New Fa Initiative

[Tipps]

I think the new FA initiative could certainly help us, they are trying to make it that only the captains of each team are allowed to speak to the ref's regarding in game issues (fouls etc).

For us, that could surely save a few bookings for the likes of Lee Johnson and Jamie McCallister and then help with the subsequent suspensions.

I think it may be easier said than done to implement it but then I suppose the fine system could also help to stop players from questioning / back-chatting ref's.

What do you think?

[Dave Youell]

It's a good idea,

It shouldn't be that tough to implement, just book anyone that speaks to the ref who doesn't have the Captains armband, they'll soon stop it. Plus it gives the Captain more responsibility, so yeah, I like that. But it would reduce bookings and bans for everyone long term, so it's not like City are the only team that would benefit

[Guest]

Be intresting to see how this works with teams who pick the GK as captain (Blackburn for example). Does this mean the keeper has to jog all the way up the pitch to talk to him ?

It works well in rugby because generally the majority of the team are in the same part of the pitch as the incidents, not so much in football.

[Fodbarmyarmy]

I bet Manure agree with this - and the Arse and Chelski..NOT

[double-trouble]

I bet Manure agree with this - and the Arse and Chelski..NOT

My thoughts as I read the opening post . Those teams and many of their players believe they are a law to themselves on and off the pitch .

If it stops the continual moaning about every other decision and thus speeds the game up and gives the fans a better value for money it sholud be great . This is one of my pet hates in the game and could so easily be clamped down as rugby has shown .

Strong referees need to make the trial accountable .

[Robbored]

Its a good idea but depends entirely upon managers getting on board with the intiative.

Big names like Wenger and Ferguson may stall as they both know that harrassing the referee does pay dividends at times as both teams have or had a reputation for it. To lose what might be an advantage would make both of them think twice about supporting the idea.No doubt other managers would follow thier lead.

The other question is how to referee it. What does a ref do if a player back chats him? The 10 yard advance rule has been tried and abandoned so maybe thats not an option as in rugby.

Yellowcard? I can see a situation where teams will have players sent off and games ending with 18 or so players on the pitch. Thast not what anyone wants to see.

One new idea is to adopt a 'sin bin' for the offence. 10 mins off the pitch if you chat to the referee.The fourth official can police it.

The point is that its a good idea but not straightforward to implement.

[Chivs]

The other question is how to referee it. What does a ref do if a player back chats him? The 10 yard advance rule has been tried and abandoned so maybe thats not an option as in rugby.

What happened to the 10-yard advance rule? Did it last for a season and then get quietly forgotten?

It seemed like a good idea to me.

[edson]

Its a good idea but depends entirely upon managers getting on board with the intiative.

Big names like Wenger and Ferguson may stall as they both know that harrassing the referee does pay dividends at times as both teams have or had a reputation for it. To lose what might be an advantage would make both of them think twice about supporting the idea.No doubt other managers would follow thier lead.

The other question is how to referee it. What does a ref do if a player back chats him? The 10 yard advance rule has been tried and abandoned so maybe thats not an option as in rugby.

Yellowcard? I can see a situation where teams will have players sent off and games ending with 18 or so players on the pitch. Thast not what anyone wants to see.

One new idea is to adopt a 'sin bin' for the offence. 10 mins off the pitch if you chat to the referee.The fourth official can police it.

The point is that its a good idea but not straightforward to implement.

The question for me is, 'why was it abandoned?'

My recollection is that it was abandoned because it wasn't being implemented consistently, so was causing more hassle for refs than it was solving.

Also, in rugby, the rule works not only because it is implemented consistently, but because one mouthy player can turn a penalty that's out of range into a very kickable opportunity for three points.

It only takes a few of your team mates to tell you to shut your mouth after you've gifted the opposition three points to stop even the mouthiest of players from sounding off.

I agree with you, in that I feel this rule can work if it has the support of the managers, supporters and the understanding of players, allowing the ref to enforce the rule without being accused of cheating and being biased by the likes of Neil Warnock.

Without that, it's doomed to failure, I think.

[Robbored]

The question for me is, 'why was it abandoned?'

If I remember correctly it was to do with the rule being implemented inconsistantly but mostly by those countries where rugby isn't played - which when you think about it is a large number.

One alternative to the 10 yard advance would be to have the free kick taken from within a 10 yard circle .You would then be able to move the ball back if you wanted or sideways to improve an angle for example.If the 10 yards moved forward happens to encroach into the penalty area then a spot-kick is awarded.That would very quickly shut the mouthy players up.But its probably too radical.

[Nibor]

I like this idea and have suggested the same in the past. I think the captain should be addressing the referee as "Sir" as well. I'd like to see it punished with the 10 yard rule too.

I'd also like to see them start doing retrospective 5 match bans for anyone caught doing any sort of cheating on camera, that means diving, faking injury, conning the ref, preventing quick free kicks, moving the dead balls to gain advantage and timewasting. That takes the pressure off referees because it will no longer be worth the reward to cheat.

I think we should also see the interpretation of the offside rule switched back to it's previous fairly absolute form because it causes far too much confusion and frustration as is. BUT I'd like to see a clear advantage given to the attackers such that the linesman has to see daylight between the last defender and the attacker for an offside to be given.

Finally I'd like to see many of the stupid mandatory cards for things such as goal celebrations, tackles from behind, and kicking the ball away removed, and the decision left to the refs judgement. They always had enough tools to discipline a game properly and FIFA just made their jobs harder by over legislating.

[bh_red]

works a treat in rugby and as others have said speeds the game up no end.

something that if introduced would actually improve the game, problem is it worked in rugby, but could footballers actually handle it? managers also need to be held more accountable for thier behaviour, because their behaviour is worse than the players in alot of occasions, though I am probably just thinking of purple face ferguson.

as for the offside rule.........pure stupidness in it's current format, put it back to how it worked succesfully for the last 40/50+ years.

[Rudolf Hucker]

I'd also like to see them start doing retrospective 5 match bans for anyone caught doing any sort of cheating on camera, that means diving, faking injury, conning the ref, preventing quick free kicks, moving the dead balls to gain advantage and timewasting. That takes the pressure off referees because it will no longer be worth the reward to cheat.

I've thought for some time that when a player, who is clearly faking injury to slow down the game (I'm thinking here of Blackpool's very own Stephen McPhee), is forced by the referee to leave the field of play before the game is restarted, he should be made to wait 5 minutes on the touchline before being allowed to return.

Maybe Draconian but would, I feel, reverse a trend which is seeing the flow of games interrupted more and more.

[Percy Parrot]

I don't like the idea.

I just think the refs should book anyone who rants at them too much.

But if you're a player and being fouled every single time you get near the ball and want to bring it to the attention of the ref then it's better to have a dialogue.

This could mean that players just feel more wound up and are more likely to punch an opponent!

People just use this one as an example of "good old rugby- why aren't we more like them?" but rugby players punch, stamp, twist and get away with all sorts. I would not want football to be more like rugby.

Just the same as when England get in to the final of rugby world cup everyone says how amazing they are- such brave men etc etc. But fail to mention that only 4 countries are real competitors.

When we fail in the last 8 at football it's because our players are a disgrace,bottlers etc. Failure to realise that they are competing against pretty much every country in the world who also love the game.

[Nibor]

I don't like the idea.

I just think the refs should book anyone who rants at them too much.

But if you're a player and being fouled every single time you get near the ball and want to bring it to the attention of the ref then it's better to have a dialogue.

This could mean that players just feel more wound up and are more likely to punch an opponent!

Surely the captain can have that dialogue and the advantage is that there is absolutely no excuse for anyone else getting in the ref's face so problems like that are far easier to deal with?

People just use this one as an example of "good old rugby- why aren't we more like them?" but rugby players punch, stamp, twist and get away with all sorts. I would not want football to be more like rugby.

They very rarely get away with anything.

Just the same as when England get in to the final of rugby world cup everyone says how amazing they are- such brave men etc etc. But fail to mention that only 4 countries are real competitors.

When we fail in the last 8 at football it's because our players are a disgrace,bottlers etc. Failure to realise that they are competing against pretty much every country in the world who also love the game.

I'm sure France would dispute that and there are only half a dozen real competitors in international football if you look at it like that.

[Percy Parrot]

Surely the captain can have that dialogue and the advantage is that there is absolutely no excuse for anyone else getting in the ref's face so problems like that are far easier to deal with?

They very rarely get away with anything.

I'm sure France would dispute that and there are only half a dozen real competitors in international football if you look at it like that.

1. I dunno- I would hate not being able to talk to the ref.

2. Yes they do! It's not that rare to see huge fights, punching and all sorts goes on in the scrum. If half a dozen rugby players start a brawl and start throwing punches no-one cares. How often do you see an actual punch thrown in football? Hardly ever- just a bit of pushing...and even when that happens everyone (press) go mental saying how they're a disgrace.

3. I included France- S. Africa, All Blacks, Aussies. That's about it. Wales, Ireland and Scotland are far smaller countries who should not compete with us (as are the Aussies for that matter but we'll accept them!). In football we're up against huge countries who love the sport just as much as we do- Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, Austria, Croatia, Serbia, Russia.

[Nibor]

1. I dunno- I would hate not being able to talk to the ref.

2. Yes they do! It's not that rare to see huge fights, punching and all sorts goes on in the scrum. If half a dozen rugby players start a brawl and start throwing punches no-one cares. How often do you see an actual punch thrown in football? Hardly ever- just a bit of pushing...and even when that happens everyone (press) go mental saying how they're a disgrace.

3. I included France- S. Africa, All Blacks, Aussies. That's about it. Wales, Ireland and Scotland are far smaller countries who should not compete with us (as are the Aussies for that matter but we'll accept them!). In football we're up against huge countries who love the sport just as much as we do- Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, Austria, Croatia, Serbia, Russia.

2. They don't get away with it. They get punished quite harshly on video evidence particularly for stamping. Punching is a bit different because it's accepted that occasionally you'll take one and it's not considered dirty. It almost always results in at least a sin bin though. Stamping means big bans, big fines, and more importantly quite a bit of shame.

3. I thought your 4 included England and therefore you'd left France out. So that's five countries that could realistically win a Rugby World Cup and actually I'd say the Irish could too. Australia and New Zealand are far smaller countries than us population wise, Ireland is bigger than NZ actually. How many countries could realistically win a football world cup? 6-8 tops really. It's not that different.

[Percy Parrot]

2. They don't get away with it. They get punished quite harshly on video evidence particularly for stamping. Punching is a bit different because it's accepted that occasionally you'll take one and it's not considered dirty. It almost always results in at least a sin bin though. Stamping means big bans, big fines, and more importantly quite a bit of shame.

3. I thought your 4 included England and therefore you'd left France out. So that's five countries that could realistically win a Rugby World Cup and actually I'd say the Irish could too. Australia and New Zealand are far smaller countries than us population wise, Ireland is bigger than NZ actually. How many countries could realistically win a football world cup? 6-8 tops really. It's not that different.

My point the whole perception of rugby behaviour vs. football. As you said it's accepted to punch each other in the face in rugby but if footballers get involved in a pushing match then the tabloids (sorry RedTop!) will have disgrace splashed all over the back pages, yet people go on and on about how much footballers should learn from rugby. The level of violence in rugby is far far worse.

As for how easy it is to win the rugby world cup- let's look at countries that play the game seriously-

France- 64m

Italy- 59m (no-where near as big as football is out there)

England- 50m

South Africa- 47m

Argentina- 41m (just how big it really is there I don't know but I am certain football is far bigger)

Australia- 21m

Scotland- 5m

Ireland- 4.3m

New Zealand- 4.2m

Wales- 3m

Compare with football:-

Brazil- 186m

Nigeria- 148m

Russia- 141m

Japan- 127m

Mexico- 106m

Germany- 82m

Egypt- 75m

Turkey- 70m

France- 64m

Italy- 59m

South Korea- 58m

England- 50m

Spain- 45m

Argentina- 41m

Poland- 38m

Romania- 21m

Ivory Coast- 19m

Cameroon- 18m

Now I think you can argue about how big each sport is in each country but I'm pretty sure football is pretty much the main sport in most of those countries. To put it in perspective we accept that we will lose every now and then in rugby against Wales and Scotland with populations of 3m and 5m. When I was in Oman a few years back it was very clear that football was a huge sport for them- they loved it. Their population is not much less than Wales but imagine the fuss if we lost to them at football!

Anyway- basic argument. Footballers are not a disgrace compared to rugby players. English football is not a disgrace compared to English rugby. It's just that people do love to bash football. We all know bad news sells papers. And we all know some shocking story about football will sell papers because football fans want to know about it and non-football fans like to read about how terrible the game is. Truth be told- there are few incidents among 1000s of professional footballers in this country and most of them are nice people who have worked damn hard to get where they are.

[tompo]

What I would like to see stamped out is the practise of players carrying/dribbling the ball away from the scene of a free kick being awarded and then just leaving the ball in no mans land.

Refs should be given the power to allow the free kick to be taken from where the ball is left.

In a similar vein, I would also like to see teams being awarded free kicks being allowed to choose form where they take the kick, provided it is not forward of where the foul was conceded.

In most cases, no real advantage is gained by being awarded a direct free kick around the edge of the penalty area, but if the kick was taken a few yards back it would be easier to get ball over/around the wall and on target.

[Big Stan Hibbert]

BUT I'd like to see a clear advantage given to the attackers such that the linesman has to see daylight between the last defender and the attacker for an offside to be given.

I agree with the offside/daylight theory as well, I just wonder what would happen during evening games? No offsides?

[Percy Parrot]

I agree with the offside/daylight theory as well, I just wonder what would happen during evening games? No offsides?

Just to back this one. It's the only way to be really sure of if a player is offside. I think at the moment it's something like "if any part of the body that you can play the ball with.." or something like that? Anyone know? It just seems a bit of a muddy rule. The daylight rule is clear and gives attacking advantage.