Latest rule change proposals

[Bs4Red]

2 hours ago, Red Right Hand said:

They have to justify their exorbitant salaries somehow and by doing things like this they can also spend two years having meetings about it in such footballing hotspots as The Seychelles, Costa Rica or The Bahamas.

Agree mate, the sad thing for me is these panels are made up of people that have never played the game. 

For me the game is perfectly fine, no need to change anything except in play regarding "simulation", time wasting among a few others. 

Im also against the VAR too because I feel human error is what makes our game great. I'd hate for us to become like Rugby with the stopping and starting 

[WarksRobin]

The self pass free hit was introduced in hockey a few years back. Despite the initial confusion as everyone got used to it, it does speed the game up. Essentially the free hit has to be a clear and deliberate movement, any opposition players within 5 yards cannot make a challenge until the ball has moved 5 yards so they are out of the game unless they retreat quickly. If they introduce something similar in football I can see it being a positive move.

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Bs4Red said:

Agree mate, the sad thing for me is these panels are made up of people that have never played the game. 

For me the game is perfectly fine, no need to change anything except in play regarding "simulation", time wasting among a few others. 

Im also against the VAR too because I feel human error is what makes our game great. I'd hate for us to become like Rugby with the stopping and starting 

I agree that the game is perfectly fine.

Human error is part of the game, but as the amount of money in the game has increased, and there is therefore so much at stake for clubs, then clubs are not prepared to accept human error - where the error is at their expense, of course!

Human error has always been a part of the game, but it used to be generally accepted, because their was  respect for referees, by and large. With the microscopic dissection of referees performances by know all pundits and with the benefit of super slo-mo  from every conceivable angle, and the advent of a pose of players haranguing a referee (thanks for that S'Ralex!) there seems to be a greater concentration on what the referee did wrong than whether each team played well or badly.

While there is a strong case for video technology, there is a danger that technology creep could see the game become like American football. However, the stop start nature of NFL means that video reviews don't really affect the flow of the game. Football is completely different, and in my view the danger is that too much technology ( or interference with the laws) could see the ebb and flow of the game change. The fundamental problem seems to be the refusal of players and managers to accept that decisions won't always go their way.

The governing bodies need to decide whether they are going to support and back referees, and allow them to properly punish players for dissent, simulation and every other form of cheating, including time wasting, or kowtow to the money in the game and go full tilt into technology based decision making.

The cynic in me thinks that, sadly, money talks too loudly at the top end of the game these days and as a result, before I'm gone the game will have changed for the worst.

 

[fishy]

Hopefully the sin bin trials will be successful.

Not so sure about the 60 min of football.  I'd  rather the penalty was higher for time wasting and get more football.  It's what I pay to see. (Sometimes I pay and I don't see any, but that's a different thread)

[Lanterne Rouge]

1 minute ago, fishy said:

Hopefully the sin bin trials will be successful.

Not so sure about the 60 min of football.  I'd  rather the penalty was higher for time wasting and get more football.  It's what I pay to see. (Sometimes I pay and I don't see any, but that's a different thread)

There are some games I`ve been to that I was praying would only last sixty minutes.

[Cowshed]

17 hours ago, 22A said:

I've just seen on SSN some proposals made by a team of lawyers & referees. Please feel free to discuss.

1; Games will last just sixty minutes, but the clock will stop every time the ball is out of play to ensure 60 mins of football.

2; Free kicks can be dribbled forward if so desired and the ball will not need to be stationary before being kicked.

3; If the ball is prevented from going in by a defender handling it, a penalty goal will be awarded.

4; A penalty will be awarded if a goalkeeper handles a back pass.

I can't remember the last time I heard some go what would be good would be dribbling the free kick forward ... There was much more of it. Written by ********.

[stephenkibby.]

Makes me want to cry.

For the sake of a few hundred cheating wealthy ****** prima donnas ,that for some reason can't be controlled under the current rules,  they want to change the structure of the game for the millions that play or watch.  Brilliant!!

Bring back Blatter for ***** sake.  Or is he still pulling the strings?

 

[Sixtyseconds]

Sixty minutes is too long.

Make it shorter.

Fifteen minutes each way. 

That will give fans more time to drive back from Middlesbrough.

It will also give fans watching on TV more adverts to watch.

Buy this, buy that, sponsored by ... FIFA love adverts.

[Rocking Red Cyril]

On 6/17/2017 at 19:14, 22A said:

I've just seen on SSN some proposals made by a team of lawyers & referees. Please feel free to discuss.

1; Games will last just sixty minutes, but the clock will stop every time the ball is out of play to ensure 60 mins of football.

2; Free kicks can be dribbled forward if so desired and the ball will not need to be stationary before being kicked.

3; If the ball is prevented from going in by a defender handling it, a penalty goal will be awarded.

4; A penalty will be awarded if a goalkeeper handles a back pass.

who are SSN and what they got to do with football. sounds bloody silly rules to me . just my opinion of course ;o)

[22A]

56 minutes ago, Rocking Red Cyril said:

who are SSN and what they got to do with football. sounds bloody silly rules to me . just my opinion of course ;o)

SSN is Sky Sports News and they were reporting these recommendations that had been made.

[AppyDAZE]

9 hours ago, Sixtyseconds said:

Sixty minutes is too long.

Make it shorter.

Fifteen minutes each way. 

That will give fans more time to drive back from Middlesbrough.

It will also give fans watching on TV more adverts to watch.

Buy this, buy that, sponsored by ... FIFA love adverts.

The only sensible rule change is the one they have been ignoring for far too long. Any team that is winning by more than 2 goals at half-time have to play the second half wearing clowns outfits (including the huge shoes) and only if the opposition manage to comeback can that team quickly nip off, change back into proper kit and continue the game.. IN the event of the said team taking a seemingly unsurmountable winning advantage once more.. that side have to complete the fixture wearing Freddie Mercury leotards. Not difficult really, is it?

[Trueredsupporter]

Nothing there about diving and feigning injury. want a roman ballista to fire the bodies off the pitch.

 

[Tinmans Love Child]

On 17/06/2017 at 20:09, Rossi the Robin said:

0 pts if you don't score a goal would possibly be a good rule 

 

Yeh I think a 0-0 draw should result in no points per team, a score draw would be the usual 1

[Super]

11 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

Yeh I think a 0-0 draw should result in no points per team, a score draw would be the usual 1

Been saying this for ages.

[ciderbeans]

What if they had been really going at it end to end but the keepers had a blinder and it was 0-0? Would that still be zero points? 

I agree with the potential rule as it should help with the entertainment factor but for those teams that did entertain but couldn't score, it would be a kick in the teeth

[Olympian]

I don't think it's even funny.

[Bernard Lerring]

Refs watch should be linked to the stadium timer like rugby. 

Anyone who goes to ground for longer than 5 seconds has to go off the field of play and can't re-enter til the ball next goes out of play 

[Super]

39 minutes ago, ciderbeans said:

What if they had been really going at it end to end but the keepers had a blinder and it was 0-0? Would that still be zero points? 

I agree with the potential rule as it should help with the entertainment factor but for those teams that did entertain but couldn't score, it would be a kick in the teeth

Yes. Would stop teams sitting back playing for a 0-0. Certainly would get an exciting last 10-20 mins that's for sure.

[EnderMB]

There are a lot of arguments for these changes, but I think they also open up an equal number of questions.

Reducing the game to 30 minutes will change things drastically. Whether there is 30 minutes of game play or not is largely irrelevant to the player, because they are out there for 45 minutes. We see 30 minutes of time on the ball. It doesn't take into account the off-ball tactics, so even if we switch to 30 minutes of guaranteed game time, the tactics will switch to ensure that possession-based football is preferred to wind the clock down.

The free kick change is interesting, but it offers very little benefit. If anything, it adds to my point above of ensuring that possession based football reigns supreme when a team is winning.

The 0 points for a 0-0 draw is ******* stupid. We shouldn't punish good defenses because some fans consider a 0-0 to be boring.

In my opinion, most of these changes are for corporate gain, and allow for more adverts to be played during matches. A lot of these changes have already been trialed in America (look up the start of MLS after the '94 World Cup), and they were so bad that legitimate football fans turned their backs on their domestic league.

[Super]

11 minutes ago, EnderMB said:

There are a lot of arguments for these changes, but I think they also open up an equal number of questions.

Reducing the game to 30 minutes will change things drastically. Whether there is 30 minutes of game play or not is largely irrelevant to the player, because they are out there for 45 minutes. We see 30 minutes of time on the ball. It doesn't take into account the off-ball tactics, so even if we switch to 30 minutes of guaranteed game time, the tactics will switch to ensure that possession-based football is preferred to wind the clock down.

The free kick change is interesting, but it offers very little benefit. If anything, it adds to my point above of ensuring that possession based football reigns supreme when a team is winning.

The 0 points for a 0-0 draw is ******* stupid. We shouldn't punish good defenses because some fans consider a 0-0 to be boring.

In my opinion, most of these changes are for corporate gain, and allow for more adverts to be played during matches. A lot of these changes have already been trialed in America (look up the start of MLS after the '94 World Cup), and they were so bad that legitimate football fans turned their backs on their domestic league.

That's cause 99% of them are. We had one last season Burton which was truly dreadful.

[Cowshed]

42 minutes ago, EnderMB said:

There are a lot of arguments for these changes, but I think they also open up an equal number of questions.

Reducing the game to 30 minutes will change things drastically. Whether there is 30 minutes of game play or not is largely irrelevant to the player, because they are out there for 45 minutes. We see 30 minutes of time on the ball. It doesn't take into account the off-ball tactics, so even if we switch to 30 minutes of guaranteed game time, the tactics will switch to ensure that possession-based football is preferred to wind the clock down.

The free kick change is interesting, but it offers very little benefit. If anything, it adds to my point above of ensuring that possession based football reigns supreme when a team is winning.

The 0 points for a 0-0 draw is ******* stupid. We shouldn't punish good defenses because some fans consider a 0-0 to be boring.

In my opinion, most of these changes are for corporate gain, and allow for more adverts to be played during matches. A lot of these changes have already been trialed in America (look up the start of MLS after the '94 World Cup), and they were so bad that legitimate football fans turned their backs on their domestic league.

Looking at the proposals/ideas which actually would improve football for the tens of millions who play it?

None of them. Would they assist referees? Not really, if anything they would lessen the authority of referees further.

Its twisted towards the interests of TV, and in the case of shortening games would 100% make football more negative as teams shut up shop and retained possession in favour of anything else when one up.

 

[Major Isewater]

5 hours ago, Super said:

Been saying this for ages.

This .

[Major Isewater]

No goals permitted during the commercial breaks .

[Chivs]

6 hours ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

Yeh I think a 0-0 draw should result in no points per team, a score draw would be the usual 1

Which would result in both teams accidentally scoring one goal each late in the match.

Though, if it was a Warnock team you were playing, you would surely say "We get to score first".

[Tinmans Love Child]

5 hours ago, Chivs said:

Which would result in both teams accidentally scoring one goal each late in the match.

Though, if it was a Warnock team you were playing, you would surely say "We get to score first".

Why if one team scored late on would they then let one in just to give the other team a point, surely they would just take all 3 points, hence the point (excuse the pun)!

[Chivs]

2 hours ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

Why if one team scored late on would they then let one in just to give the other team a point, surely they would just take all 3 points, hence the point (excuse the pun)!

They would "agree": "We are getting a draw here.  Far better if we both get a pointed draw rather than a pointless draw"

[Tinmans Love Child]

11 hours ago, Chivs said:

They would "agree": "We are getting a draw here.  Far better if we both get a pointed draw rather than a pointless draw"

But that's no different to what could happen now I.e. If both teams needed a point e.g. city v cov, years ago, last game, on the whole it would IMO see teams at least pushing to score instead of settling for a 0-0 or whatever  

[Fatalist]

What about some of the other suggestions from the BBC link above? I can't argue with most of these points about timewasting (although we might not get home very early):

Most of these apply to trying to combat time-wasting. The document says match officials should be stricter on the rule which allows keepers to hold the ball for six seconds and be more stringent when calculating additional time.

Additionally, it suggests match officials stop their watch:

• from a penalty being awarded to the spot-kick being taken
• from a goal being scored until the match resumes from the kick-off
• from asking an injured player if he requires treatment to play restarting
• from the referee showing a yellow or red card to play resuming
• from the signal of a substitution to play restarting
• from a referee starting to pace a free-kick to when it is taken

BUT I can't see any sense in these:

• referees can only blow for half-time or full-time when the ball goes out of play. I always thought this one of the daftest things about rugby. If time is up, why play several minutes more (as sometimes happens)?
• a penalty kick is either scored or missed/saved and players cannot follow up to score to stop encroachment into the penalty area.   WHY?

[BobBobSuperBob]

On 17/06/2017 at 19:14, 22A said:

I've just seen on SSN some proposals made by a team of lawyers & referees. Please feel free to discuss.

1; Games will last just sixty minutes, but the clock will stop every time the ball is out of play to ensure 60 mins of football.

2; Free kicks can be dribbled forward if so desired and the ball will not need to be stationary before being kicked.

3; If the ball is prevented from going in by a defender handling it, a penalty goal will be awarded.

4; A penalty will be awarded if a goalkeeper handles a back pass.

When I read this I had to check it was the start of April 

What complete and utter nonsense (IMHO)

[Lanterne Rouge]

I`ve just heard on the U21 commentary that in the final four subs will be allowed.