I know of another improvement within the present reffing capabilities that would encourage players to stop falling over and continue playing: Allowing Advantage THEN going back to give them the freekick (and yellow to the offender), if a goal was not scored. It is very seldom done. If done regularly, not many players would be stupid enough to forfeit the chance of standing up and continue play.
Doesn't that already happen? Plus, if its a penalty should then its a disadvantage rather than advantage!
Very seldom. Not as a rule. Not enough to impress players and change their mentality and approach to a foul. Not on the condition "if a goal is not scored on the play". Nowadays, even if advantage is allowed (rare), the ref goes back to award the freekick only if the play fizzles out within a second or two (it's more often the case that he gives out the yellow but not the freekick). In the case of fouls in the area and penalties, the rewards are the same. Even if the player manages to shake away the fouling defender and take a good shot on goal which gets saved or fizzes out, the fact that 'the play resulted in no goal' should prompt the ref go back and award the penalty.
If the player stays on their feet, play should continue and even if a goal is scored a penalty should be given, the player sent off so you get potential two goals Oh and crucially this should only apply to clubs other than Liverpool
That approach can become very contentious. In Rugby Union the ref can play an advantage for quite a period of time IF he signals the original offence. When it becomes clear that an advantage has not properly accrued to the side that was fouled then he can go back to the position of the original offence. The contention comes in the amount of time that each Ref will allow for an advantage to be achieved.
You can't do that. When a goal is scored play stops acording to the regulations and can only be re-started at the halfway line. If a goal is scored the Ref still has the possibility to go back and penalise the defender. You also have to accept that a foul in the area that results in a penalty does not always deserve a red card. But of course none of this applies to Liverpool
In my proposal that contention does not arise, since the decider is neither the contentious 'amount of time' nor whether 'an advantage properly accrued', but the simple fact of whether a goal was scored by the fouled party. It's a small tweak to refereeing that can change a whole lot in players' attitude to fouling.
re advantage rule... refs in rugby stick out a hand... refs in football are supposed to put both hand up to show its advantage and so should do so... simple... everyone knows why they do it.
