Agreed but the rule already has lots of discretion for refs (no-one can tell me what a 'careless tackle' actually entails). And the Laws already have the concept of intentional for handball so I don't think its a fundamental change.
Random Rules Suggestions
- Thread starter PleaseNotPoll
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Agreed but the rule already has lots of discretion for refs (no-one can tell me what a 'careless tackle' actually entails). And the Laws already have the concept of intentional for handball so I don't think its a fundamental change.
Was reminded of this after the game today, I'd have loved to hear what Dowd had to say after another inconsistent showing.
The rules and what referees give are often different. I'm pretty sure a handball still has to be deliberate in the rules and refs stopped giving a red for last man challenges long before the rules got changed to the more subjective "clear goal scoring opportunity" definition.
The rules and what referees give are often different. I'm pretty sure a handball still has to be deliberate in the rules and refs stopped giving a red for last man challenges long before the rules got changed to the more subjective "clear goal scoring opportunity" definition.
I agreed with this on the Liverpool thread. The question should be, is this what the game should be about? The defence West Ham and Liverpool used on Lamela was to haul him down. Deliberately hauling someone down takes no skill (I could do it), and occurs because a player decides that cheating is tactically advisable. Make deliberate fouling a penalty kick, it won't be smart, and we won't see much of it. I'd go for a pen rather than a red because a red also tends to ruin the game. Haul someone down to prevent him from going in clear on goal, and get him in on goal with a shot to beat the keeper via a pen. Seems fair.
Here's a simple one: vanishing spray for the linesman, so throw-ins are taken where the ball goes out.
I have always liked the idea of offside only in the final third with an additional line on the pitch like in subbuteo!
Oddly enough, I like the offsides rule as is, though football should use computer vision to make the calls correctly. (My place could make a system that works pretty quickly and cheaply.) Ice hockey uses an offside line to mark the final third, which I think is fine for hockey. But it's such a huge advantage to have a step on a defender, I think making offsides less stringent would change the game very significantly, and not for the better. Basketball doesn't have offsides, and the result can be a cherry-picking festival, cherry picking being the term for waiting under the opponents basket, then scoring against no one. The offsides rule as is is one of the important things that makes the beautiful game beautiful, by making attackers earn the advantages they have.
A late suggestion.
Did any of you watch any of the hockey games in the Commonwealth Games recently?
Many years ago I played hockey, but the game has changed for the better since then.
Part of the reason lies with a number of rule changes, which have made it an unrelentingly fast game.
I reckon one or two of these changes would benefit football similarly.
The equivalent of a throw-in or free kick gets taken immediately - the ball-boys have spare balls
(no joking please!). They place one on the touch line where the ball went out.
And in both of these set pieces the player is allowed to pass to him/herself, if you see what I mean.
So as soon as (say) Lennon picks himself up, he can take the free kick, and in effect continue with his run.
That would (a) speed the game up; and (b) drastically reduce "professional" fouls (they become pointless).
Imagine the advantage to the fouled player!
Equally, at a throw-in, the thrower simply drops the ball at his feet and carries on.
A slightly more debatable idea is also from hockey.
Maybe we should have a rule that alows a specialist striker (if we had one!)
to come on as a substitute for the corner..... they then have to go off again after that play is completed.
And why do we have to stop the play for an injured player?
They don't in rugby union, unless it's clearly a serious situation.
That'd be a good way to deal with diving!
By the way, we've borrowed rules from rugby before -
like the ten metres further back if you debate a decision excessively.
There you go. Just a few late additions to the ideas pool.
Cheers, chaps.
Did any of you watch any of the hockey games in the Commonwealth Games recently?
Many years ago I played hockey, but the game has changed for the better since then.
Part of the reason lies with a number of rule changes, which have made it an unrelentingly fast game.
I reckon one or two of these changes would benefit football similarly.
The equivalent of a throw-in or free kick gets taken immediately - the ball-boys have spare balls
(no joking please!). They place one on the touch line where the ball went out.
And in both of these set pieces the player is allowed to pass to him/herself, if you see what I mean.
So as soon as (say) Lennon picks himself up, he can take the free kick, and in effect continue with his run.
That would (a) speed the game up; and (b) drastically reduce "professional" fouls (they become pointless).
Imagine the advantage to the fouled player!
Equally, at a throw-in, the thrower simply drops the ball at his feet and carries on.
A slightly more debatable idea is also from hockey.
Maybe we should have a rule that alows a specialist striker (if we had one!)
to come on as a substitute for the corner..... they then have to go off again after that play is completed.
And why do we have to stop the play for an injured player?
They don't in rugby union, unless it's clearly a serious situation.
That'd be a good way to deal with diving!
By the way, we've borrowed rules from rugby before -
like the ten metres further back if you debate a decision excessively.
There you go. Just a few late additions to the ideas pool.
Cheers, chaps.
When did you last see a wall moved 10 metres back? As a added rule to that allow the attacking team to not move the ball forward making it easier to get the ball over the wall and down under the bar
About two years ago when my next-door neighbour applied for planning permission for his extension!!! (
)
Introduce a sin bin. Players committing professional fouls in the last 10 minutes of a game to try to hang on to a lead really pisses me off. If a player 'takes one for the team' he should have to sit out 5 or 10 minutes.
Thought about this one for a while, don't know how it would work but its an idea that I had a couple of times (often when watching Charlie Adam trying to kick players out of a game)
If a player goes off the field after a tackle (legitimate or no) then the opposing player who made the tackle must leave the field of play at the same time, for the same period of time.
If a player goes off the field after a tackle (legitimate or no) then the opposing player who made the tackle must leave the field of play at the same time, for the same period of time.
Striker gets tackled by a keeper late on when all subs are used. Stays down and feigns injury for the rest of the game.
Change the substitution laws. Allow substitution of a goalkeeper and 3 outfield players. That might have prevented the uproar about Lloris v Everton.
As I said, don't know how it would work... flaws in the idea could need ironing out
That's actually a pretty good idea. How often does a team sub their keeper? How often does a manager want to?
It would lead to certain annoying twats trying to do it to waste time, though.