Blatter's time penalty proposal

[Kinky Gerbil]

I would do away with red cards for a goal scoring opportunity if it results in a pen and a goal, ruins the game completely.

Agree with Sim about only captains talking the the ref, should be allowed to book anyone who talks to the ref who isnt.

 

[albion534]

Start by Banning Oscar for 3 games

 

[Simster]

Also, it removes the JOY of a goal. Imagine it, Ulloa is slipped through, rounds the keeper and scores a last minute winner, the crowd go mad!!! but no....hang on....we need to go to a review first to see if he really is onside...delay those "wild "celebrations.

It would be horrible.

I think I'd prefer that to the lino putting his flag up "to be on the safe side" well in advance of Ulloa tucking it away uncontested, only to then find on MOTD that he was actually a yard on-side. And it's not like EVERY goal is going to have this contention, any more than EVERY try in the six nations needs to be reviewed to ensure the ball went to ground.

The issue here is that these decisions are absolutely CRUCIAL to the outcome of a game, because football is a game where 2 or 3 scores is the norm. The game at that level is obviously a billion pound business, and at the moment, in-game decisions are made by unaccountable amateurs, and sometimes those are shit decisions.

 

[Brighton Mod]

Rugby takes the lead:

1. Don't argue with the referee
2. 10m penalty if the wall does not move back quickly enough or players are within 10m from the free kick.
3. Siting/Citing as in RUgby. That is a post match review of events where a player may be punished retrospectively for any violation that has gone unpunished during a game.
4. If a player is down for more than 30 seconds then he must go off the field of play for two minutes (Health and Safety). What does a physio bring on to the pitch that can allow a player to walk again after having been pole axed?
5. An external timekeeper so that this responsibilty is taken away from the referee.
6. Punishing the pulling and pushing that goes on in every game in the box at corners and free kicks, this element of the game is becoming a farce and needs to be addressed.
7. Sin bin for ten minutes for non violent offences, ie: kicking the ball away, abusing the referee in disagreeing with a decision.
8. Only allowing nominated players to speak with the referee on decisions.
9. Allowing quick free kicks to be taken instead of having to wait for the referee to blow to restart play.
10. No offside from a direct free kick.
Respect from players to the referee and the fans, when timewasting who is actually losing, thats the paying fans.

 

[marshy68]

Simulation and diving can be dealt with by giving three match bans post match.

I agree you can solve this instantly with your proposal but make it 5 game ban on video evidence.

 

[marshy68]

Rugby takes the lead:

1. Don't argue with the referee
2. 10m penalty if the wall does not move back quickly enough or players are within 10m from the free kick.
3. Siting/Citing as in RUgby. That is a post match review of events where a player may be punished retrospectively for any violation that has gone unpunished during a game.
4. If a player is down for more than 30 seconds then he must go off the field of play for two minutes (Health and Safety). What does a physio bring on to the pitch that can allow a player to walk again after having been pole axed?
5. An external timekeeper so that this responsibilty is taken away from the referee.
6. Punishing the pulling and pushing that goes on in every game in the box at corners and free kicks, this element of the game is becoming a farce and needs to be addressed.
7. Sin bin for ten minutes for non violent offences, ie: kicking the ball away, abusing the referee in disagreeing with a decision.
8. Only allowing nominated players to speak with the referee on decisions.
9. Allowing quick free kicks to be taken instead of having to wait for the referee to blow to restart play.
10. No offside from a direct free kick.
Respect from players to the referee and the fans, when timewasting who is actually losing, thats the paying fans.

Wasnt this already tried and abandoned as players would deliberately not move back to make a free kick 25 yards out move closer to make it more difficult to score?

 

[ditchy]

For me start to put the clock on goalkeepers who hold the ball for more than the 6 seconds permitted would be a start

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I'm not saying we should change ALL of the rules at once, douglas.

And as for video replays, well you could always have a review system, such as in tennis or cricket? It doesn't work so well in cricket but works very well in tennis. And really, how many people are going to consider my second suggestion as a daft one? Aren't you fed up at a multitude of aggrieved players gobbing off at the ref?

Did they not try to stop anyone except the captain from talking to the ref ? I thought they had, but it was pretty much ignored. I would have no problem with them enforcing that one. The other 3 are a bit daft IMO.

 

[marshy68]

They must change the law about the player receiving treatment having to go off the pitch.

 

[Acker79]

I would do away with red cards for a goal scoring opportunity if it results in a pen and a goal, ruins the game completely.

But if the red card is dependent on whether the penalty is scored you will get teams who are missing penalties to get opponents sent off to give themselves an advantage.

You also have the issue of one player being banned for three games because his foul resulted in a missed penalty so he got red carded and another player not being banned because his identical foul resulted in a penalty being scored and so he wasn't sent off.


I don't like this sentiment in football that giving a penalty is punishment enough.

A penalty only gives a team what was taken from them by a law breaking opponent. The team that cheated isn't punished when you give a penalty. That's like saying taking a car off of a car-jacker is punishment for him and he shouldn't have to go to court/prison. All a penalty is, is the clear shot that is meant to replace the goal scoring opportunity, or definite goal, that was taken by someone breaking the laws of the game.

Someone takes a shot, the keeper is beaten, and the ball is heading into the goal until a defender reaches out his arm and stops it with his hand. The ref gives a penalty. The penalty is scored. How are the team that tried to cheat suffering? They're not. There's no consequence for the player who tried to cheat his opponents.

Someone is in, one on one with the keeper, when as he is shaping to shoot, someone hacks him down. Ref gives a penalty. So now that player is one on one with the keeper and about to take a shot. Where's the consequences for the attempt to cheat?

Now imagine the penalty isn't scored. Without any card, the team that cheated has actually benefited. Now certain goals, good scoring opportunities have been denied by a player cheating, and without sendings off, there is no punishment.

Suppose, as KG has suggested, and others have, the card is given because it's missed. Down to ten men, the team parks the bus and manages to hold out. They got their point(s), didn't concede that goal, job done.

No. If players being sent off ruin the game we should condemn players, put the burden on them for not playing in accordance with the laws of the game, not just do away with punishments for cheating.

 

[blockhseagull]

They must change the law about the player receiving treatment having to go off the pitch.

I'd agree with this, I know it was brought in to stop players feigning injury but it hasn't worked. What it does do though is in an attacking position sometimes punish a player who has been fouled and make them leave the pitch for the resulting free kick.... How is that fair

 

[Gazwag]

I would love the Rugby way of players able to be treated whilst play is continuing to be bought in.

The one thing I hate about football more than anything is teams having to kick the ball out of play when player are possibly injured. So often it is used to break up play and 90 times out of 100 the player suddenly is uninjured once the ball is in touch.

If a player is fouled then yes stop play or if the ball has already gone out of play but not when a player just goes down while play in going on.

 

[marshy68]

I'd agree with this, I know it was brought in to stop players feigning injury but it hasn't worked. What it does do though is in an attacking position sometimes punish a player who has been fouled and make them leave the pitch for the resulting free kick.... How is that fair

Agreed in this case the perportrator should be taken off the pitch until the ball goes dead again.

 

[The Large One]

I guess Sepp Blatter has to sit and justify his position somehow. As ideas go, it's not good - it's seriously ill-considered.

One - how can a referee tell if a player is seriously injured?
Two - the referee is not obliged to stop the game if a player is down. Sometimes officials - and definitely the crowd - tend to forget this. It might be a nicety of the modern game to stop for an 'injury', but it's not obligatory.
Three - at what point does the referee consider the sufficient time has elapsed that the 'punishment' has been served before the player can come back on?

If Blatter really wants this to stop, he needs to set about changing the culture of this happening. His resignation would be a start. At least that gets rid of one cheating crook.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

The problem is, in reality, it would be an absolute shambles.

1) Linesman will just let ANY offside go that they may have the SLIGHTEST fear about. If you were the linesman you would much rather let every piece of play go on and then be reviewed rather than being the "idiot" who raises his flag, stops a goal, and then is lambasted because the player was just onside. "Why didn't he just leave it to play on and let it get reviewed!!!" I can hear the cries now. It would make the skill of a linesman spotting an offside completely removed.

Also, it removes the JOY of a goal. Imagine it, Ulloa is slipped through, rounds the keeper and scores a last minute winner, the crowd go mad!!! but no....hang on....we need to go to a review first to see if he really is onside...delay those "wild "celebrations.

It would be horrible.

Pretty much what happens in cricket now. However, the players prefer to have the final decision as the correct one and the Decision Review System places umpires under scrutiny - I'm sure someone is keeping a chart of how many decisions get overturned for each umpire - they can't be right all the time.

So why not the same for football refs and linos?

 

[Rodney Thomas]

There are so many other ways the game could be improved before meddling around the edges of the game like this. There are laws already in place to prevent fake injury. Firstly, time is added on at the end of the game. Secondly, an offender can be booked. I'd much rather some of these ideas were considered:

1) Offside - ALWAYS allow benefit of the doubt to the striker. At professional level, allow play to continue and pull it back if offside on a video replay
2) Only the captain to be allowed to talk to the ref. If not, yellow card or:
3) Sin bin
4) Allow ref to be able to award a penalty even if a foul is committed outside the box, where a foul is deemed to prevent a goalscoring opportunity.

Why not play 80 minutes (such as in rugby) and stop the clock when the ball is not in play? It would stop all the nonsense of time wasting for throw ins and playing injured at the end of games..

 

[Superphil]

If you throw a match, or fix a match, you get a very long ban, if not a lifetime ban. Divers (cheats) should be punished with that, a minimum 1 year ban. If that was the rule, then it would stop overnight. No club is going to employ a player for 12 months without being able to play him.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Pretty much what happens in cricket now. However, the players prefer to have the final decision as the correct one and the Decision Review System places umpires under scrutiny - I'm sure someone is keeping a chart of how many decisions get overturned for each umpire - they can't be right all the time.

So why not the same for football refs and linos?

Again a sport which is a play-by-play game with natural breaks, like tennis.

Its a simple decision of "is it a wicket?"

Offisdes however do not always lead to goals, however they can lead to the team progressing and eventually scoring.

If there was areview system in place for ofisides there would be VERY little incentive for a linesman to give any 50/50 decision. I'm not talking about goal scoring decisions. I mean silly little offsides. He may as well just let things go and think "I'd much rather have this reviewed than give this offside and find out it wasnt all along".

In cricket the batsman can be given NOT OUT by the umpires original decision and then a review takes place if the bowling team feels its incorrect.

In football you can't give offside and then review it. You can only allow play to go on and THEN give offside. Again, no incentive for a linesman to ever make a decision of offside. How long do you allow play to go on if a goal wasnt scored from the contentious offisde? The player may have been through, had a shot saved, passed it back, more play happens.......so when do I question the offside decision that wasn't given? or do I just "forget" about it and let play go on...never having punished a potential offside?

I'm not saying I don't want it in football because i'm a purist etc. I'm saying it because, when you think of all the little fiddly aspects of the game it just wouldn't work.

 

[kevo]

I would do away with red cards for a goal scoring opportunity if it results in a pen and a goal, ruins the game completely.

I agree that sometimes it can seem unduly harsh and it does spoil the game. Going a goal down is bad enough but losing a player as well is too much of a punishment. A booking should be enough, except in cases when it is a very obvious professional foul - ie deliberate handball on the line.

 

[Titanic]

Why not play 80 minutes (such as in rugby) and stop the clock when the ball is not in play? It would stop all the nonsense of time wasting for throw ins and playing injured at the end of games..

It would be more like 55 minutes.

http://www.soccermetrics.net/team-performance/effective-time-in-football