Right, Lets Change Football........or Not.

[mjj]

For a while now I've been thinking some of the rules in our beloved footy need to be changed. Sacrilege! I'm sure some of you will say but here is my list for starters and fell free to add or disagree.

Handball.

More emphasis on nothing given if its ball to hand rather than hand to ball.

Offside.

Scrap it. If a team wants a goal hanger let 'em. It's not pretty but there will be no silly disputes over goals.

Video Replays

Each team is allowed 3 video replays for disputes decisions during the match.

Fouls without intent.

For fouls like Ivanovichs on Sunday no sending off it given. I know he was the last man, but whenever I see the replay it just looks like he is trying to get on the inside of Young

[LucidLucifer]

I am with you on the video replays bit, although the purists will be up in arms over that. With the ability to look again closely at controversial decisions, your other suggestions probably wouldn't be needed.

[sumrit]

Handball.

More emphasis on nothing given if its ball to hand rather than hand to ball.

There would still be disagreement on whether handball was intentional or not. I would rather see all handballs given whether it's 'considered' intentional or not. If a players hand/arm comes into contact with the ball there would be no controversy, a free kick would be given.

Offside.

Scrap it. If a team wants a goal hanger let 'em. It's not pretty but there will be no silly disputes over goals.

I can understand why you're saying that but I don't think you'l find many football purists wanting it. When most of us watch football we want to see quality football played by talented players. Scrapping offside would result in 'lesser' teams resorting to a big punt into the opposing penalty area where they'll have a couple of burly forwards challenging for the ball. Hardly quality football.

Video Replays

Each team is allowed 3 video replays for disputes decisions during the match.

I wouldn't want to see any game stopped for up to six lengthy delays while somebody tries to examine video clips, which may or may not be conclusive anyway. Also it would immediately be used by teams under pressure, just to stop the game and break up the pattern of play.

Personally I'd prefer to see the game flowing, warts and all.

Fouls without intent.

For fouls like Ivanovichs on Sunday no sending off it given. I know he was the last man, but whenever I see the replay it just looks like he is trying to get on the inside of Young

Using your example I don't know whether Ivanovich intended to foul Young or not but the fact remains he ran across behind him and he did bring him down and prevent a goalscoring opportunity. In this instance if Ivanovich was genuinely trying to beat Young to the ball surely the shortest way was to run along the side of him and not to run around and behind him. So was it really 'accidental' or 'intentional'?

Players are already 'experts at simulation', If there was a possible way out because the referee had to try and decide whether 'it was an accident' the conning would go even further. Defenders would continually be running across behind an attacker and 'accidentally' clip their heals.

One change I would like to see though is to have the officials microphones played over the public address system, for several reasons. It would put an immediate stop to players swearing, bullying and abusing the officials. When there is a questionable decision the crowd would know why the referee gave it instead of having to guess. And,of course, we could hear what he referee says to the players as well. It would also mean the referee couldn't appear to change his mind after the game over a contentious decision he has made which 'appears to happen' occasionally at the moment.

[LeungKen]

I'm a purist, please don't change the rules.

(If anything, bring back the ten pound salary cap and leather balls. )

[LeungKen]

Double post.

Edited October 30, 2012 by LeungKen

[alfieconn]

Each team is allowed 3 video replays for disputes decisions during the match.

I wouldn't want to see any game stopped for up to six lengthy delays while somebody tries to examine video clips, which may or may not be conclusive anyway. Also it would immediately be used by teams under pressure, just to stop the game and break up the pattern of play.

Most games are stopped after a controversial decision anyway, take the 3 offside decisions at the weekend.

The delays wouldn't have to lengthy, about the same time it takes to get the ball back from the crowd !

[smokie36]

I'm a purist, please don't change the rules.

(If anything, bring back the ten pound salary cap and leather balls. )

No Ken....bring back balls of steel and tackling from behind.

[tw25rw]

I wouldn't scrap offside or it will end up like Aussie Rules. Allardyce football will prevail.. But I would make it so you can't be offside from a free kick and maybe other refinements that put the onus on the defender to defend rather than stand still.

Speaking of offside, I once saw a Millwall player knock the ball into space and run after it only to be flagged offside when he got it. Linesman weren't much chop in the 3rd division then.

I would ignore ball to hand if it's protecting the face/nuts, but would penalise it with either direct or indirect depending if it's deliberate.

I like the replays idea, but would give a free one for every challenge upheld.

[sumrit]

Most games are stopped after a controversial decision anyway, take the 3 offside decisions at the weekend.

The delays wouldn't have to lengthy, about the same time it takes to get the ball back from the crowd !

Not all video delays could be decided quickly, plus some mistakes aren't even noticed at the time so it wouldn't correct all mistakes. For example in Sunday's Chelsea Man U game nobody actually questioned whether Hernandez was offside when he scored (other than the meaningless half hearted hand up that almost all defenders do when a goal is scored). Nobody actually complained at the time. It was only some five to ten minutes later when the TV company put up a still picture on our screens showing that Hernandez was a few inches offsides (but hidden from the linesman by a Chelsea player) that the goal became an issue. Chelsea wouldn't have asked for a video replay anyway and the goal would still have stood.

On the other hand, a video replay would have shown Torres clutching the 'wrong' leg when he dived and got sent off. But that incident wouldn't even have happened because he would already have gone when a video replay had shown just how dangerous and high his tackle on Cleverly was near the end of the first half. And lastly a video replay would also have shown Mikel did block off Valencia near the end, so Valencia wouldn't have got an unjust yellow card while Mikel, who had already been booked would probably got a second yellow and been sent off. Leaving Chelsea with just eight players.

Do we really want to keep stopping the game to (possibly) make some corrections, knowing that some mistakes will still 'get through' anyway.

No I'd rather see the official's mics put though the public address system so everybody knows what and why those decisions were made straight away. That in itself would also 'encourage' referees to make sure they get their decisions right.

[mjj]

Most games are stopped after a controversial decision anyway, take the 3 offside decisions at the weekend.

The delays wouldn't have to lengthy, about the same time it takes to get the ball back from the crowd !

Not all video delays could be decided quickly, plus some mistakes aren't even noticed at the time so it wouldn't correct all mistakes. For example in Sunday's Chelsea Man U game nobody actually questioned whether Hernandez was offside when he scored (other than the meaningless half hearted hand up that almost all defenders do when a goal is scored). Nobody actually complained at the time. It was only some five to ten minutes later when the TV company put up a still picture on our screens showing that Hernandez was a few inches offsides (but hidden from the linesman by a Chelsea player) that the goal became an issue. Chelsea wouldn't have asked for a video replay anyway and the goal would still have stood.

On the other hand, a video replay would have shown Torres clutching the 'wrong' leg when he dived and got sent off. But that incident wouldn't even have happened because he would already have gone when a video replay had shown just how dangerous and high his tackle on Cleverly was near the end of the first half. And lastly a video replay would also have shown Mikel did block off Valencia near the end, so Valencia wouldn't have got an unjust yellow card while Mikel, who had already been booked would probably got a second yellow and been sent off. Leaving Chelsea with just eight players.

Do we really want to keep stopping the game to (possibly) make some corrections, knowing that some mistakes will still 'get through' anyway.

No I'd rather see the official's mics put though the public address system so everybody knows what and why those decisions were made straight away. That in itself would also 'encourage' referees to make sure they get their decisions right.

So what you are saying is everything would just favour Man U? S'pose something's never change.......

[MrRed]

Well we own all the refs anyway..... so yes things would always favour United

[sumrit]

So what you are saying is everything would just favour Man U? S'pose something's never change.......

I merely commented on the video evidence you seem so keen on using. If that shows Man U were actually hard done by in this particular match then correcting that to Man U's advantage must be what you're after. Personally I'd rather not use the video replays and watch free flowing game of football, even if, as in this match, Man U loose out because of the 'mistakes' the officials might occasionally make. Perhaps it'll be our turn to get the rub of the green next time

[mrbojangles]

The use of technology not just Video hasn't harmed the other sports that have introduced it. In fact, quite the opposite.

[rijit]

To many stops and starts already, and soon clubs would be using their 'stoppages' tactically,i can just imagine moyes whinging post match we only had 2 BLAH BLAH, players make mistakes so do refs always have done and always will do, THATS FOOTBALL so 4 me a big NO for video replays. as for handballs i'de go with making it more clearer, ball to hand accidental or not NO GREY AREAS it's handball,full stop. But 'ball fully over the line' technology defo should be and i'm sure will be introduced.

Edited October 30, 2012 by rijit

[sumrit]

The use of technology not just Video hasn't harmed the other sports that have introduced it. In fact, quite the opposite.

We were discussing video in particular because that was the suggestion made. 'Technology' in general is a whole new ball game.

I'm not against any technology that improves things as long as it doesn't stop or delay the flow of the game, even for a short period. Keeping a game flowing and the ability of say one team being able to continually pressurize another is an important part of the game. If the use of technology stops the game and allows that team to reorganize and regroup would, in my opinion, take something away from the game and I would be against it.

The sports where technology has helped, such as tennis,cricket, american football and baseball, etc. are all 'stop start' games where the game is continually stopped and broken up during normal play anyway. The only free flowing game I can think of that already uses technology is rugby, and that is restricted to video evidence to determine whether a try has been scored, and that's at a time when the game is naturally stopped anyway.

[mrbojangles]

I don't think football has been free flowing for a long time anyway, it's always stops and starts. The use of video could actually reduce the time of the major stops when the ref is getting harassed

[rijit]

I don't think football has been free flowing for a long time anyway, it's always stops and starts. The use of video could actually reduce the time of the major stops when the ref is getting harassed

Really, so your suggesting bringing video play back in to save time,LOL cant see that working somehow. For me a more effective and simpler way of sorting the ref being harrased out, would b every time a player repeatedly gets in a refs face and refuses to bac off, as so often happens, a season or so of harsh red card giving, would soon bring an end to it. V simple nothin needs to change and 100% it would work.

[SantiSuk]

Id like to bring back the indirect free kick for deliberate obstruction. It irritates the defecatory material out of me that defenders are allowed to back into opponents when the ball is going out and the defender is feet away from the ball with no intention of playing the ball. I also don't like the way players are allowed to hold off an opponent by pushing their arms out sideways or 'making themselves big' - deliberate obstruction in my view. The only substantive bodily contact allowed should be shoulder to shoulder.

Challenges from behind should be permitted if the player gets the ball in a one footed motion along the ground. Nowadays if the ball holding player falls over as a result of having the ball trapped on his foot or because he trips over the winning leg after it has won the ball many refs call it a foul and some call it yellow (deliberate and dangerous).

I also dislike the way that referees give too much protection to goalkeepers and allow pushing and pulling by defenders in the box. TV Commentators have far too much impact on the officiating agenda with their comments that certain features are things that 'you generally get away with'. Let's get it written in the rules that players can have interfering contact prior to the ball arriving if that is indeed the case.

I don't like that referees give the players one intentional foul before yellow carding - and this is operated with far too much variability. I've also said before that the attitude that one yellow is the price expected to be paid by defenders (taking one for the team). Time and again good attractive attacking moves are nixed by cynical fouls. Players would mostly avoid picking up yellow cards if the penalty for picking up say 4 yellows was say a 3 match suspension. Obviously players can control their yellows better than they do, as comparatively few second yellows need to be shown.

Re the OP comment about Ivanovich, the existing rules direct a referee to give a card in the event of an intentional only foul. Clattenburg must have thought he meant to trip up the ManU forward. I also think there was sufficient doubt that Ivanovich meant to trip him up and players are getting cute at deliberately running accross an opponent's line so that a trip is inevitable. Should have been a free kick only IMO.

[Ex FA qualified ref - minor stuff only!]

Edited October 30, 2012 by SantiSuk

[mrbojangles]

I don't think football has been free flowing for a long time anyway, it's always stops and starts. The use of video could actually reduce the time of the major stops when the ref is getting harassed

Really, so your suggesting bringing video play back in to save time,LOL

Speed reading isn't your speciality is it. I didn't suggest anything of the sorts, I said it "could" reduce time for the "major" stops. You know, when the ref has about 20 players around him for one reason or another and then he goes and consults with the linesman and still may get the decision wrong. A 4th official could have reviewed and decided by then. But hey, I'm not gonna argue over it, I'm for the use of video and technology and some aren't.

[rijit]

I don't think football has been free flowing for a long time anyway, it's always stops and starts. The use of video could actually reduce the time of the major stops when the ref is getting harassed

Really, so your suggesting bringing video play back in to save time,LOL

, I'm not gonna argue over it, I'm for the use of video and technology and some aren't.

Arguing? last time I looked it's called discussion but if you dont want to debate it perhaps you shouldnt post, or maybe even if u dont want to debate ithe issue it reflects the plausibility of the original idea!!!. so let's reiterate your idea is it COULD possibly save time on the major instances right?, how will MAJOR be defined ? mob rule? giving the decision to call a replay either 2 the players or the ref could well bring up many conflicting and possibly time wasting issues. eg if 2 the players;, in a game 2 mins to go, the ref calls a foul on an attacker, its a clear foul, but the defending team want/has the right for a replay, followed quickly by a drawn out substitution,chances are the Attacking momentum is probably broken, job done, fairly? and good for the game NAH i don't think so, And lets not ignore the reality of video replays as we've seen time and time again they arnt necessarily that conclusive and they certainly aint always that quick , we've seen on sky and the bbc that even after SEVERAL views can be still often open to debate . so saving time? debatable , sometimes maybe, but 4 sure not in every case. worth changing the face of the game for?, cant see it.

[mrbojangles]

I debate regularly rijit, I said I don't want to argue because sometimes I think your posts are aggressive. To me, that ain't debating, it's arguing. It's a thin line.

Anyway, an example of a major decision could be when a penalty is given that is dubious like a player diving and conning the ref. How many times do you see the players surrounding the ref and arguing but if you are watching on tv, they have already replayed it several times.

[nev]

I debate regularly rijit, I said I don't want to argue because sometimes I think your posts are aggressive. To me, that ain't debating, it's arguing. It's a thin line.

Anyway, an example of a major decision could be when a penalty is given that is dubious like a player diving and conning the ref. How many times do you see the players surrounding the ref and arguing but if you are watching on tv, they have already replayed it several times.

What they could do is have a panel of 3 ref's sitting in front of a monitor, they all have button each, and if the deem a player to be cheating they press there buzzer, if all 3 do together that player receives a orange card, if they get another one in the game they are off and a 5 match ban.

Maybe more riveting watching the refs waiting to press the buzzer than the actual game

[uptheos]

You know, when the ref has about 20 players around him for one reason or another

Yup, they could use the video evidence and heavily fine every one of those 20 players.

[MrRed]

I debate regularly rijit, I said I don't want to argue because sometimes I think your posts are aggressive. To me, that ain't debating, it's arguing. It's a thin line.

Anyway, an example of a major decision could be when a penalty is given that is dubious like a player diving and conning the ref. How many times do you see the players surrounding the ref and arguing but if you are watching on tv, they have already replayed it several times.

What they could do is have a panel of 3 ref's sitting in front of a monitor, they all have button each, and if the deem a player to be cheating they press there buzzer, if all 3 do together that player receives a orange card, if they get another one in the game they are off and a 5 match ban.

Maybe more riveting watching the refs waiting to press the buzzer than the actual game

Like Premier League's got talent nev? X X X

[mjj]

And if they get 3 buzzes from the panel they get an electric shock. :-)

[mjj]

What about giving the refs taser guns? Would add to the laughs.

[StevieH]

How many times do you see the players surrounding the ref and arguing but if you are watching on tv, they have already replayed it several times.

the referee has it in his power to deal with that though. any player encroaches and shouts in my face who is not the designated captain, automatic yellow card. do it again, second yellow, off you go and a two-match ban. piece of piss to implement that one. think it needs better leadership from the FA though - their 'respect agenda' was a joke.

[nev]

Or score cards to rate the dive out of 10.

[mjj]

How many times do you see the players surrounding the ref and arguing but if you are watching on tv, they have already replayed it several times.

the referee has it in his power to deal with that though. any player encroaches and shouts in my face who is not the designated captain, automatic yellow card. do it again, second yellow, off you go and a two-match ban. piece of piss to implement that one. think it needs better leadership from the FA though - their 'respect agenda' was a joke.

Whilst I agree that it's ugly and boring when the players surround the ref arguing, the refs cannot be beyond criticism on the pitch.

[nev]

How many times do you see the players surrounding the ref and arguing but if you are watching on tv, they have already replayed it several times.

the referee has it in his power to deal with that though. any player encroaches and shouts in my face who is not the designated captain, automatic yellow card. do it again, second yellow, off you go and a two-match ban. piece of piss to implement that one. think it needs better leadership from the FA though - their 'respect agenda' was a joke.

Whilst I agree that it's ugly and boring when the players surround the ref arguing, the refs cannot be beyond criticism on the pitch.

As we are on about refs at the moment why is they so few black refs or asian refs? i wonder if it is a racist thing and black refs in the past got called a lot of little nasties.