Wenger's ideas for new rules

[Portland Bill]

6 minutes ago, 42nite said:

Spoken like an ex ref?

I qualified as a ref after having to give playing up due to age and injuries. I wanted to stay in the game I loved.

After years of  kicking lumps out of each other as a player, with not too much trouble, when you're a ref who doesn't give some young whippersnapper a 50-50 decision his way you're a ******* cheating ****.   Unfortunately this also goes for too many senior players as well.

I'm afraid I didn't last long, my skin wasn't thick enough.

 

Not me, I am qualified, but my son is a current ref. 

I see it every week, and have seen it for the last 10 years, as you say it’s always the refs fault!!!

Managers and players who can’t handle ‘any’ decision going against their team, spouting their inane bollocks for 90 minutes every week, simply because they themselves aren’t good enough at what they do. 

How are these managers qualified to do what they are doing, simple, they spent 20 years abusing referees while they were playing, and think that qualifies them to know more than a referee now that they manage, it’s a merry go round, no respect for the officials, no setting examples to the players. 

Local football leagues are really struggling to get games on now, why, because referees just aren’t willing to put up with the abuse anymore, it’s all gone too far. The knock on effect is players not getting games, and finding something else to do instead of playing football.

I seriously wonder why referees do it, £25 a game in the local leagues, to get 90 minutes of abuse.

I totally understand why you stopped doing it, every fan, player and manager is an expert, they all know all the laws don’t they 

 

[Portland Bill]

37 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yes, some do fitness training, and when new rules come in they will go out and explain them.  I’m suggesting more regular / day-to-day involvement.  When they play behind closed door friendlies, it’s often refereed by someone from the club.

I’m sure a lot of referees would be willing to go along to clubs on a regular basis.....if asked!

But for me it isn’t a referee problem, it’s the cheating and conning of  referees which is the major problem in our game. Take that away and you have a much better game.

When did we ever hear a manager come out and admit one of his players cheated?. Because we see it every week at the top level, and we all know it.

One manager being honest about his players could stop a lot of the cheating, but none of them have the balls to do anything, it’s far easier to just blame the officials.

[Mad Cyril]

All this messing with rules destroying the game i loved.

Bring back the days of no subs, no cards, body charging keepers, quagmires for pitches, hobnail boots, typhoid, sponsor-free cotton shirts, no Sky TV and terracing. Bloody brilliant.

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

I’m sure a lot of referees would be willing to go along to clubs on a regular basis.....if asked!

yes, suspect there’s plenty of clubs who wouldn’t want a ref “interfering”!

But for me it isn’t a referee problem, it’s the cheating and conning of  referees which is the major problem in our game. Take that away and you have a much better game.

I agree, but I also think ref’s can educate themselves better to understand where they are being conned or not.

When did we ever hear a manager come out and admit one of his players cheated?. Because we see it every week at the top level, and we all know it.

completely...reap what they sew.

One manager being honest about his players could stop a lot of the cheating, but none of them have the balls to do anything, it’s far easier to just blame the officials.

 

[Numero Uno]

16 hours ago, IAmNick said:

The only new rule I'd like to see introduced, or at least trialed is some kind of sin bin (5-10m) for those kind of minor offenses.

I think they're being trialed in some grassroots football at the moment?

The Toolstation League does it. It's interesting in that, from the few games I've seen, players seem to be more p'd off with the gobby lad that has cost them 10 minutes of hard work rather than the referee generally especially if they concede during that time.

[Numero Uno]

3 hours ago, Hxj said:

New rules are always good.  Hockey has moved hugely as a competitive sport, new pitches and the willingness to bring in new rules has helped.

As to football I would:

1. Cut the length of each half to 40 minutes but bring in a match clock which was stopped every time play stopped and was restarted everytime the ball started moving again.

2. Green, yellow and red cards as hockey - warning - 10 minutes sin bin - off

3. Give VAR a minute to prove that the onfield decision was wrong - or tough.

4. Allow 3G pitches in all leagues and competitions.

5. Make qualifying as a referee and actually refereeing competitive games a compulsory part of the coaching badges.

Number 5 is a great shout.

[Three Lions]

That 5 is already done. Refs get assessed on competive games to go up the ref ladder and down it.

Football doesnt need changing the cheats at its top do.

[LondonBristolian]

With the offside - and VAR in general - for me it simply comes down to a question of clear and obvious error. 

I think a lot would be fixed if the VAR people were allowed to re-watch an incident a maximum of three times, and maybe then invite the referee to watch it three times in certain cases.

If you've seen an incident three times and still can't decide if it is an offside, a penalty or whatever, then it isn't clear and obvious and the referee's original decision stands. 

[Lrrr]

3 hours ago, Hxj said:

2. Green, yellow and red cards as hockey - warning - 10 minutes sin bin - off

Well in hockey you get 2 mins for a green. Had a mate last season who got the good old traffic lights, green carded, yellow for a comment after getting the card, then put his stick on the ground but pushed/flung the grip into the dugout, umpire who couldn't see what was going on thought he'd punched the dug out and got a red for violent conduct  

[Hxj]

41 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Well in hockey you get 2 mins for a green. Had a mate last season who got the good old traffic lights, green carded, yellow for a comment after getting the card, then put his stick on the ground but pushed/flung the grip into the dugout, umpire who couldn't see what was going on thought he'd punched the dug out and got a red for violent conduct  

See they changed the rules again since I last played

Been there in a hockey match - free hit, escalated to a short corner then a flick, followed by a yellow then a red card.  If only 'my mate' had kept his mouth shut!

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, Three Lions said:

That 5 is already done. 

It was aimed at learning to ref being part of the coaching qualifications.

[maxjak]

Of Wengers three suggestions, only the first one appeals to me, the other two are pointless.   The offside idea would allow the attacking player  more leeway, and would surely produce more goals.  The worst thing about about the current VAR/offside situation is when a perfectly good goal is chalked off because of a toenail or little finger encroaches,  it devalues the game, and is petty.  Otherwise nothing else needs to change IMHO.

[Lrrr]

12 minutes ago, maxjak said:

Of Wengers three suggestions, only the first one appeals to me, the other two are pointless.   The offside idea would allow the attacking player  more leeway, and would surely produce more goals.  The worst thing about about the current VAR/offside situation is when a perfectly good goal is chalked off because of a toenail or little finger encroaches,  it devalues the game, and is petty.  Otherwise nothing else needs to change IMHO.

Well its clearly not if it ends up being offside? All that change does is flip the situation, checking to see if a toe nail or little finger is inline 

[Guest]

If a VAR decision isn't readily apparent in, say, 20 seconds, the ref calls it.

They should be making decisions with out the ultra slo mo facility - it comes down to judgement.

And they shouldn't be allowed to get out tape measures, straight lines etc. VAR was brought in to stop the damn obvious mistakes, not carry out a scientific, forensic analysis.

[One Team In Keynsham]

5 hours ago, bcfcfinker said:

If a VAR decision isn't readily apparent in, say, 20 seconds, the ref calls it.

They should be making decisions with out the ultra slo mo facility - it comes down to judgement.

And they shouldn't be allowed to get out tape measures, straight lines etc. VAR was brought in to stop the damn obvious mistakes, not carry out a scientific, forensic analysis.

Had a similar conversation the other day: (admittedly copied from the fount of knowledge, Wikipedia), the purpose of VAR was to provide a way for "clear and obvious errors" and "serious missed incidents" to be corrected

If it takes slo-mo replays and overlaid graphics on a screen to check whether a forward's boot had strayed into an offside position, then to me that was not clear and obvious, nor a serious missed incident. Similarly, taking several angles to decide a ball glanced off a defender's arm having been struck towards him at a close distance.

If it spots someone getting lamped off the ball, or shows a player feigning being felled by a sniper to win a penalty, then yes, VAR has a place.

As for other rules, I would be happy with any form of dissent towards a ref being punished by sin bin/yellow card/red card. 

[downendcity]

5 minutes ago, One Team In Keynsham said:

Had a similar conversation the other day: (admittedly copied from the fount of knowledge, Wikipedia), the purpose of VAR was to provide a way for "clear and obvious errors" and "serious missed incidents" to be corrected

If it takes slo-mo replays and overlaid graphics on a screen to check whether a forward's boot had strayed into an offside position, then to me that was not clear and obvious, nor a serious missed incident. Similarly, taking several angles to decide a ball glanced off a defender's arm having been struck towards him at a close distance.

If it spots someone getting lamped off the ball, or shows a player feigning being felled by a sniper to win a penalty, then yes, VAR has a place.

As for other rules, I would be happy with any form of dissent towards a ref being punished by sin bin/yellow card/red card. 

VAR seems to have gone from being the means to an to an end in itself.

 

[Guest]

23 hours ago, One Team In Keynsham said:

Had a similar conversation the other day: (admittedly copied from the fount of knowledge, Wikipedia), the purpose of VAR was to provide a way for "clear and obvious errors" and "serious missed incidents" to be corrected

If it takes slo-mo replays and overlaid graphics on a screen to check whether a forward's boot had strayed into an offside position, then to me that was not clear and obvious, nor a serious missed incident. Similarly, taking several angles to decide a ball glanced off a defender's arm having been struck towards him at a close distance.

If it spots someone getting lamped off the ball, or shows a player feigning being felled by a sniper to win a penalty, then yes, VAR has a place.

As for other rules, I would be happy with any form of dissent towards a ref being punished by sin bin/yellow card/red card. 

This is how VAR was done:

https://www.zentao.pm/share/trees-wing-project-management-cartoon-97.html