Jump to content

New rules for football


TigerTedd

Recommended Posts

I'm rarely on the all withbthis sort of thing, but I couldn't find it anywhere else, so here goes. 

BBC has an article about a whole bunch of new rules being considered by ifab. 

I have to say a lot of them make sense.

I like a penalty is either scored, missed or saved, no rebounds.

I think I like a free kick can be passed to yourself, could lead to some interesting quick free kicks and goals.

Not sure about 30 minute halves  psychologically it seems like your getting a lot less value, but theoretically, you'd actually be getting more.

And I like the idea of not blowingbfor full time til the ball goes out of play. That makes for some of the most exciting parts of rugby (although it probably works better in rugby as their are less turnovers).

Only thing I would add is that if the ref is supposed to stop the clock at various points, and it might be linked to the stadium clock, then their should be a separate time keeper, else the ref'll be too busy stopping and starting his watch to do the rest of his job.

Anyway, have a read, see what you think. And if you don't like these rules, what would you change instead?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40311889

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 15
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think the problem with the ball going out of play thing is that at much lower levels the ball might belong to the referee. They blow up when the ball is in play so that they can go and pick it up easily. 

In theory the sixty minutes thing makes sense but I'd be worried that it would be the beginning of adverts in the middle of the game. When there's a clock stoppage producers could easily schedule a short advert break, as you see in American football/basketball. That gets very annoying after a while and wouldn't improve fan engagement.

Don't see much logic to the penalty thing, I'm fine with passing free kicks to yourself. Agree there would need to be a separate time-keeper.

In all honesty if their goal is to improve the excitement of matches, I think a much easier way to achieve that would be allowing seven subs instead of three. Or even rolling subs. Would mean legs were fresher and stop teams being penalised so much when they have an injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think we could take a lot of stuff from rugby.  The zero tolerance for back chat to the ref is the biggest. They call the ref "sir" that's how it should be.  But the players know the refs have help upstairs if they need it. 

Stopping the time when it goes out it good too.

Also, injured players being treated on the pitch while play continues if it allows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual, the powers that be looking to make changes that don't need making.

How about concentrating on eradicating cheating from the game?

The game was around long before these people were born and will be around long after they have died...as long as they stop tinkering with it to keep Sky Sports happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mic refs up like rugby. You'll get players behaviour improve, and it'll keep twattish commentators happy as refs could be heard as to why a decision been made.

Agree on the cheating aspects. Go all in on big bans for that, and feigning injury. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't change much.  Once any sport starts messing around with the fundamental rules to try to make it more interesting for the TV viewer/creating more advertising breaks - Rugby Union and F1 being the obvious examples; cricket will soon follow - then it's a sport on the decline.

Stop time wasting (are you listening Scott Carson, except when we're 1-0 up with 1 minute to go).  Maybe an independent/off field timekeeper; retrospective punishment for diving - coming in I think and a good thing too whatever Allardyce thinks; back to the old offside rule; mic'ing the refs; making refs explain their decisions; giving refs some more technological help (but I still think that's not as easy as it sounds - was that really a penalty in the Under 20's final despite the replay?)

But don't start messing with the basics.  It's fine as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and an automatic 20 match ban for anyone, manager/player/coach/sub, ANYONE caught talking to someone else from behind their hand to try to hide what they're saying from the 30,000 lip readers in the crowd or both people watching on TV.

Overblown ****s the lot of them.  And yes Billy Davis I include you in that assessment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

Oh, and an automatic 20 match ban for anyone, manager/player/coach/sub, ANYONE caught talking to someone else from behind their hand to try to hide what they're saying from the 30,000 lip readers in the crowd or both people watching on TV.

Overblown ****s the lot of them.  And yes Billy Davis I include you in that assessment

Don't cover their mouths when they swearing though do they?

I'm not a lip reader, but I can tell when they're screaming '**** off, you're a ******* prick ref!'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The clock stop thing sounds good but in  practice it actually slows the game up. In American Football they actually had to change the rules to speed things up again.

Imagine this scenario: You are 2 goals down with 5 minutes to go and are really going for it. Strikers are seriously tired so ball goes out of play, take as long as you like doesn't matter, just get your wind back! From the other team perspective take your time and disrupt the momentum.

I like the idea but think you need a raft of other rules to back it up, like 10 secs for a throw with multiball. 15 seconds for a free kick or goal kick. Goalie 5 seconds or 2 paces before release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...