Jerome Champagne's proposals for football if FIFA president

[rynny]

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25811977

 

Fifa presidential candidate Jerome Champagne has suggested introducing orange cards that would allow referees to send players to a sin-bin.

The Frenchman, 55, launched his bid to succeed Sepp Blatter as the world governing body's president on Monday.

He also wants to punish teams when players question officials and hopes football will consider using more technology for key decisions.

Fifa's presidential election will be held in Zurich in June 2015.

His other proposals include:

• Quotas for foreign players
• Implementing rugby's rule where only the captain can talk to the referee with a free-kick advanced 10 yards for any dissent
• Abolishing the 'triple punishment' rule where a player who prevents a goalscoring opportunity in the penalty areas concedes a spot-kick, is sent off and also suspended
• All Fifa presidential candidates taking part in live debates on television and in front of the six continental confederations
• Making public the salary of the Fifa president and leading officials

Former referees have mixed views on the proposals with George Courtney saying the introduction of sin-bins for orange cards would work but Roger Milford insisting it would make football "too dictatorial".

Courtney, who officiated in the 1986 and 1990 World Cups in Mexico and Italy, said: "It would have to be under the right criteria but I think the time has come to seriously consider sin-bins.

"I expect the international board would be considering them.

"Red-card offences should still be punished with a red card but maybe for some other offences it would work."

 

Champagne, who has been backed by Pele, announced his intentions to become football's most powerful man at a news conference in London.

"We need a different Fifa," he said. "More democratic, more respected, which behaves better and which does more."

However, he admits he will struggle to win the election if Blatter, who will be 78 in March, decides to stand for a fifth term in office.

Asked if he could beat Blatter, Champagne, a former diplomat, said: "I don't think so, he's someone of relevance."

He added: "I don't know whether Mr Blatter will run or not. Of course, as a matter of politeness I informed him what I was planning to do.

"I don't know what he will do. Some people say I am manipulated by him but I tell you 'no'. I stand because I believe in what I am saying."

Blatter has been re-elected three times since becoming president in 1998 but has not yet said whether he will stand again.

A former Fifa deputy general secretary, Champagne worked closely with Blatter between 2002 and 2005 before leaving the organisation in 2010.

Since then, he has been working as an international football consultant in troubled regions including Kosovo, Palestine and Israel and Cyprus.

Champagne suggests players could be sin-binned for two or three minutes for "in-between fouls committed in the heat of the moment".

He cited the example of a player who had already been booked then receiving a second yellow card for taking off his shirt to celebrate a goal.

Champagne also suggests allowing only team captains to approach a referee to question a decision and wants referees to be able to move the ball 10 yards further forward if a player is guilty of dissent.

"More often than ever, matches are being marred by unacceptable scenes of players surrounding and haranguing the referee," he wrote in a document first published in March 2013. 

Brazil legend Pele, a three-time World Cup winner, said he supports Champagne's campaign.

"I cannot stay away from a debate which is so important for the future of football," he said in a recorded message shown at Monday's news conference. "Thus, I support Jerome Champagne and his vision."

Uefa president Michel Platini is also a possible candidate, although the former France midfielder has not yet declared his intentions.

Analysis

[Image of Richard Conway] Richard ConwayBBC sports news correspondent

Jerome Champagne is a man of ideas and, clearly, ambition. He spoke to journalists for more than 90 minutes on topics ranging from the reform of Fifa's powerful executive committee to how, as in rugby, only the captain of a team should be able to approach the referee during a game.

Getting into power to implement these ideas will be the tough part. He needs to convince a majority of 209 football associations that form Fifa to vote for him. And who will he stand against? Incumbent president Sepp Blatter and Uefa's Michel Platini are yet to declare their intentions.

Pointedly, Champagne said "no" when asked if he could beat Blatter and wouldn't say if he would withdraw from the race if the 77- year-old decides to pursue a fifth term of office.

But while he may not even make it on to the ballot paper in May 2015, Champagne's manifesto and his electioneering in the coming months will undoubtedly help frame the debate in the race to lead world football.

 An interesting read, some good ideas, some may need looking at.

[Srg]

Sepp blatter's former aide I believe, so for that reason, I'm out.

[TigerTedd]

Is this recent? So blatter is going to run again? I thoughtvhebwas going t resign, and the whole point of this election so soon after the last election was because everyone thought the last election was a load of ****** and blatter shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the presidency. 

[AndyinLiverpool]

My advice is never listen to a word Roger Milford says

[rynny]

Is this recent? So blatter is going to run again? I thoughtvhebwas going t resign, and the whole point of this election so soon after the last election was because everyone thought the last election was a load of ****** and blatter shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the presidency. 

That article is an old one actually, but he has re-released this today. Hang on and I will put up a different article. 

Try again....

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/10039304/jerome-champagne-to-stand-for-fifa-presidency

Frenchman Jerome Champagne is to make another bid for the FIFA presidency, saying that football's governing body needs to be saved from collapse and the World Cup protected.

Champagne, who held four different posts at FIFA, including deputy secretary general, between 1999 and 2010, said the organisation was "in danger" after being buffeted by a wave of scandals over the last few years.

"We need to save FIFA and its role of governance and redistribution, which is in danger at a time when they are needed the most," said Champagne in a letter to FIFA's 209 member associations, which will choose the next president at a Congress on February 26.

"We must also restore FIFA's credibility and prepare it for the challenges of an ever-evolving world."

"We must protect the World Cup as that moment of planetary communion during which the pride in our colours and friendship among people of the world are truly at the altar."

FIFA was thrown into turmoil in May when the US Department of Justice indicted 14 officials and sports marketing executives on a series of corruption charges.

In June, president Sepp Blatter announced he would lay down his mandate, just four days after being re-elected for a fifth four-year mandate.

Earlier this month, Blatter and UEFA president Michel Platini, who had been the favourite to replace him, were both suspended for 90 days pending an ethics investigation.

Champagne had wanted to run in the election earlier this year but failed to get the written backing from five national football associations (FAs) which is needed to register.

With the October 26 deadline for nominations looming, Jordanian Prince Ali Bin Al Hussein and former Trinidad and Tobago midfielder David Nakhid have announced their candidacies.

Former Brazil World Cup player Zico also wants to run but has said he is struggling to get the backing of five FAs and Asian football chief Sheikh Salman Bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa of Bahrain has said he is taking soundings about a possible run.

Champagne confirmed that he had the five FAs, said he would not comment on rival candidates and criticised the way in which the campaign had been conducted.

"We are witnessing the first months of the electoral campaign being dominated by controversy and deals made behind closed doors," he said.

He called for three televised debates between the candidates, in December, January and February.

"FIFA also deserves a proper debate about its future," he said. "Errors have been made and they must be corrected... with no whitewash."

On the field, his proposals include a so-called orange card, which would mean a temporary sending-off for the player concerned, and more respect for referees, who would be able to punish dissent by moving a free kick forward by 10 metres as in rugby.

Linked an old article before, here is today's from Sky 

[Alph]

The double punishment for being the last man is to stop people just hacking someone down when 1v1.

Orange cards? Why? Just stop giving at yellows for clumsy tackles. Nasty or cynical ones only.

Agree the referee thing. Need to deal with the way referees are spoken to. The language aimed at them is terrible.

[AndyinLiverpool]

The double punishment for being the last man is to stop people just hacking someone down when 1v1.

Orange cards? Why? Just stop giving at yellows for clumsy tackles. Nasty or cynical ones only.

Agree the referee thing. Need to deal with the way referees are spoken to. The language aimed at them is terrible.

By a whole range of people

[Mafiabob]

 

Mic them up in the pro leagues... Been saying this for years.

[Albert]

The double punishment for being the last man is to stop people just hacking someone down when 1v1.

Orange cards? Why? Just stop giving at yellows for clumsy tackles. Nasty or cynical ones only.

Agree the referee thing. Need to deal with the way referees are spoken to. The language aimed at them is terrible.

It's just the usual inane nonsense that gets mentioned at these times. From memory Blatter used to just beat up 'dem foreigners, the anti-competitive-xenophobe 6+5 rule and such, or just make hugely inappropriate comments. 

Orange cards though, that's possibly the oddest one, there's absolutely no need for it, and they've picked possibly the stupidest colour for the proposal. 

Then there's the usual "go back to where you came from" line, it just seems like an easy thing. It should be something decided by the leagues themselves though. 

I love the idea of advancing 10 metres for dissent though, they could put out a handy "how to abuse this for match fixing" handbook with it. 

What this is lacking of course is any mention of technology, par for the course really though. 

[Guest]

They did trial the 10 yard for dissent rule if I remember correctly?

Like the idea of changing the triple punishment. Got to be either a penalty or a red card for me, not both.

[rynny]

They did trial the 10 yard for dissent rule if I remember correctly?

Like the idea of changing the triple punishment. Got to be either a penalty or a red card for me, not both.

They did, late 90's early 00's. I think it would be better if you could choose the direction you can move it 10 yards, as you could be on the corner of the box or 5 yards outside and moving 10 yards further forward is no benefit to the attacking team.

[RamNut]

Sin bins for 2-3 mins is probably one of the most stupid suggestions ever.

we want games decided by skill not whistle.

[Albert]

They did trial the 10 yard for dissent rule if I remember correctly?

Like the idea of changing the triple punishment. Got to be either a penalty or a red card for me, not both.

I entirely disagree, it has to be both. You cannot give any advantage to denying a goal scoring opportunity, that is the whole point. If someone handballs on the line to stop a goal, straight red, penalty. If someone brings down a player through on goal, straight red and penalty. There needs to be a bigger punishment than just the standard punishment for the same offence (without the direct denial of a scoring chance). 

[Guest]

I entirely disagree, it has to be both. You cannot give any advantage to denying a goal scoring opportunity, that is the whole point. If someone handballs on the line to stop a goal, straight red, penalty. If someone brings down a player through on goal, straight red and penalty. There needs to be a bigger punishment than just the standard punishment for the same offence (without the direct denial of a scoring chance). 

Ruins so many games. If the penalty is scored how has a goal scoring opportunity been denied?

[Albert]

Ruins so many games. If the penalty is scored how has a goal scoring opportunity been denied?

The point is to offer a punishment and deterrent to teams doing it. If it were simply a penalty, and it were missed, then the offending team has effectively stolen a goal by purposefully breaking the laws of the game. There are alternative methods of achieving the same result though. One would be to implement "penalty goals", where the referee has the power to just give the goal, and a yellow card for such incidents. 

I would however argue that the current system not only works, but makes sense. It's a drastically unfair thing to attempt, and the idea of the provision is that it's there for when teams have done it on purpose. 

[Guest]

The point is to offer a punishment and deterrent to teams doing it. If it were simply a penalty, and it were missed, then the offending team has effectively stolen a goal by purposefully breaking the laws of the game. There are alternative methods of achieving the same result though. One would be to implement "penalty goals", where the referee has the power to just give the goal, and a yellow card for such incidents. 

I would however argue that the current system not only works, but makes sense. It's a drastically unfair thing to attempt, and the idea of the provision is that it's there for when teams have done it on purpose. 

But if the penalty is scored that is a double punishment. The rules worked fine for the 100 or so years before FIFA felt the need for drastic changes, many of which were implemented to keep Sky viewers happy.

[Albert]

But if the penalty is scored that is a double punishment. The rules worked fine for the 100 or so years before FIFA felt the need for drastic changes, many of which were implemented to keep Sky viewers happy.

It should be a double punishment. It should be a triple punishment (as it is) as it's grossly against both the laws and spirit of the game to do. A penalty is for a standard foul in the penalty area, the red is the punishment for doing it to prevent a goalscoring opportunity. 

If it were just a single punishment, it would be no more a punishment than just a normal foul in the area. 

[Guest]

It should be a double punishment. It should be a triple punishment (as it is) as it's grossly against both the laws and spirit of the game to do. A penalty is for a standard foul in the penalty area, the red is the punishment for doing it to prevent a goalscoring opportunity. 

If it were just a single punishment, it would be no more a punishment than just a normal foul in the area. 

Well maybe if cards were not dished out like confetti a penalty and yellow card would suffice...like it always used to?

Or maybe refs could try applying common sense.

 

 

[Albert]

Well maybe if cards were not dished out like confetti a penalty and yellow card would suffice...like it always used to?

Or maybe refs could try applying common sense.

 

 

Are you suggesting that sides should get the same punishment for illegally preventing goals as though it's just a standard foul? 

[Duracell]

I like some of those proposals, not sure about the referee one. I agree there's too much dissent in football but I wouldn't want it to be like rugby.

Football's brilliant because it's about passion and you can argue with the ref. Rugby's brilliant because it's about discipline and respect and you have to accept what the referee says. Not every sport has to be the same and there's nothing more tedious than rugby and football arguing about the merits of their preferred sport.