Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

What football laws would you like to be introduced or changed.



gripper stebson

Well-known member
Jul 27, 2004
6,680
Time-wasting is the thing that gets me. It's now a game-strategy as, for instance, Sheff Wed and Millwall as the worst culprits have demonstrated this year. Beyond being 'unfair', it's turgid. Fans are investing fortunes into football and for that the least we can expect is an increase in and improvement of entertainment. Cracking down on time-wasting would assist in this.

The simple way to sort timewasting is to make each half 35 minutes long and stop the clock whenever the ball is not in play...
 




Not sure about the red card, but I often voiced that opinion.

Also, if a fouled player has to leave the pitch for treatment, the player that committed the foul should have to as well. Why should a team gain an advantage for having fouled a player badly enough to necessitate him leaving the pitch.

how many red cards would get issued once this rule is in place???
 


Johnny Robinson

New member
Sep 16, 2023
9
A law as it currently stands that doesn’t make any sense to me:

’Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offense as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body’

This seems like a contradiction to me. What is ’himself’ if it’s not his body? If you’re not shielding the ball with your body, then what are you shielding it with?

Shouldn’t this read?:
Shielding the ball with one’s body is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offense as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms.

Alternatively just eradicate ’shielding’ and go back to penalising it all as obstruction.

Can anyone give any explanation to this law?
 








sakooshi

Member
Jun 16, 2024
80
I like the way the time is managed in rugby, particularly with the game continuing after time is up until the ball goes out of play. This seems better and less arbitrary than leaving it to the referee to decide when he feels its the right moment to blow the final whistle. For example, if the referee decides to blow 20 seconds earlier, it could interrupt a move that could have led to a goal. Likewise, if he holds off blowing for 20 seconds, it could allow a team to score a last gasp winner. In both cases, the result would be down to the whim of the referee. In rugby this doesn't happen. Once the clock has run down, play continues until one of the teams kicks the ball out. This famously led to Japan's victory over South Africa at the Amex in 2015.
 


Baldseagull

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2012
11,824
Crawley
A law as it currently stands that doesn’t make any sense to me:

’Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offense as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body’

This seems like a contradiction to me. What is ’himself’ if it’s not his body? If you’re not shielding the ball with your body, then what are you shielding it with?

Shouldn’t this read?:
Shielding the ball with one’s body is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offense as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms.

Alternatively just eradicate ’shielding’ and go back to penalising it all as obstruction.

Can anyone give any explanation to this law?
I think it means they can stick their arse out, use shoulders, but not lean back into the opponent to shield.
 


Seagull58

In the Algarve
Jan 31, 2012
8,093
Vilamoura, Portugal
A law as it currently stands that doesn’t make any sense to me:

’Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offense as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body’

This seems like a contradiction to me. What is ’himself’ if it’s not his body? If you’re not shielding the ball with your body, then what are you shielding it with?

Shouldn’t this read?:
Shielding the ball with one’s body is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offense as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms.

Alternatively just eradicate ’shielding’ and go back to penalising it all as obstruction.

Can anyone give any explanation to this law?
It's a rubbish law. If you're not attempting to play the ball it should be given as obstruction, as should blocking players at set-pieces.
 




A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
19,952
Deepest, darkest Sussex
No substitutions after 85 minutes except in Extra Time
 




maltaseagull

Well-known member
Feb 25, 2009
13,274
Zabbar- Malta
Offside rule needs to allow clear space between attacker and last defender to be offside. Not a toe or thumbnail.

Handball- go back to the old rule ball to hand.

Wrestling in penalty area needs to be stamped out. More effort from ref to penalise this.
 






maresfield seagull

Well-known member
May 23, 2006
2,310
Offside rule needs tweaking IMHO
Anyone in the penalty box Must be interfering in play
I really don’t see how they can’t be ?
Stupid change of the law to make this permissible
 






Van Cleef

Well-known member
Jun 17, 2023
789
Wrestling in penalty area needs to be stamped out. More effort from ref to penalise this.
Corners are becoming increasingly tedious imo. Defenders bear hugging their man. They don't bother looking at the ball just at who they're marking so they can barge or grab a bit of shirt - just enough to stop the run but not enough for a pen.
And just when the corners about to be taken the ref blows up so he can wander over and have a chat to a couple of miscreants who've caught his eye, which seems to happen EVERY BLEEDIN TIME.
 


Drebin

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2011
852
Norway
Handballs outside the six yard box punished with an indirect free kick.

Because…

a) too many accidental handballs being disproportionately punished with an 80% scoring opportunity.

b) free kicks inside the 18 yard box are fun. We need more.
 


allystrat

Well-known member
Dec 19, 2011
265
Handball needs drastic overhaul as teams are gaining penalties (usually resulting in a goal) that are undeserved. I'd also make penalty takers take a straightforward run and shot, none of this Jorginho jumping, hopping type nonsense that we often see.
 


dejavuatbtn

Well-known member
Aug 4, 2010
7,495
Henfield
Players feigning injury, especially those claiming to have been smacked in the face when nobody was anywhere near them. Play is normally stopped in these instances. A quick VAR check and result in a booking
 




schmunk

Centrist Dad
Jan 19, 2018
10,100
Mid mid mid Sussex
Offside rule needs to allow clear space between attacker and last defender to be offside. Not a toe or thumbnail.
I don't understand why so many people think this would make a significant difference to offside deliberations. All that changes is that VAR needs to get the rulers out for the trailing edge of the attacker and leading edge of the defender, rather than the leading edge of both.

It would of course make for more goals, but wouldn't make any difference at all to the VAR check time / pedantry.
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here