Jerome Champagne's proposals for football if FIFA president

[Albert]

I thought my point was that I do not think that these sort of incidents should just be a straight red card...or has that not sunk in yet?

Particularly liked this quote:-

"It's the rules sadly. I think a penalty is enough,"

"It's a foul and only a penalty. Our fans wouldn't agree but as a football man I'd like to see the rule changed."

Ah, that's what you thought he was getting at. 

Again, I entirely disagree, and I don't see how his opinion on the matter has any value here. The rules exist for a reason, and the movement for them to be like that has existed for the best part of 35 years, and have been in practice for about 25-30. It's not something new and different, and there's a very good justification for it. 

Honestly though, do you approve of professional fouls and think that teams should be able to get away with them? 

[Guest]

Ah, that's what you thought he was getting at. 

Again, I entirely disagree, and I don't see how his opinion on the matter has any value here. The rules exist for a reason, and the movement for them to be like that has existed for the best part of 35 years, and have been in practice for about 25-30. It's not something new and different, and there's a very good justification for it. 

Honestly though, do you approve of professional fouls and think that teams should be able to get away with them? 

No, it's not what I think he is getting at...it is quite clear that this is what he is getting at.

The fact that you place more importance on your own view than that of a Premier League manager who has been in the game for donkeys years tells me that there is no point trying to convince you otherwise.

Like me Allardyce is probably sick of seeing good games ruined by trigger happy refs too keen to show a card any time a challenge is made.

No, I don't agree with the professional foul rule. I cannot see how giving a penalty and a red card is justified or fits the crime. Maybe if the team was allowed to choose between a goal or a red card it would be fairer.

I can understand, to some extent, denying a clear goal being a red card (handball on the line for instance) but I cannot understand the same punishment for denying a goal scoring opportunity (yesterday for example where I think there was no chance of Fletcher even getting a shot never mind a goal).

[Albert]

No, it's not what I think he is getting at...it is quite clear that this is what he is getting at.

The fact that you place more importance on your own view than that of a Premier League manager who has been in the game for donkeys years tells me that there is no point trying to convince you otherwise.

Like me Allardyce is probably sick of seeing good games ruined by trigger happy refs too keen to show a card any time a challenge is made.

No, I don't agree with the professional foul rule. I cannot see how giving a penalty and a red card is justified or fits the crime. Maybe if the team was allowed to choose between a goal or a red card it would be fairer.

I can understand, to some extent, denying a clear goal being a red card (handball on the line for instance) but I cannot understand the same punishment for denying a goal scoring opportunity (yesterday for example where I think there was no chance of Fletcher even getting a shot never mind a goal).

If there's anything we've learned with week with Eranio's... let's call it... moment, it's that time in the game doesn't suddenly make people's general opinions anymore worthwhile. If I wanted to know how to steer a team to safety in the Premier League, Big Sam is a man I'd take note of. If I wanted to know how to take talent squads and get the job done, I'd take to Sir Alex or Pep. If I wanted to know how to outdo one of the big guns with a strong, but ultimately much smaller club, I'd talk to Klopp. Asking managers about their feelings about referees however is as irrelevant as asking anyone who has been part of the game for any length of time. 

You keep going back to "trigger happy refs" when that isn't what happened. There is a very specific rule to do with professional fouls. It's not them being trigger happy, it's to stop people abusing the laws of the game to save themselves. You want to know how it fits the crime? They are attempting to cheat by purposefully breaking the laws to prevent a goal, hoping that they can defend the set piece if it's called a foul. 

Again, if you feel that Fletcher couldn't have possibly scored even without the foul, then under those circumstances the referee was wrong to give the card, and the Premier League will probably agree with their appeal against it. The provision is there for the case that a goal was very likely to almost certain (i.e. one on one with the keeper with plenty of space, an open goal or as mentioned, a handball on the line as it was going in). 

The laws against professional fouls though were brought in for good reason, and have been in practice for my entire lifetime and codified in their current form since we left the Baseball Ground, with their debate and implementation going back since before Arthur Cox's time here. They aren't some strange new scourge, they've been there a long time. 

[Guest]

If there's anything we've learned with week with Eranio's... let's call it... moment, it's that time in the game doesn't suddenly make people's general opinions anymore worthwhile. If I wanted to know how to steer a team to safety in the Premier League, Big Sam is a man I'd take note of. If I wanted to know how to take talent squads and get the job done, I'd take to Sir Alex or Pep. If I wanted to know how to outdo one of the big guns with a strong, but ultimately much smaller club, I'd talk to Klopp. Asking managers about their feelings about referees however is as irrelevant as asking anyone who has been part of the game for any length of time. 

You keep going back to "trigger happy refs" when that isn't what happened. There is a very specific rule to do with professional fouls. It's not them being trigger happy, it's to stop people abusing the laws of the game to save themselves. You want to know how it fits the crime? They are attempting to cheat by purposefully breaking the laws to prevent a goal, hoping that they can defend the set piece if it's called a foul. 

Again, if you feel that Fletcher couldn't have possibly scored even without the foul, then under those circumstances the referee was wrong to give the card, and the Premier League will probably agree with their appeal against it. The provision is there for the case that a goal was very likely to almost certain (i.e. one on one with the keeper with plenty of space, an open goal or as mentioned, a handball on the line as it was going in). 

The laws against professional fouls though were brought in for good reason, and have been in practice for my entire lifetime and codified in their current form since we left the Baseball Ground, with their debate and implementation going back since before Arthur Cox's time here. They aren't some strange new scourge, they've been there a long time. 

I am sure we both know Eranio making a racist comment has absolutely no relevance to Allardyce stating that the rules of the game are unfair.

If ex professionals/managers opinions on rules are not listened to then maybe that is why the game has got into such a state where people no longer know the proper rules!

You keep going on about this rule which you think is set in stone, if that is the case why do we have professionals and pundits sat there with different views on it? The reason is because the rules should be open to interpretation and common sense.

And how can there be a rule that relies on the referee to decide that a "goal was very likely to almost certain", does this mean that goalkeepers never saves one on ones?

As far as I am aware every foul that is ever made is cheating by purposely breaking the law to prevent a goal.

[Albert]

I am sure we both know Eranio making a racist comment has absolutely no relevance to Allardyce stating that the rules of the game are unfair.

If ex professionals/managers opinions on rules are not listened to then maybe that is why the game has got into such a state where people no longer know the proper rules!

You keep going on about this rule which you think is set in stone, if that is the case why do we have professionals and pundits sat there with different views on it? The reason is because the rules should be open to interpretation and common sense.

And how can there be a rule that relies on the referee to decide that a "goal was very likely to almost certain", does this mean that goalkeepers never saves one on ones?

As far as I am aware every foul that is ever made is cheating by purposely breaking the law to prevent a goal.

I'm sure we're both aware that a single managers' opinion on the rules is just as irrelevant as well. 

Fans, professionals, ex professionals and managers were the ones that pushed for the change during the 80s because of what teams could get away with doing prior. If people don't know the proper rules, that's their own problem for not educating themselves on them. It's not like they're even complicated. 

People have different views on pretty much anything. If it were socially acceptable, you could take pretty much any topic in a sufficiently sized room, and find at least someone who disagreed. You've got one manager trying to not look like a complete prat after a match by showing sympathy after smashing them 3-0 in a match where the scoreline flattered them. Yes, some people don't like that it happens in those situations, and maybe some people feel there needs to be some changes. You'd be hard pressed to find many people who are entirely against the laws against professional fouls though, and most of them probably don't understand what one is, or would still want the laws there for some instances of them. 

How can there be any laws of the game, the referee might need to make a decision at some point, and we all know that'll drastically offend you. 

Most fouls aren't on purpose, and the ones that are should be punished with a yellow under the laws of the game (unless it's denying a direct goalscoring opportunity of course). 

[Tombo]

We need to do whatever we can to avoid players 'taking one for the team' denying goalscoring opportunities.

[Guest]

We need to do whatever we can to avoid players 'taking one for the team' denying goalscoring opportunities.

Kind of agree but on the other hand we also need to do whatever we can to ensure players are not given red cards for things that would not even have been given as a foul 20 years ago

[Albert]

Kind of agree but on the other hand we also need to do whatever we can to ensure players are not given red cards for things that would not even have been given as a foul 20 years ago

That'd have been given as a foul in 1995 I'd think. 

The real question is whether it was a direct goal scoring opportunity that he denied. He clearly made no attempt to play the ball, he just knocked the striker over. 

[Guest]

That'd have been given as a foul in 1995 I'd think. 

The real question is whether it was a direct goal scoring opportunity that he denied. He clearly made no attempt to play the ball, he just knocked the striker over. 

A shoulder barge you mean?

Is there an attempt to play the ball when defenders shield the ball out of play?

[IlsonDerby]

I'm with Albert on this I think. Except I don't think it should have a triple punishment. Penalty yes, red card yes, suspension? No. 

[Albert]

A shoulder barge you mean?

Is there an attempt to play the ball when defenders shield the ball out of play?

A player is allowed to hold his ground. They are not allowed to knock another player out of their's. 

I'm with Albert on this I think. Except I don't think it should have a triple punishment. Penalty yes, red card yes, suspension? No. 

Suspensions are decided after matches based on a number of factors. To my knowledge the Premier League as a general rule does a one day suspension for professional fouls, which is ultimately fair, particularly if it's one late in the game. For reds for vicious tackles and such it's generally 3+ games if I recall. 

[Bris Vegas]

I disagree with the red card/penalty rule.

I understand what @Albert is saying, but the denial of a goal isn't the same as the denial of a goal scoring opportunity. I understand handballing on the line is a denial of a goal, but in the Coloccini case, the striker has to not only get the ball (unlikely) but he's also got to beat the goalkeeper (unlikely).

A penalty scored and being a man down is an unnecesary double punishment. You don't red card strikers who deliberately score with their hand, or dive in the area, so why should defenders get red cards?

Is denying a goal scoring opportunity a worse offense than illegally handing yourself one at the other end?

The problem is, there is no real solution. 

I've heard of the 'if the team scores the penalty, man stays on. If the team misses the penalty, man is sent off' idea but that's open for deliberate mis-use.

If you're awarded a penalty at 0-0 in the first five minutes, you'd probably be better off deliberately missing and playing the ensuing 85 mins at 0-0 vs ten men, especially if your opponent is better.

 

[Albert]

I disagree with the red card/penalty rule.

I understand what @Albert is saying, but the denial of a goal isn't the same as the denial of a goal scoring opportunity. I understand handballing on the line is a denial of a goal, but in the Coloccini case, the striker has to not only get the ball (unlikely) but he's also got to beat the goalkeeper (unlikely).

A penalty scored and being a man down is an unnecesary double punishment. You don't red card strikers who deliberately score with their hand, or dive in the area, so why should defenders get red cards?

Is denying a goal scoring opportunity a worse offense than illegally handing yourself one at the other end?

The problem is, there is no real solution. 

I've heard of the 'if the team scores the penalty, man stays on. If the team misses the penalty, man is sent off' idea but that's open for deliberate mis-use.

If you're awarded a penalty at 0-0 in the first five minutes, you'd probably be better off deliberately missing and playing the ensuing 85 mins at 0-0 vs ten men, especially if your opponent is better.

 

The question of whether or not the striker would have got the ball is the question which makes it a red card or not. A striker, in possession of the ball, not under pressure, is going to score more often than not as well. I'd have thought you'd have known the laws though Bris. 

A penalty scored and being a man down is an unnecesary double punishment. You don't red card strikers who deliberately score with their hand, or dive in the area, so why should defenders get red cards?

In many leagues around the World they get massive suspensions. 

Is denying a goal scoring opportunity a worse offense than illegally handing yourself one at the other end?

Some leagues to my knowledge hand out bigger punishments for handling the ball or proven dives that lead to a penalty being given or a player being sent off. A professional foul is a red, the foul and a one game suspension. I've seen 4 weeks for a dive before and heard a case where they were talking more, but I don't know what the result was in that case. 

The problem is, there is no real solution.

There is a real solution, and one that has been in use for decades. It would be like people wondering about a method of using the roads for personal transport across the country, "if only someone had a solution!"

The professional foul rule isn't just for penalties either, and it's not always a red. "Giving the foul" to prevent buildup is usually given as a yellow, and a red for a "last man challenge" as many call it, can be given outside of the penalty area. 

I don't know, a lot of people on here are bizarrely conflating professional fouls with a lot of odd things. It's not just a "last man challenge regardless of anything else". It is the solution to the problem, and has worked well for decades. 

[Mafiabob]

 

The question of whether or not the striker would have got the ball is the question which makes it a red card or not. A striker, in possession of the ball, not under pressure, is going to score more often than not as well. I'd have thought you'd have known the laws though Bris. 

 

In many leagues around the World they get massive suspensions. 

 

Some leagues to my knowledge hand out bigger punishments for handling the ball or proven dives that lead to a penalty being given or a player being sent off. A professional foul is a red, the foul and a one game suspension. I've seen 4 weeks for a dive before and heard a case where they were talking more, but I don't know what the result was in that case. 

 

There is a real solution, and one that has been in use for decades. It would be like people wondering about a method of using the roads for personal transport across the country, "if only someone had a solution!"

The professional foul rule isn't just for penalties either, and it's not always a red. "Giving the foul" to prevent buildup is usually given as a yellow, and a red for a "last man challenge" as many call it, can be given outside of the penalty area. 

I don't know, a lot of people on here are bizarrely conflating professional fouls with a lot of odd things. It's not just a "last man challenge regardless of anything else". It is the solution to the problem, and has worked well for decades. 

Last paragraph absolutely spot on

[Bris Vegas]

 

The question of whether or not the striker would have got the ball is the question which makes it a red card or not. A striker, in possession of the ball, not under pressure, is going to score more often than not as well. I'd have thought you'd have known the laws though Bris. 

 

In many leagues around the World they get massive suspensions. 

 

Some leagues to my knowledge hand out bigger punishments for handling the ball or proven dives that lead to a penalty being given or a player being sent off. A professional foul is a red, the foul and a one game suspension. I've seen 4 weeks for a dive before and heard a case where they were talking more, but I don't know what the result was in that case. 

 

There is a real solution, and one that has been in use for decades. It would be like people wondering about a method of using the roads for personal transport across the country, "if only someone had a solution!"

The professional foul rule isn't just for penalties either, and it's not always a red. "Giving the foul" to prevent buildup is usually given as a yellow, and a red for a "last man challenge" as many call it, can be given outside of the penalty area. 

I don't know, a lot of people on here are bizarrely conflating professional fouls with a lot of odd things. It's not just a "last man challenge regardless of anything else". It is the solution to the problem, and has worked well for decades. 

I'd love for that to be the case re. diving, but it's not unfortunately.

After Arjen Robben publically admitted diving at the WC in order to gain his side an advantage, if FIFA were ever going to clamp it out, that was their opportunity to do so.

Instead, they turned a blind eye and allowed Robben to go on and play the quarter-finals without punishment.

Diving, conning, feigning injury etc. is widely accepted and very rarely punished afterwards. Yet an honest attempt at a tackle, which doesn't come off, can result in a red card and three-match ban.

I understand lwhy ast man challenges should be shown the red card. But only when the striker is goalside, or has a major advantage. But the rules on this one are open for debate.

How can Coloccini be given a red card? Also, when does 'goal scoring opportunity' apply. If you winger does the defender on the outside and is hauled down to the ground before applying an easy cut-back and finish, the defender will almost certainly be shown a yellow - not a red.

 

[Mafiabob]

I'd love for that to be the case re. diving, but it's not unfortunately.

After Arjen Robben publically admitted diving at the WC in order to gain his side an advantage, if FIFA were ever going to clamp it out, that was their opportunity to do so.

Instead, they turned a blind eye and allowed Robben to go on and play the quarter-finals without punishment.

Diving, conning, feigning injury etc. is widely accepted and very rarely punished afterwards. Yet an honest attempt at a tackle, which doesn't come off, can result in a red card and three-match ban.

I understand lwhy ast man challenges should be shown the red card. But only when the striker is goalside, or has a major advantage. But the rules on this one are open for debate.

How can Coloccini be given a red card? Also, when does 'goal scoring opportunity' apply. If you winger does the defender on the outside and is hauled down to the ground before applying an easy cut-back and finish, the defender will almost certainly be shown a yellow - not a red.

 

Regarding diving etc....

 

This is why I defend referees to the hilt... 22 players and management trying to con the referee to win at any costs etc.... 

 

One mistake the referee makes and his integrity and his competency is questioned. 

 

Always the easy cop out for a manager if things haven't gone their way.

 

 

[needles]

When you get a decision like Madley (was it the same one or his brother?) made sending Chris Martin off at Burnley the other year, it's obviously a **** call and he deserved calling for it. The amount of chat about this one at Sunderland makes it seem to me that if there's that much debate about it then it must be a close one and you've got to back the ref.

I'd have wanted a peno for Derby if that had been against us, and once he's given that he's got to go. Soft as **** though.

[ThesePeople]

 

The question of whether or not the striker would have got the ball is the question which makes it a red card or not. A striker, in possession of the ball, not under pressure, is going to score more often than not as well. I'd have thought you'd have known the laws though Bris. 

 

In many leagues around the World they get massive suspensions. 

 

Some leagues to my knowledge hand out bigger punishments for handling the ball or proven dives that lead to a penalty being given or a player being sent off. A professional foul is a red, the foul and a one game suspension. I've seen 4 weeks for a dive before and heard a case where they were talking more, but I don't know what the result was in that case. 

 

There is a real solution, and one that has been in use for decades. It would be like people wondering about a method of using the roads for personal transport across the country, "if only someone had a solution!"

The professional foul rule isn't just for penalties either, and it's not always a red. "Giving the foul" to prevent buildup is usually given as a yellow, and a red for a "last man challenge" as many call it, can be given outside of the penalty area. 

I don't know, a lot of people on here are bizarrely conflating professional fouls with a lot of odd things. It's not just a "last man challenge regardless of anything else". It is the solution to the problem, and has worked well for decades. 

While I see where you are coming from, the major flaw in your argument (in my opinion) is that you seem to be drastically overrating the chances of scoring from one on ones. They are missed or saved all the time.

I've just had a look at penalty statistics and it seems that 85% of penalties in the prem since 1992 have been scored. I'm pretty sure the worldwide average is lower than that, but even if it's say 75%, that's far more than the percentage of 1v1s that are converted.

Therefore, if a defender 'prevents a goal scoring opportunity', is given a yellow card, and gives away a penalty, they are getting a yellow card, and on average gifting the opposition with a better opportunity to score. 

If an actual goal is clearly denied (i.e. handball on the line or a player with a completely open goal taken out), then my opinion is that this should be a sending off. If a clear goal scoring opportunity is denied outside the box this should also be a sending off, as you have less chance of scoring from the resulting free kick than you would have had from the original opportunity.

However if a goal scoring opportunity is denied in the box, and a yellow card and penalty awarded rather than a red, this would save hundred of high profile games being completely ruined season after season.

[Albert]

I'd love for that to be the case re. diving, but it's not unfortunately.

After Arjen Robben publically admitted diving at the WC in order to gain his side an advantage, if FIFA were ever going to clamp it out, that was their opportunity to do so.

Instead, they turned a blind eye and allowed Robben to go on and play the quarter-finals without punishment.

Diving, conning, feigning injury etc. is widely accepted and very rarely punished afterwards. Yet an honest attempt at a tackle, which doesn't come off, can result in a red card and three-match ban.

I understand lwhy ast man challenges should be shown the red card. But only when the striker is goalside, or has a major advantage. But the rules on this one are open for debate.

How can Coloccini be given a red card? Also, when does 'goal scoring opportunity' apply. If you winger does the defender on the outside and is hauled down to the ground before applying an easy cut-back and finish, the defender will almost certainly be shown a yellow - not a red.

 

The punishments for diving comes under the competition regulations, like all suspensions. A lot of leagues around the World hand out massive punishments for it. Just because FIFA regulated competitions are still behind the times doesn't mean a lot. Nor does them doing something wrong elsewhere change anything about the topic at hand. 

Diving, conning, feigning injury etc. is widely accepted and very rarely punished afterwards. Yet an honest attempt at a tackle, which doesn't come off, can result in a red card and three-match ban.

This is just outright wrong, you're either being purposefully dishonest or honestly have no idea of the rules. Pretty much no league would ever give a 3 match ban for a professional foul, and a professional foul is seen as something which was done to purposefully stop the attack. It's not something that is an "honest attempt", that's the whole reason it's considered serious foul play. 

Also, as mentioned above, many leagues do punish divers, and with longer bans than is standard for a professional foul. 

As for how can Coloccini be shown a red there, again it's up for debate as to whether he actually deserved it. If you don't feel he had the chance to score had he got the ball, then then you feel it shouldn't have been a card.

As for when it's a red or a yellow, it's pretty clear in most cases if a player is in on goal. You wouldn't give one for a tackle out wide prior to the ball being played because it's still not a direct opportunity at that point. If there wasn't much space between them, then the player who's been tackled was probably in the box and in a chance to score themselves.  

While I see where you are coming from, the major flaw in your argument (in my opinion) is that you seem to be drastically overrating the chances of scoring from one on ones. They are missed or saved all the time.

I've just had a look at penalty statistics and it seems that 85% of penalties in the prem since 1992 have been scored. I'm pretty sure the worldwide average is lower than that, but even if it's say 75%, that's far more than the percentage of 1v1s that are converted.

Therefore, if a defender 'prevents a goal scoring opportunity', is given a yellow card, and gives away a penalty, they are getting a yellow card, and on average gifting the opposition with a better opportunity to score. 

If an actual goal is clearly denied (i.e. handball on the line or a player with a completely open goal taken out), then my opinion is that this should be a sending off. If a clear goal scoring opportunity is denied outside the box this should also be a sending off, as you have less chance of scoring from the resulting free kick than you would have had from the original opportunity.

However if a goal scoring opportunity is denied in the box, and a yellow card and penalty awarded rather than a red, this would save hundred of high profile games being completely ruined season after season.

You seem to misunderstand the point of the law. The punishment is for the cynical nature of the foul in denying such an opportunity, it's not to "balance the odds" when someone has done it. It's to completely and totally stamp out such behaviour. Why do people obsess over this whole "balancing the odds" part, when that's not what it's about at all, it's entirely about being consistent in punishment to deter the action in the first place. 

If the idea was about balancing the odds, we'd see "penalty goals" where the referee just awards the goal anyhow in the situation with handball on the line and we'd forgo the red cards at all. The idea isn't that, the idea is that we're stamping out players ruining games by being cynical gits and stopping what would otherwise be good goals from open play, making the game less enjoyable to both the players and the spectators. The game isn't "ruined" by the referee when they're forced into such actions, it's ruined by the stupid player that decided that was what they were going to do. 

 

[Guest]

While I see where you are coming from, the major flaw in your argument (in my opinion) is that you seem to be drastically overrating the chances of scoring from one on ones. They are missed or saved all the time.

I've just had a look at penalty statistics and it seems that 85% of penalties in the prem since 1992 have been scored. I'm pretty sure the worldwide average is lower than that, but even if it's say 75%, that's far more than the percentage of 1v1s that are converted.

Therefore, if a defender 'prevents a goal scoring opportunity', is given a yellow card, and gives away a penalty, they are getting a yellow card, and on average gifting the opposition with a better opportunity to score. 

If an actual goal is clearly denied (i.e. handball on the line or a player with a completely open goal taken out), then my opinion is that this should be a sending off. If a clear goal scoring opportunity is denied outside the box this should also be a sending off, as you have less chance of scoring from the resulting free kick than you would have had from the original opportunity.

However if a goal scoring opportunity is denied in the box, and a yellow card and penalty awarded rather than a red, this would save hundred of high profile games being completely ruined season after season.

Excellent post, have a like. Perfectly summed up what I have been trying to say.

I daresay your opinion will be written off though and you will not understand the rules