What's new

Rule Changes Discussion

Krule

Carpe Diem
Jun 4, 2017
4,534
8,686
Checkout link in BBC Sports football gossip column today to Telegraph article on proposed rule changes up for discussion.....
No penalty rebounds...if it's saved or bounces out then that's it...the ball is deemed dead (Pogba goal wouldn't have counted)......removal of the word 'deliberately' from handball definition.. to be replaced by 'the hand or arm being in an unnatural position at the point of contact' ..any player substituted to leave the pitch via nearest touchline (players being told to go to other side of the pitch before being substituted to deliberately waste time)...interesting read.
 

C0YS

Just another member
Jul 9, 2007
12,780
13,817
Checkout link in BBC Sports football gossip column today to Telegraph article on proposed rule changes up for discussion.....
No penalty rebounds...if it's saved or bounces out then that's it...the ball is deemed dead (Pogba goal wouldn't have counted)......removal of the word 'deliberately' from handball definition.. to be replaced by 'the hand or arm being in an unnatural position at the point of contact' ..any player substituted to leave the pitch via nearest touchline (players being told to go to other side of the pitch before being substituted to deliberately waste time)...interesting read.
The rebound thing is silly. A penalty is very rightfully a massive advantage for the attacking side and so it should be. Don't see what that rule is trying to fix.

The handball rule change would only be clarifying what is already implied. Not against it but would not really change much.

The leaving the pitch by the nearest touchline makes sense and can get behind it, however, its not actually the biggest cause of time wasting. That really goes towards throw ins and most significantly goal kicks. Late in the game a single goal kick can take a team almost a minute to take, its crazy and needs to be clamped down. For me the best way to get rid of time wasting is a rule already being considered by the bodies that matter. Changing matches to 60 minutes while pausing the clock during stoppages of play. Simple, and would actually result in fans getting to watch slightly more football than currently, not less!
 

Krule

Carpe Diem
Jun 4, 2017
4,534
8,686
The rebound thing is silly. A penalty is very rightfully a massive advantage for the attacking side and so it should be. Don't see what that rule is trying to fix.

The handball rule change would only be clarifying what is already implied. Not against it but would not really change much.

The leaving the pitch by the nearest touchline makes sense and can get behind it, however, its not actually the biggest cause of time wasting. That really goes towards throw ins and most significantly goal kicks. Late in the game a single goal kick can take a team almost a minute to take, its crazy and needs to be clamped down. For me the best way to get rid of time wasting is a rule already being considered by the bodies that matter. Changing matches to 60 minutes while pausing the clock during stoppages of play. Simple, and would actually result in fans getting to watch slightly more football than currently, not less!

I think with the penalty one they are saying the opportunity to have a clear and unimpeded shot at goal with only the goalkeeper to beat is reward enough for a serious infringement. Does seem harsh when the keeper pulls off a magnificent save only to land on the floor afterwards and watch the player tap the ball in. Agree about end of game time wasting...something needs to be done.
 

LexingtonSpurs

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2013
13,456
39,042
The rebound thing is silly. A penalty is very rightfully a massive advantage for the attacking side and so it should be. Don't see what that rule is trying to fix.

Most likely will cut down on infringement fouls (Players in the box too early), which are rarely called anyway.
 

fortworthspur

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2007
11,244
17,536
2 and 3 are fine - I'd like the rebound to continue to be a live ball, tho. Makes things more interesting.
 

cwy21

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2009
9,448
7,930
Re the handball change.

I suspect any changes will be to adjust the wording to match the current interpretations given to referees. So the types of calls made will not change significantly (or at all).
 

Tucker

Shitehawk
Jul 15, 2013
31,131
146,021
Agree with all in principle. But the time wasting one is just tinkering and won’t fix the real problem. Timekeeping should be out of the referees hands. The fourth official should control the clock. Any time play stops for any reason, then he stops the timer. Time wasting would be instantly dead as there’d be no time to waste. No need for stoppage time at the end of games.

I think this was actually proposed a couple of years ago, but that proposal also included cutting the game from 90 to 60 minutes, as when all stoppages are accounted for, that’s usually how long the ball is actually in play. It’s nuts how far out the current timing system is really.
 

Houdini

No better cure for the blues than some good pussy.
Jul 10, 2006
56,725
78,457
Time wasting is rife, free kicks, throw ins, goal celebrations, corners, feigning injury, substitution, goal kicks and, in less instances, ball retrieval.
A few of these would be eradicated (if they really wanted to) by booking the offending player/s.
I think the penalty rule is a double edge sword.
Ensuring keepers stay on the goal line and the rest of the players don't encroach would be a more acceptable and desired change.
Goal keepers laying on the ball until the "All clear" air raid siren has been sounded winds me up!
A lot of the rules and regs are in place, they are simply not enforced to the fullest extent and that's why we're talking about this.
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
go back to the old days, if a penalty is saved and there's a rebound tough. try to implement the encroachment better and keeper moving off his line.

handball is handball tough. if it hits the arm when you on the ground unless your arms not away from the body then fair enough, and same again if your arms are tucked in, but the minute the arm is away from your sides you are making yourself bigger.

time wasting, don't cut it to 60 minutes, have a timer and when the game is stopped, stop the timer (goal kicks, throw-ins, subs, goal celebrations, and injuries) do it over 90mins the public pay enough, and whatever happened to the keeper can only keep hold of it for 6 seconds? bring something in and punish it if it takes longer or like everything else add the time. make 90 minutes 90, not 60mins.

what other entertainment industry would someone pay £30 (away prices not including the cost of travel) for just 1 hours entertainment (even that's not guaranteed).

also ban @yankspurs from attending matches. he shouldn't be allowed to leave the USA for health and safety reasons (even if the match day thread might be safer to enter)
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
I kind of agree with the penalty rebound thing. If a keeper saves the penalty he's got very little chance of saving the rebound as well. An alternative would be to allow rebounds, but stipulate that the player that missed the penalty can't shoot again straight away. He either has to pass to a teammate, or let someone else take the shot.

The handball law is too confusing at the moment and definitely needs changing.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
time wasting, don't cut it to 60 minutes, have a timer and when the game is stopped, stop the timer (goal kicks, throw-ins, subs, goal celebrations, and injuries) do it over 90mins the public pay enough, and whatever happened to the keeper can only keep hold of it for 6 seconds? bring something in and punish it if it takes longer or like everything else add the time. make 90 minutes 90, not 60mins.

what other entertainment industry would someone pay £30 (away prices not including the cost of travel) for just 1 hours entertainment (even that's not guaranteed).

Sorry mate note having a go but I think you've misunderstood the point of reducing the time to 60 mins. The reason people are saying that is because studies have found that in the average PL game the ball is only actually in play for about 60 mins. So if you introduce stopping the clock every time the ball goes out, you'd have to reduce the overall game clock to 60 mins otherwise the players would have to basically play an extra half hour to what they do now. By making the clock only run until 60, the fans would still be in the stadium for the same amount of time as they are now and the players would still be playing the same amount of football as they are now. If you stop the clock but keep the time as 90 mins, then the game would end up being like an extra time game where there an extra half hour of play so everyone would be knackered and it would take 2.5 hours to get through.

In summary, if you're going to introduce stopping the clock, although it seems counter-intuitive, reducing the game time to 60 mins is a way of keeping things the same as they are now. Stopping the clock but keeping the game time as 90 mins would massively change the sport and would result in a lot of very long boring games where everyone is knackered and players would be going down with injuries every game by half way through the season.
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
Sorry mate note having a go but I think you've misunderstood the point of reducing the time to 60 mins. The reason people are saying that is because studies have found that in the average PL game the ball is only actually in play for about 60 mins. So if you introduce stopping the clock every time the ball goes out, you'd have to reduce the overall game clock to 60 mins otherwise the players would have to basically play an extra half hour to what they do now. By making the clock only run until 60, the fans would still be in the stadium for the same amount of time as they are now and the players would still be playing the same amount of football as they are now. If you stop the clock but keep the time as 90 mins, then the game would end up being like an extra time game where there an extra half hour of play so everyone would be knackered and it would take 2.5 hours to get through.

In summary, if you're going to introduce stopping the clock, although it seems counter-intuitive, reducing the game time to 60 mins is a way of keeping things the same as they are now. Stopping the clock but keeping the game time as 90 mins would massively change the sport and would result in a lot of very long boring games where everyone is knackered and players would be going down with injuries every game by half way through the season.

oh I understand, but the game is meant to be 90 mins. if they did it for 90 then players might click on and stop wasting the time instead knowing they would be out there longer. in the 70's and 80's the only way teams wasted time (Arsenal especially, occasionally Liverpool) was the pass back rule. if they had a rule in that a throw-in, goal kick, drop kick had to be taken within 10 secs of ball being in hand or retrieved we might even get that 60 up to around 80, which still works out a very expensive day out, for 22+ people being way over paid for kicking a ball about

sorry meant to add that what we have in place now is not good enough
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
oh I understand, but the game is meant to be 90 mins. if they did it for 90 then players might click on and stop wasting the time instead knowing they would be out there longer. in the 70's and 80's the only way teams wasted time (Arsenal especially, occasionally Liverpool) was the pass back rule. if they had a rule in that a throw-in, goal kick, drop kick had to be taken within 10 secs of ball being in hand or retrieved we might even get that 60 up to around 80, which still works out a very expensive day out, for 22+ people being way over paid for kicking a ball about

sorry meant to add that what we have in place now is not good enough

The trouble is I think if you kept it at 90 mins you'd either just end up with more players getting injured, or the games being really tedious because on top of taking ages to get through, the pace of the game would be really slow because players would be having to pace themselves to make it through an extra half hour of play every game. Like I say, it would be the equivalent of making every match go to extra time. Over the course of a 40-50 game season that would really take it's toll.
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
The trouble is I think if you kept it at 90 mins you'd either just end up with more players getting injured, or the games being really tedious because on top of taking ages to get through, the pace of the game would be really slow because players would be having to pace themselves to make it through an extra half hour of play every game. Like I say, it would be the equivalent of making every match go to extra time. Over the course of a 40-50 game season that would really take it's toll.

things need to change, that game the other week with the ball being in play for 44 mins is pathetic. it never used to be so bad when playing 42 league games on pitches that made the pitch v Man C like a carpet, and when you was also allowed to tackle, and swear at the ref. if players know they can't get away with it, they will stop doing it, just like everything in society if you know you might get away with something you might do it, if you know you can't you won't.
 

Saoirse

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2013
6,143
15,550
things need to change, that game the other week with the ball being in play for 44 mins is pathetic. it never used to be so bad when playing 42 league games on pitches that made the pitch v Man C like a carpet, and when you was also allowed to tackle, and swear at the ref. if players know they can't get away with it, they will stop doing it, just like everything in society if you know you might get away with something you might do it, if you know you can't you won't.
Never used to be as bad, but I can't imagine the ball was ever in play for more than 65-70 minutes tops in an average game. There's a lot of natural stoppages for set pieces, celebrations, substitutions, injuries without any time-wasting at all. Extending the games would be a huge change to the sport.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
things need to change, that game the other week with the ball being in play for 44 mins is pathetic. it never used to be so bad when playing 42 league games on pitches that made the pitch v Man C like a carpet, and when you was also allowed to tackle, and swear at the ref. if players know they can't get away with it, they will stop doing it, just like everything in society if you know you might get away with something you might do it, if you know you can't you won't.

I agree it needs to change. But there are lots of things that should be clamped out from time wasting, harrassing the ref etc. but no mater what "directives" the FA come up with it never makes any difference because they don't enforce any of it. What ever happened to the respect campaign? They made all sorts of fancy posters and adverts, but then when players surrounded the ref they didn't book anyone so the whole thing was a complete farce and made no difference at all. Same goes for diving, the amount of times a player dives, the ref waves play on, but then doens't book the player is ridiculous. So it doesn't cut it out. That's why I've got no faith in them cutting out time-wasting other than by stopping the clock and taking it out of the referees hands. The refs are just too shit at enforcing anything themselves.
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
I agree it needs to change. But there are lots of things that should be clamped out from time wasting, harrassing the ref etc. but no mater what "directives" the FA come up with it never makes any difference because they don't enforce any of it. What ever happened to the respect campaign? They made all sorts of fancy posters and adverts, but then when players surrounded the ref they didn't book anyone so the whole thing was a complete farce and made no difference at all. Same goes for diving, the amount of times a player dives, the ref waves play on, but then doens't book the player is ridiculous. So it doesn't cut it out. That's why I've got no faith in them cutting out time-wasting other than by stopping the clock and taking it out of the referees hands. The refs are just too shit at enforcing anything themselves.

totally agree but 60mins would still end up being 50 in the end, 70 mins or even 80, but they need to do something. I get pissed off when we are taking a throw in (have for years). if a timer was brought in and was used properly without cutting corners in time players wouldn't waste the time.

with diving it is such a hard call and hopefully when VAR is introduced it will finally cut that out and if booked for a proved dive bring in a ban.

agree about the respect not being upheld strongly enough, and blame that on the silly money involved, players paid too much with bonuses means they are so desperate to earn that little bit more
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
totally agree but 60mins would still end up being 50 in the end, 70 mins or even 80, but they need to do something. I get pissed off when we are taking a throw in (have for years). if a timer was brought in and was used properly without cutting corners in time players wouldn't waste the time.

with diving it is such a hard call and hopefully when VAR is introduced it will finally cut that out and if booked for a proved dive bring in a ban.

agree about the respect not being upheld strongly enough, and blame that on the silly money involved, players paid too much with bonuses means they are so desperate to earn that little bit more

60 mins would be 60 mins of play exactly. It would take about the same time as a current game, and there'd be the same amount of actual play. The only difference would be there is no time-wasting because it wouldn't make any difference how long you took to walk off/take a throw it/take a goal kick etc. There is literally zero downside to stopping the clock as long as you make it 60 mins not 90.
 
Top