Make it work both ways. Run 20 yards the other way, oppo are allowed to move the ball 20 yards wherever they like. Id also say at penalties, if the keeper is ****ing around out of his goal, ref can say you’ve got 5 seconds to get back in goal otherwise I’m blowing the whistle. If you’re not on your line then forward can put it into an empty net. So many things could do to punish time wasting and all the play acting but no one has the balls to do it.
Other than the first suggestion (moving free kicks)... I don't think they're all bad. I think the 3 rolls would be something like the keeper can only hold for three seconds, and the margin of tolerance for throw ins. Keepers regularly hold for more than three seconds with no punishment. But the rule allows the ref to card when it's being abused. Same with throw ins. Refs never punish when players walk with the ball and bounce it and mover 20 meters closer to the goal every time they take a throw. You wouldn't have to count the rolls... Just if they're simulating being in a lot of pain (or even not simulating) take them off the field to recover. Just like the three seconds holding the ball, I don't think the third flop would necessarily mean the ref would HAVE to send them off, but means he could.
the reality is that this play acting suits refs down to the ground. the more non descript boredom there is in a game the less chance they have to cocking up a big call. they love people time wasting over throws and goal kicks and love a breather from running. they are all 40 somethings trying to keep up with 20 something athletes. the longer the break the better they like it imo.
Got to say that if I was a ref I wouldn't take all that foul-mouthed **** off players - there'd be cards flying everywhere.
The worst offender for wasting time is that bitter twat T rex when he keeps dropping to his knees for no reason ,he needs red carding for it the ****.
Yeah, I remember a long while back now the FA made some announcement of some sort that there would be no tolerance for arguing with refs. It would be an automatic card. Mascherano argued with a ref against United, got a red card... And then things went back to normal. FA had made their grand gesture and then stopped enforcing the "no arguing with the ref" ever again. The initiative lasted for all of one week.
Said it loads of times,Rugby Union has it sorted ref is God basically ,talking to ref through captain .Seems like footie can't be arsed enforcing existing/ new rules. Could be sorted out within a month .
I honestly think refs are just plain resistant to booking players or getting involved a) they will get heat form pundits and media for being "pedantic" and not "letting game flow" ... cos stopping to book someone or ending up having to send them off is apparently worse than the normal time wasting. example: ref let newcastle get away with murder (apparently) but its newcastle are ****houses and then its arteta is sour graps ars per. the refs only really got heat for a pen call. example 2: brentford lose the nut over lfc corner cos ref didn't punish robbo pushing their lad as the ball went out for corner. the ref sees danger of goal so makes his mind up to blow up for anything in the box and give free out prior to corner being taken. he does so. exmaple 3: Brentford lad slightly touches konate who goes down. on second viewing this was too easy but as this was a goal scoring opportunity neither ref not lino wanted anything to do with it as its a home game for brentford. easy solution is let it go, not affecting outcome of game for media. b) refs are bred to not give cards and to survive the game. they are really really adverse to throwing a card cos they are paralysed with fear of giving a red and being again criticised for it. Most older refs will give people 3 and 4 offenses before ever turning to a card and will give them for second half, usually giving random cards to make up teh numbers so they don't look lenient in their final report (3 cards in game, nothing to see here) I think there needs to be some means that a ref can punish sides for maggot acting without actually costing a ref anything. Moving the ball forward for mouth or for time wasting or whatever is not actually a bad way to do this but the same thing with refs wil come into play. the second the ball gets close to goal their arses start wobbling. I dunno.... to solve timewasting and ****housery is not easy when you've officials who are not concerned with anyhting but their own necks.
but theres that element of culture? Those refs feel they are god and above critique (and the pundits while they have a go are minority sorts pundits with no power and no death threats come either) The ref is an active part of the game talking the defensive team though every ruck almost. its constant giving of instruction whereas the football ref is not involved until he absolutely has to be. there's no amount of money that would induce me to be a football ref IMO, the level of abuse and threats must be awful.
I imagine this is because rugby originated in the school. The refs were teachers who talked the boys through the game as it was going on. He was addressed as "Sir", and nobody argued with him, they could only ask for an explanation of his decision. Somehow this tradition has survived to the modern day. The culture of football is very different. Although I would like to see better refereeing and much better behaviour from the players, I think it would take a lot longer than you suggest to change that culture - it's ingrained almost the world over. You start with the kids - bring them up to respect the position of the ref (the competence of individual refs is another issue), and respect one another more. Unfortunately so many of their role models are a parade of grotesques. Then you have fans who think it's perfectly ok to cause actual bodily harm to someone because they support a different team. The game has a long way to go...
oh I dunno mate, it's more about resistance to change than anything. I'd put it more like they actively don't want to change rather than being passively not arsed making the change.
Wasn't saying you were but it's the main one that'll be used in these arguments. May as well say "because that's how we've always done it"
