Penalty change

Make it so if the penalty is saved then the taker is the only one who cant touch the ball. Therefore its a free for all between the two teams to see who gets there first.

Remember runaround from the 70's. Something like that.
 
What if the save is turned around for a corner does this mean the game restarts from a dead ball to the defending team. There are too many grey areas and it needs to be left alone for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrRAWhite
Nacho said:
So?

I'm saying I think it's fairer in a shootout not wondering why it's different.
Click to expand...
1v1 in a shootout - what if it hits the post in the shootout? Is someone allowed to run from the halfway line and finish it? The taker can't touch the ball again as it hasn't hit the keeper - where do you draw the line?

2 completely different elements of a game - 1 is punishing a defending team for committing an offence - then rewarding them when the attacking team doesn't take advantage (wrong IMO) and the other is not punishment for an offence.

Here's one - as it stands currently, a penalty shoot out penalty can hit the post, rebound off the keeper and go in - would that ball be dead as it hasn't been hit on target? Or would that be an exception ton the rule. What if the keeper palms it, it hits one post, rolls slowly across the line, hits the other post and goes in - when does play end for the penalty? or what about this one?

What if this happened in a game and the rules had changed?

You must log in or register to see media

Edit: Apologies Nacho misread your post and came to edit but didn;t want you thinking I was having a go about the 2 different rules.

Still never agree with anyone who thinks this is a good idea!!
 
Brian Storm said:
Against this. As soon as the ball is struck it's back in open play. How can they even enforce this?

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Absolutely. You can pass to a team mate from a penalty. When does the ref decide that the move has faltered

Seems that FIFA are still a bunch of knackers debating the square route of phuck all

See if they can figure out a way to minimise the effect of agents in the game - do some good stuff for once
 
  • Like
Reactions: safc-noggieland, gelders pie and clockstander
I think it's straightforward, when the ball has stopped moving if it's crossed the line then it's a goal if it hasn't then it's not. Just the same as it is in shootouts currently. No attacker would be allowed to touch the ball after the taker and play would resume with either kick off if he scored or a free kick to the team that conceded the penalty if he didn't. Doesn't matter where the keeper pushes the ball after he saves it as long as it's not a goal it's his free kick.

I don't see any grey areas or confusion because it'd be exactly the same rules as shootouts and they work fine.
 
Nacho said:
I think it's straightforward, when the ball has stopped moving if it's crossed the line then it's a goal if it hasn't then it's not. Just the same as it is in shootouts currently. No attacker would be allowed to touch the ball after the taker and play would resume with either kick off if he scored or a free kick to the team that conceded the penalty if he didn't. Doesn't matter where the keeper pushes the ball after he saves it as long as it's not a goal it's his free kick.

I don't see any grey areas or confusion because it'd be exactly the same rules as shootouts and they work fine.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but the rule just doesnt need changing. Although I would have been dead against the use of a crossbar instead of a washing line, and woe betide if i'd been about when the 'nets' idea would have been raised. 'Let the lazy bastard of a goalkeeper walk the few hundred yards, rummage through the bushes and find the ball if he let a goal in'
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mackem-Tiz, The Norton Cat and Nacho
Sprouts Mexicane said:
I see your point, but the rule just doesnt need changing. Although I would have been dead against the use of a crossbar instead of a washing line, and woe betide if i'd been about when the 'nets' idea would have been raised. 'Let the lazy bastard of a goalkeeper walk the few hundred yards, rummage through the bushes and find the ball if he let a goal in'
Click to expand...

I agree really it's an interesting-ish debate but I don't think it actually needs changing, I just feel a bit sorry for the keepers who pull off a great save only to concede anyway but that can happen during play so meh.

I think it would work fine but there are many more important issues.
 
Rules were a bit hazy in the olden days. I remember reading about a game that was being played in the 19th century. A penalty was given in the last minute. The offending player was so angry he booted the ball out of the stadium (or what would have been classed as the stadium in those days) By the time they found and fetched the ball the referee had blown for full time.
 
Nacho said:
I agree really it's an interesting-ish debate but I don't think it actually needs changing, I just feel a bit sorry for the keepers who pull off a great save only to concede anyway but that can happen during play so meh.

I think it would work fine but there are many more important issues.
Click to expand...

Instant red card for shirt pulling, that would be my first rule change, off the top of my head.
 
  • Like
Reactions: safc-noggieland
Sprouts Mexicane said:
Rules were a bit hazy in the olden days. I remember reading about a game that was being played in the 19th century. A penalty was given in the last minute. The offending player was so angry he booted the ball out of the stadium (or what would have been classed as the stadium in those days) By the time they found and fetched the ball the referee had blown for full time.
Click to expand...
Jimmy Thorpe played in goal for SAFC:

"His life and career were cut short on 1 February 1936 when he was kicked in the head and chest after he had picked up the ball following a backpass in a game against Chelsea at Roker Park. He continued to take part until the match finished, but collapsed at home afterwards and died in hospital four days later from diabetes mellitus and heart failure 'accelerated by the rough usage of the opposing team' [2]"

The goal was given but this forced a rule change making that rough behaviour illegal!!
 
The FIFAcking idiot that came up with this ridiculous idea must have been under some pressure to think about changing something to justify a salary (or it's a women with absolutely no idea about football <whistle>).

It isn't broken so don't fix it :emoticon-0145-shake

We all know what needs fixing . . . . the cheats who 'buy' penalties in the first place, and there's a simple solution to stop them from doing so (and we all know what that is, and the fact that it will never happen) :emoticon-0105-wink:
 
Gordon Armstrong said:
The FIFAcking idiot that came up with this ridiculous idea must have been under some pressure to think about changing something to justify a salary (or it's a women with absolutely no idea about football <whistle>).

It isn't broken so don't fix it :emoticon-0145-shake

We all know what needs fixing . . . . the cheats who 'buy' penalties in the first place, and there's a simple solution to stop them from doing so (and we all know what that is, and the fact that it will never happen) :emoticon-0105-wink:
Click to expand...

A damn good British style thrashing, six of the best, trousers down?????
 
Nacho said:
I'm guessing it's a way to add some balance now that penalties are so common but unfortunately the article was in Dutch so no idea really.

I don't think it's a particularly elegant solution to give a free kick like the taker has done something wrong but I've always thought that if you can't beat the keeper from the spot then you don't deserve to score and more importantly if the keeper is able to save it then they deserve the save and not to concede anyway because of blind luck.

What about the pens in a shootout, they aren't free kicks are they? It'd just be the same as them. A miss is a miss and a save is a save. Nobody watches a shootout and thinks it'd be fairer if the striker could score from a rebound.
Click to expand...

It's not blind luck though. The goalie should push it away to a safe area. If he just palms it back to the striker then more fool him imo.
 
David Moyes' Stupid Face said:
It's not blind luck though. The goalie should push it away to a safe area. If he just palms it back to the striker then more fool him imo.
Click to expand...

Technically true but I've seen some cracking saves that haven't ended up stopping them scoring after a rebound, easier said than done to advise tipping it round the post in the half second you get to make the save.

I'd say that unless it was a ****e penalty it's harsh to expect the keeper to push it safe.
 
David Moyes' Stupid Face said:
It's not blind luck though. The goalie should push it away to a safe area. If he just palms it back to the striker then more fool him imo.
Click to expand...
That makes no sense - as a keeper the first thing you do is stop the ball. When it's blasted at you from 12 yards away you expect a keeper to "choose" where he wants the ball to go when he stops it? Maybe you should take over coaching the keepers if you think it's that easy :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back