The one's i'd choose would be
1) some kind of citing commisioner as in rugby. especially to be used in the case of players diving.
2) sin bin players for say 10 minutes after yellow card
3) more a free kick forward 10m when players complain. it would hopefully shut them up moaning.
"If I wanted you to understand it, I would have explained it better." Johan Cruyff
a totally unrealistic one but something that annoys the hell out of me: any player who touches the ball after it goes out for a throw has to take the throw. there's so much handing the ball off to the next fella to throw in it's like there's some other game going on on the sideline
That'd create more problems than it would solve. What if a ball boy throws the ball to the wrong player? If the ball travelles down the sideline after it goes out can a player near where the ball ends up kick it to his team mate or does the player taking the throw have to run down and back again?Originally Posted by ken foree
i shoulda added about a hundred winky emoticons to that post - no way am i serious about this rule, just a pet peeve i can't stand! it gets like rugby on the sidelines sometimes
One thing that p!sses me off is when players herd around the ball at the corner flag to kill off a game when it's in the last few moments. Is there any way this could be dealt with??
Nope - not breaking any rules. Ball's in play and they're prfectly entitled to do what they do (obviously unless obstruction comes into it). Part of the game.
True but still annoying.
Yep, but to out-law it would be farcical in implementation. How long can a player hold on to the ball for? From what minute or score do you deem he's time-wasting? etc. etc.
Anyway, if it falls under the time-wasting category, the ref is within his rights to allow for it in injury-time.
The only rule I would change isn't so much a rule as an authority for Refs.
When you watch rugby you rarely see the players complain to the ref and never surround him looking for frees.
this policy should be in soccer aswell.If any player complains he should get an automatic yellow card.
We all know that The International Rules series between Ireland and Australia is a bit of a boxing match but it still has some good points. ie The 3rd man rule.If 2 player are in a tackle or arguement,the next player who gets involved gets sent off.
Adopting these styles of refereeing would cut out all the complaining and let us focus on the football rather than who started what.
Lets just imagine Chelsea if these rules existed.
Yeah, I can see what you mean PS - it's just so bloody annoying to see three or four players scrambling around the ball at the corner flag for ehat seems like ages. Obviously, there's nothing that can be done about it.
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.
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
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
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.
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.
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 agree fully. I think it's already covered, but not enforced.
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?
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.
You can't spell failure without FAI
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.
Watching it happen on TV, watching it happen in rugby. Some semblence of logic applied to the problem.
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!Who calls for the replay? The ref? Naturally not - he thinks he's right and doesn't have to call for a replay.
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.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.
Good god, I hope you're never asked to design anything.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.
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.
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?Do the managers decide maybe? Can you imagine how often Arsene would call for a replay?!
Sure. Video refs wouldn't be chosen from the ranks of commentators though, would they? They'd be referees, able to make quick decisions.Commentators ... quite often show a remarkable amount of ignorance in coming to the wrong conclusion.
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.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.
Last edited by John83; 15/03/2006 at 12:25 PM.
You can't spell failure without FAI
LOL. Perish the thought.
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
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.
You wouldn't advocating the adoption of American norms into football now would you?
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.
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
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks