make a goal within eight seconds. It's more skill and less luck. It's maybe a bit more spectacular. It's more football but it's still nervous for the player.'

NO OFFSIDE
Scrapping the offside rule could make football more visually appealing, Van Basten advises.
'I think it can be very interesting watching a game without offside,' he said.
'Football now is already looking a lot like handball with nine or ten defenders in front of the goal. It's difficult for the opposition to score a goal as it's very difficult to create something in the small pieces of space they give you.
'So if you play without offside you get more possibilities to score a goal.'

FOUR QUARTERS
Soccer is increasingly intense and gruelling, with a single 15-minute break between 45-minute halves.
'We are trying to help the game, to let the game develop in a good way,' Van Basten said. 'We want to have a game which is honest, which is dynamic, a nice spectacle so we should try to do everything to help that process.'
Introducing four quarters could be advantageous.
'The coach can have three times with his players during the game,' Van Basten said.

SIN BINS
Now there is no middle ground between players being shown a yellow card and receiving a red card and then being removed for the rest of the game.
'Maybe an orange card could be shown that sees a player go out of the game for 10 minutes for incidents that are not heavy enough for a red card,' Van Basten said.
Such an instance could be when a player commits repeat fouls that didn't warrant yellow cards or obstruct opponents. Five misdemeanors could earn a player a place in a sin bin for 10 minutes, Van Basten said.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...#ixzz4WExrFXQY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

---

Forgive me for grabbing it from the Mail. They were the first one I saw with a list and I'm off out.

WRT penalty shootouts, I think that having the shootout before the ET would be worth a try as one team may well have to chase goals. I don't like the idea of the ice hockey style "run up".

As for the no offside and 4 quarters he can get effed!

I'd like to see a few games with no offside just for the craic but would be very sceptical about it going forward (yuck, horrible corporate term). No interest in even trailing the hockey style run up and don't really agree with one off games going straight to penalties. Two legged ties should absolutely go straight to penalties though and scrap that awful away goals rule while they're at it.

http://foot.ie/threads/219343-RTE-Vi...er-says-Dunphy

Where does one start?

I actually think diving is less bad now than a year ago. The Euros was notable for a lack of it (Delle Ali apart).
"save" soccer? It's doing rather well
Nothing wrong with saying Sterling should have gone down. Not the same as encouraging diving
"No debate". Of course there is.
Rugby is enhanced by TMO? Plenty of fans moaning about refs not having the conviction to make a decision. It's not that black v white

First step is for refs to stop making remarkably bad decisions. How the ref missed the Sterling push is beyond me.

I think some form of video intervention will be advantageous but the rule-makers need to be careful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

http://foot.ie/threads/219343-RTE-Vi...er-says-Dunphy

First step is for refs to stop making remarkably bad decisions. How the ref missed the Sterling push is beyond me.

I think some form of video intervention will be advantageous but the rule-makers need to be careful.

---

The trouble with football is that referees/linesmen across the world continue to miss vital infringements. Therefore it can't be a coincidence. The game is just too hard to referee. What amazes me is that linesmen get so many offsides correct. An almost impossible job. Sky and their pundits have led the way in attacking referees and their interviews after the game encourage the managers to attack the referees. Is it any wonder therefore that this has permeated down to grassroots where referees are getting physically as well as verbally assaulted, so much so that they threatened a strike.

I think that rather than having a visual play back for every decision, like cricket perhaps the Captain can challenge two or three decisions. Not sure how it would work though (e.g. Team A claims a peno and Team B are counter-attacking and looks like they might score a goal - can Team A immediately claim a video review). Or possibly the referee's assistant on the sideline, rather than just being an object for vitriol by the managers, could have a monitor to make decisions. I always thought that this would have been very useful in Paris for the Henry handball.

In summary, the football referee needs help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

I'd like to see a few games with no offside just for the craic but would be very sceptical about it going forward (yuck, horrible corporate term). No interest in even trailing the hockey style run up and don't really agree with one off games going straight to penalties. Two legged ties should absolutely go straight to penalties though and scrap that awful away goals rule while they're at it.

---

Fairly sure it was tried in some lower leagues previously, and games turned into long-ball, goal-hanging affairs.

Offside was brought in for a reason (i.e. long-ball/goal-hanging), and any proposal to get rid of it should at least address the whole point of offside.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Football is the most popular sport in the world; why does it need a host of rule changes?

Daft stuff.

What's wrong with goal-hanging? :)

Nah, I'd say getting rid of offside would be a disaster but changes here and there can be a good thing. Stop messing around the the offside rule itself would be a good start. The 'daylight' interpretation was by far the best that I can remember.

The introduction of the back pass rule was pretty radical and improved the game no end. Football was still the most popular sport in the world previous to that no doubt but I'm glad they didn't take a 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' stance at that point.

And I really despise the away goals rule, I might have mentioned that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

And I really despise the away goals rule, I might have mentioned that.

---

The "away goals rule" was brought in because away teams used literally to park the bus ending up with some pretty torrid games. I don't mind the rule, ignoring the mystic powers attributed to it by some commentators.

Van Basten's suggestions seem very American-centric: I've read the exact same list of suggestions from a few different Yank commentators as far back as France 98 (including other things, like widening the goals and eliminating injury time), all in the name of promoting the game there. They had those penalties for a while, and I think they were scrapped after too many injuries (keepers having a tendency, intentionally or not, of bringing the attacker down in the process of trying to stop them in that situation). Eliminating offside would destroy the game as a spectacle for sure, unless we want 6-5 to be a common score.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OwlsFan

The "away goals rule" was brought in because away teams used literally to park the bus ending up with some pretty torrid games. I don't mind the rule, ignoring the mystic powers attributed to it by some commentators.

---

I think the rule is fine: the only thing worth changing is removing its applicability in the event of extra time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OwlsFan

The "away goals rule" was brought in because away teams used literally to park the bus ending up with some pretty torrid games. I don't mind the rule, ignoring the mystic powers attributed to it by some commentators.

---

Yeah, I know the purpose for which it was introduced but I don't think it works at all. For the most part, the away team in the first leg is still quite content with a 0-0 draw and if they nick something extra well and good. On top of that, it makes the home team very cagey about conceding so it's counter productive if anything in my opinion.

The home team in the second leg are often in a position where they can sit back and defend their 1-1 or 2-2 'advantage'. I don't see how this promotes attacking football. If away goals were scrapped I think you'd see far more open games, especially second legs. Two teams that have scored the same amount of goals after 180 minutes both deserve a chance at penalties I think.

It often kills a game when the away team, already up from the first leg, scores a goal early.

I love the "mystic powers" line! They could actually count a million squared times or 3.7624 times and still have exactly the same practical meaning as counting double.

Anyone see FRA v ENG yesterday?

Did the VAR get it right? I only read about it this morning. It looks to me like the French guy just caught Alli's heel causing his legs to cross and trip, but Alli is a notorious diver. Keith Hackett says it was a dive, Alli tripping himself.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/footb...cid=spartanntp

I can't play that ITV video, might be limited to UK only?

Watching last night, I thought he did get a touch on Alli that caused him to go down, so it was probably a penalty.

Was surprised to see a red card shown in a friendly though.

Even if whoever posted it still thinks it's a dive, this clip shows definite contact between Varane and Alli. Contact that caused Alli's right leg to clip his left leg.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIkOpNb_g6E

That's what I thought. Varane's left leg clipped Alli's leg. The net result was like a tap tackle in rugby.

It's kind of similar to Walters one the last day, isn't it? Does the defender scampering back have a duty to make sure he doesn't make contact with the player, even if the attacker initiates the contact unintentionally by lifting their foot back as they're striking the ball? I thought the Walters one looked like a penalty in real time, but having seem the replays I don't think the contact from the defender is intentional, but maybe it doesn't have to be? Tough ones I think.

Alli isn't about to strike the ball I know, but I'm still not sure the contact from Varane is deliberate. But that one looks a penalty to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

It's kind of similar to Walters one the last day, isn't it? Does the defender scampering back have a duty to make sure he doesn't make contact with the player, even if the attacker initiates the contact unintentionally by lifting their foot back as they're striking the ball? I thought the Walters one looked like a penalty in real time, but having seem the replays I don't think the contact from the defender is intentional, but maybe it doesn't have to be? Tough ones I think.

Alli isn't about to strike the ball I know, but I'm still not sure the contact from Varane is deliberate. But that one looks a penalty to me.

---

I still think Walters one was a penalty, because yes, the defender is being reckless if he doesn't ensure he avoids contact.

Same as if a defender slides in to block a cross and the ball hits his raised arm. No intent, but your fault for being so careless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

Yeah, I know the purpose for which it was introduced but I don't think it works at all. For the most part, the away team in the first leg is still quite content with a 0-0 draw and if they nick something extra well and good. On top of that, it makes the home team very cagey about conceding so it's counter productive if anything in my opinion.

The home team in the second leg are often in a position where they can sit back and defend their 1-1 or 2-2 'advantage'. I don't see how this promotes attacking football. If away goals were scrapped I think you'd see far more open games, especially second legs. Two teams that have scored the same amount of goals after 180 minutes both deserve a chance at penalties I think.

---

I hate away goals. But counting in ET of the second leg still wrecks my head. How is it fair?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

How is it fair?

---

It's not, although it's debatable as to who's at the greater disadvantage. I presume you mean the home side are, but I suppose they do get an extra 30 minutes with home advantage. I'd scrap the rule in a heartbeat though and do away with extra time in second legs also.