Why is it difficult to understand 4 quarters instead of 2 halves is a decent idea.
Everything that is wrong with FIFA...
- Thread starter Hansern
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Why is it difficult to understand 4 quarters instead of 2 halves is a decent idea.
Depends how hungry you are
Not sure any changes need to be made but ideas - what about requiring a minimum of 2/3 players in the opposite half to the ball to try and prevent the extreme bus parking? or a dedicated set piece taker that can be brought on?
it seems like everything that might be done would be major hassle to referees who already struggle to get things right
Go for four halves and you'll have won me over.
Sinbin works really well in a lot of sports why do you think it is so idiotic?
Yes jason
They should do what we did in a rugby match I once played in quarters rather than halves at college, and have a barrel of beer at the side of the pitch which all players sampled when each quarter ended.
Last edited:
Because most refs in football, as I said, are poorly trained to make the right incisive judgements, so they already use yellow cards for everything from 'mood setting' to serious specific sanctions. Give them a second 'safe' card and they'll soon turn that into more of a capricious gesture than a genuinely consistent and pertinent response to a foul.
I don't recall talking about a 'sin bin' as such. I don't feel completely opposed to the concept, but I have major doubts that it would suit football. For one thing, I suspect sports scientists would question the prudence of using that kind of arbitrary break for high intensity athletes in a 90 minute game; it depends how long the break would be. But I'd have thought a stop-start process might breed injuries. It would certainly wreck someone like Studge. And in terms of a spectacle and a sporting event, I'm not sure the majority of people would find the system more coherent than chaotic.
But I repeat about refs - you can either improve their training to enforce a simple set of rules, or you can over-compensate for their shortcomings by adding many more rules. The yellow card was mainly introduced (aside from making decisions more visible of course) in response to a feeling that refs couldn't be trusted enough to decide when a player deserved to be sent off, and also players couldn't be trusted to listen to a ref's warning(s) about their behaviour, so Ken Aston proposed the process: 'Yellow, take it easy; red, stop, you're off'." It was also in part a commercial decision, as broadcasters had complained that too many games were being spoilt by stars being sent off for dubious reasons.
A third card, for me, is just the wrong way to look at it. Instead of making more of an effort to teach refs to read situations more shrewdly - and drafting in ex-players as refs would help that - it would basically encourage them to think: 'Right, I've now got TWO goes before I really HAVE to get it right'. Refs should be doing less, not more. Making players more mindful of the rules, as well as refs, is the best way to enhance the game's simple core appeal,
Last edited:
Top post, macca.
Regards the 'quarters' thing, I strongly suspect that the furnace world cup, or whatever the fuck it's gonna be called, will be used as a testing ground for how that can be applied.
Its the ideal excuse, what with the danger of players actually dying of dehydration in the pitch cos they're playing in the middle of a bloody desert.
As such fifa will have to come up with a set of rules & work with TV, who will be overjoyed at the chance to show more commercials throughout the game, they will doubtless do their sums & say "You know we could increase our revenue by x percent, which means an increase in rights fee of y percentage?"
Its the ideal excuse, what with the danger of players actually dying of dehydration in the pitch cos they're playing in the middle of a bloody desert.
As such fifa will have to come up with a set of rules & work with TV, who will be overjoyed at the chance to show more commercials throughout the game, they will doubtless do their sums & say "You know we could increase our revenue by x percent, which means an increase in rights fee of y percentage?"
Not in the same way. The biggest demands those sports make on those who play them come from collisions, not from 90 minutes of unrelenting aerobic stress - rugby is massively demanding but play breaks up for longer a good deal more often, and in hockey (I assume you have the version played on ice in mind BTW) the players' motion is aided all the way through. Those sports can also rely on more - in rugby's case vastly more - acquiescence from the players to referees' decisions.
Love the idea of ex players being refs. We could have Gerrard and Carragher as the resident Anfield refs
Ha. It works very well in cricket. Having so many ex players as umpires helps to maintain a good degree of trust and respect from current players, and it also means that their reading of the game, and any gamesmanship, is usually pretty sound. But there's no stigma surrounding umpires, so it's quite an appealing transition for retiring pros. To get ex footballers to become refs instead of pundits, you'd have to convince them they wouldn't become hate figures overnight.
This is so true, they also command a lot more respect from the players. Cannot see any high profile footballers wanting to stick their head over the parapet though!
- Status
