• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Proposed Changes to the Laws of the Game

Status
Not open for further replies.

Frogfish

Gone to Redcafe
Member
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/radical-plan-to-allow-dribbling-from-free-kicks-kbgkm7s6m





A proposal to scrap 45-minute halves is to be looked at by football's lawmakers to deter time-wasting.

Instead, there could be two periods of 30 minutes with the clock stopped whenever the ball goes out of play.

Lawmaking body the International Football Association Board (Ifab) says matches only see about 60 minutes of "effective playing time" out of 90.

The idea is one of several put forward in a new strategy document designed to address football's "negativities".

Another proposal would see players not being allowed to follow up and score if a penalty is saved - if the spot-kick "is not successful", play would stop and a goal-kick awarded.

Other ideas include a stadium clock linked to a referee's watch and a new rule allowing players to effectively pass to themselves or dribble the ball when taking a free-kick.

Where have these proposals come from?

The ideas have been put forward to Ifab by stakeholders in the game to tackle "on-field issues" and form part of what it calls its "Play Fair strategy", which has three aims of:

improving player behaviour and increasing respectincreasing playing timeincreasing fairness and attractiveness

Part of the problem the new document highlights is that a 90-minute match has fewer than 60 minutes of playing time because of stoppages and time-wasting.

Which plans need no law changes?

The document has put forward a number of radical ideas for discussion, but suggests some proposals can be implemented immediately without the need for law changes.

Most of these apply to trying to combat time-wasting. The document says match officials should be stricter on the rule which allows keepers to hold the ball for six seconds and be more stringent when calculating additional time.

Additionally, it suggests match officials stop their watch:

from a penalty being awarded to the spot-kick being takenfrom a goal being scored until the match resumes from the kick-offfrom asking an injured player if he requires treatment to play restartingfrom the referee showing a yellow or red card to play resumingfrom the signal of a substitution to play restartingfrom a referee starting to pace a free-kick to when it is taken

Which plans are ready for testing?

Some of the proposals are already being tested. The idea of only allowing captains to speak to referees - to prevent match officials being mobbed - will be trialled at this summer's Confederations Cup, which starts on Saturday.

Another proposal involves changing the order of kick-taking in penalty shoot-outs, known as 'ABBA'. It is similar to a tie-break in tennis, with team A taking the first kick, then team B taking two, then team A taking two. That is a change from the traditional 'team A, team B, team A, team B' pattern.

New suggestions also include players who are being substituted leaving at the closest part of the touchline to them instead of at the halfway line.

Which ideas are up for discussion?

This is where it gets interesting. One of the proposals would allow being able to dribble straight from a free-kick to "encourage attacking play as the player who is fouled can stop the ball and then immediately continue their dribble/attacking move". Other measures include:

passing to yourself at a free-kick, corner and goal-kicka stadium clock which stops and starts along with the referee's watchallowing the goal-kick to be taken even if the ball is movinga goal-kick being taken on the same side that the ball went out ona "clearer and more consistent definition" of handballa player who scores a goal or stops a goal with his hands gets a red carda keeper who handles a backpass or throw-in from a team-mate concedes a penaltythe referee can award a goal if a player stops a goal being scored by handling on or close to the goal-linereferees can only blow for half-time or full-time when the ball goes out of playa penalty kick is either scored or missed/saved and players cannot follow up to score to stop encroachment into the penalty area

Who has come up with these proposals?

Ifab is made up of Fifa and the four British home football associations - of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - and is responsible for making the final decision on law changes.

Former English referee David Elleray is Ifab's technical director and has overseen the document.

"Referees, players, coaches and fans all agree that improving player behaviour and respect for all participants and especially match officials, increasing playing time and the game's fairness and attractiveness must be football's main priority," he said.

The next stage would involve the ideas being discussed at various meetings before decisions are taken on whether to develop them further or discard them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't like the penalty awards for handling back-passes but the others are all interesting and worthy of debate. Should speed up the game and promote attacking football.
 
Time wasting rule is better. I see nothing wrong in dribbling from a free kick either.

The rest is a load of shite
 
First suggestion they should have come up with was a way to stop players using faux outrage & hurling abuse and aggressively crowding the referee. Often used by teams to time waste, some referees buy into it hook line and sinker and each freekick stoppage lasts another minute because the referee feels that he needs to calm everyone down.

Second suggestion, stop play acting. Easily the most obvious time-wasting tactic.

These two are very ugly sides to our game and seeing 10 year olds copy their Footballing idols behaviour on the weekend by diving and rolling around is embarrassing.
 
I like them all, speeding up the game and making it more entertaining is a great idea. Love the 60 min one and a clock linked to the ref.
 
I would question two of those suggested changes to the rules:

Free kicks permitted with moving ball: Of course this already happens a lot, and referees often turn a blind eye to it. However, I think referees and the players need certainty about when the free kick has actually been taken. You may remember a couple of seasons ago, a free kick was awarded and a Manchester United player kicked the ball towards a fellow defender. An opposition player intervened and scored. The referee awarded the goal, but the United players were furious because they said the free kick had not been taken - the defender was actually kicking the ball back to a colleague for him to take the free kick. I feel that allowing free kicks with a moving ball will greatly increase the scope for this kind of misunderstanding.

Secondly penalties conceded for handling back-passes. How often do goalkeepers actually pick up back passes? I don't remember this happening once last season. The back pass rule was brilliantly successful - it speeded up the game a lot. I don't see any need to make changes.
 
Load of tosh other than penalty goal for handball on the line. No need to punish teams twice with red card and penalty
It's not a penalty. Deliberate handball on the line is awarded a goal, no penalty needed, and that's fair enough, foul play prevented a certain goal so there is no need for the lottery of a penalty, a bit like rugby's 'penalty try'.
 
I would question two of those suggested changes to the rules:

Free kicks permitted with moving ball: Of course this already happens a lot, and referees often turn a blind eye to it. However, I think referees and the players need certainty about when the free kick has actually been taken. You may remember a couple of seasons ago, a free kick was awarded and a Manchester United player kicked the ball towards a fellow defender. An opposition player intervened and scored. The referee awarded the goal, but the United players were furious because they said the free kick had not been taken - the defender was actually kicking the ball back to a colleague for him to take the free kick. I feel that allowing free kicks with a moving ball will greatly increase the scope for this kind of misunderstanding.

Secondly penalties conceded for handling back-passes. How often do goalkeepers actually pick up back passes? I don't remember this happening once last season. The back pass rule was brilliantly successful - it speeded up the game a lot. I don't see any need to make changes.
I think that first concern can easily be overcome with the wording of a new rule. As in ANY kick taken from the proximity of the position of the FK will be deemed to have been the FK. It would stop this bollocks of a 'moving ball' even when the kick was taken from the right location.
 
It's not a penalty. Deliberate handball on the line is awarded a goal, no penalty needed, and that's fair enough, foul play prevented a certain goal so there is no need for the lottery of a penalty, a bit like rugby's 'penalty try'.

In its current format it is. Handle on the line the player gets sent off and it's a penalty. I agree with the proposal, just award the goal and no need to send anyone off.
 
I would question two of those suggested changes to the rules:

Free kicks permitted with moving ball: Of course this already happens a lot, and referees often turn a blind eye to it. However, I think referees and the players need certainty about when the free kick has actually been taken. You may remember a couple of seasons ago, a free kick was awarded and a Manchester United player kicked the ball towards a fellow defender. An opposition player intervened and scored. The referee awarded the goal, but the United players were furious because they said the free kick had not been taken - the defender was actually kicking the ball back to a colleague for him to take the free kick. I feel that allowing free kicks with a moving ball will greatly increase the scope for this kind of misunderstanding.

Secondly penalties conceded for handling back-passes. How often do goalkeepers actually pick up back passes? I don't remember this happening once last season. The back pass rule was brilliantly successful - it speeded up the game a lot. I don't see any need to make changes.
I think the penalty for backpasses one is actually for when a keeper tips a wayward backpass over the bar, or round the post. Currently you see a handful of indirect free kicks per season. To me it adds to the excitement and shouldn't be tinkered with.
 
So if they agree the penalty rebound proposal will they update the result of Istanbul and take no.5 off us? This is worse than ScumEuropaGate
 
Why change it at all, there's a reason it's the most popular game in the world, the 30 minute thing I can only see as an excuse to get tv ads in during the game,
 
Enforcing the rules as they already stand (with the aid of video tech.if needed) is all that's necessary. Anything more will turn a sport into a circus.

Trust that pompous ass Elleray to be behind all this. Even that quote from him is confused - he lists three aims and then says all three "must be football's highest priority".
 
Seems yet another case of them looking to fix things that ain't broke while ignoring things that are broke.

Free kicks close to the opposition penalty area are often great and dramatic moments in a game, with an almost cricket-like sense of anticipation as both sides prepare for them. Dribbling with the ball sounds like something they did in the old US league in the 70s. Rather than a free kick, I'd let players dribble the ball from a corner kick. Players have probably never been better at taking free kicks, whereas hardly any players now seem able to take an effective corner kick, and a change might even free up some space in the area as it pulls at least one defender out.

I do like the prospect of an end to refs calling back play whenever a free kick elsewhere on the pitch is taken while the ball is slightly moving, though. It's a tiresomely pedantic complaint.

A simpler way to improve things would be to make all free kicks direct.

They might as well scrap the foul throw as well because it hardly ever actually gets penalised.
 
I like the idea of the clock linked to the refs watch & the clock being stopped when play stops.

Fuck reducing the time played though. These cunts are paid for 90 minutes entertainment a match, not an hour.

Besides, that means less time watching footy & more time for Bex & the kids to have the remote, so fuck that.

Also, for 'stakeholders in the game' does anyone else just think 'tv companies'?!
 
Fuck reducing the time played though. These cunts are paid for 90 minutes entertainment a match, not an hour.

Wasn't the point that most games have less than 60 minutes action in them, anyway? And even allowing for this - and stopping the clock - games would go on for well over 90 mins.

A goalkeeper taking 60 seconds over a goalkick or a player taking 60 seconds to be subbed isn't exactly 'entertainment' in my eyes.
 
I always liked the idea that if a player is through on goal and brought down outside the box, the free kick should be taken with no wall allowed
 
Wasn't the point that most games have less than 60 minutes action in them, anyway? And even allowing for this - and stopping the clock - games would go on for well over 90 mins.

A goalkeeper taking 60 seconds over a goalkick or a player taking 60 seconds to be subbed isn't exactly 'entertainment' in my eyes.
I don't buy that figure. Not in the Premiership anyway.

Besides, even assuming it was correct, then it just means that refs aren't timing the stoppages correctly, in which case why trust them to correctly stop the clock correctly under the new system. Even if they did stop it quickly each & every time you'd still have lost/wasted time as it would never be instant.

The idea of the 45 min half plus stoppage time is to try to ensure we get 45 minutes of football, just cos ref's are failing to do that doesn't mean we look at how badly they're failing & try to match that.
 
I saw a quote from Petr Cech stating he thinks there is only about 22.5 minutes of 'effective playing time' per half and that this would actually increase on average the amount of time the ball is in play.
 
A recent OPTA study a few years back proved that in the EPL the average game sees 55 minutes of actual play time but on occasion there are games with as few as 44 minutes actual play time. 60 minute games with stops for the ball not being in play would result in more football for us and a game lasting nearer 100 minutes.

Having said that I'm not sure I am fan of the proposal because players will adapt to the new system and there will be longer breaks for injuries as no one is bothered to hurry things up (because the clock has stopped). This might give a team who are leading an advantage as they will be able to break the game up more. Also, television companies will go to an advertisement break the second a player goes down as they will know/guess he will be down for at least a minute.

Maybe the system could be trialled in The Championship for a season or two.
 
I don't buy that figure. Not in the Premiership anyway.

Besides, even assuming it was correct, then it just means that refs aren't timing the stoppages correctly, in which case why trust them to correctly stop the clock correctly under the new system. Even if they did stop it quickly each & every time you'd still have lost/wasted time as it would never be instant.

The idea of the 45 min half plus stoppage time is to try to ensure we get 45 minutes of football, just cos ref's are failing to do that doesn't mean we look at how badly they're failing & try to match that.

Yes, but what about in the Premier League?
 
Pat Nevin has his say - http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40359262 . I dont expect anyone to read it, I certainly didn't, but its worth following the link just to see what photo they use as part of the headline 🙂

In fact - why bother following the link anyway :-

_96582608_scoreboard.jpg
 
I like the idea of having a stopwatch to stop time wasting primarily. But you only need to watch one NBA game to realise the problems that arise with making that change. The most irritating thing imo is if the ref constantly has to adjust the time in case of a mistake regarding a stop in the game. Like if they started the clock too soon or too late.
 
I like the idea of having a stopwatch to stop time wasting primarily. But you only need to watch one NBA game to realise the problems that arise with making that change. The most irritating thing imo is if the ref constantly has to adjust the time in case of a mistake regarding a stop in the game. Like if they started the clock too soon or too late.

I'd recommend a timekeeper off the pitch like in hockey to.manage the clock. Seldom see additions except occasionally in the last minute of a period.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom