[Albion] New Rules For Next Season

[Munkfish]

'Substitutions

A player who is being substituted must leave the pitch by the nearest point on the touchline or byeline - unless the referee says he can leave quickly at the halfway line - or elsewhere for safety or injury reasons.

This change is to stop players time-wasting. Any player who "infringes the spirit of this law" will be booked for unsporting behaviour'

About time too.

This will stop after a season when players are constantly abused and have things thrown at them as they walk past the home fans.

 

[Sheebo]

Also if the offence was going to be a red card for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity, but the opposition take a quick free-kick, then the player will only be booked because the other team are considered to have restarted their attack.

How will they know what card the ref was going to give? How can having a 'quick free kick' be a bigger advantage than the other team having a player sent off?

Very, very true. Take a quick free kick which gives us a better chance of scoring or wait as there’s half a chance the ref may send the player off - tough one!

 

[Sheebo]

Just so long as:-

"Lino lino the balls not in the quadrant"
"Lino can't you see the ball's not in the quadrant"
"Lino do you know the rules, the ball's not in the quadrant"

A part of the ball is always breaking the plane of the 3 pointed quadrant.

Then all will be right in the world, or my little block.
No new rule will ever take the place of 'quadrant abuse'.

I noticed the official in the champions league final also didn’t know the rule on this - unreal. No wonder so many fans do t! And just to be clear, the rule has nothing to do with if the ball is touching the line or not - purely SIGHT (from a vertical view) not TOUCH!

 

[Sheebo]

Free-kicks

When a defending team has three or more players in a wall, the attacking team can no longer place a player in or next to it.

If an attacker is standing within one yard (1m) of the wall when the kick is taken, they will be penalised with an indirect free-kick.




Whats the point of that

So attackers don’t disrupt / block / annoy defensive walls.

 

[Sheebo]

Will lino's be encouraged to apply the 'all of the ball over all of the line' law, or just continue to stick their flag up in the air on a whim like they do now?

Another person like me who can see this rule being broken every game - very pleased! Fans are woeful for not getting this rule too. And most footballers unfortunately

 

[Thunder Bolt]

So attackers don’t disrupt / block / annoy defensive walls.

Adam El Abd leaned on the wall and took 5 players out in one fell swoop!

 

[Sheebo]

Did you notice in the CL Final on a Liverpool corner, the linesman refused to let the corner be taken even though part of the part was braking the line, and wanted the ball inside the quadrant. The Liverpool player showed remarkable restraint by not pointing out the linesman was wrong and ust moved the ball into the quadrant

Wow just read this after making my post above - yes I bloody noticed!

 

[Sirnormangall]

Some nice tinkering with the rules, but dodges some of the things that continue to really bug many supporters - diving and feigning injury.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Outrageous

 

[Invicta]

No change on the diving law is a complete cop out.

I was hoping for something like this.

(If a player deliberately dives to gain an advantage this will now result in a straight red card.)

Why on earth this hasn't been looked at is beyond me, diving would stop pretty quickly if refs dished a red instead of a yellow, I can only assume the powers that be are quite happy to watch serial cheating every week.

VAR should stop a lot of diving though ?

 

[wealdgull]

If an attacker is standing within one yard (1m) of the wall when the kick is taken, they will be penalised with an indirect free-kick.

Is there any existing rule on where a wall can be (apart from the obvious one where it can't be too close to the ball)? Does the wall have to be standing still? Does it have to be in a direct line between the ball and the goal?

If not, would love to see the defending team form a "roving wall" and follow an attacker around to claim their free kick.

And of course this would have to be playing whilst it was happening:

 

[kevo]

The problem with that is that the refs often get it wrong the other way. Bad enough not being given what was a clear-cut penalty but getting a player sent off as well.

...is the correct answer. Far too many borderline decisions where the player might have dived or might have genuinely been fouled.

 

[kevo]

The one rule I don't understand is the one if the keeper screws up his clearance, he's allowed to handle the ball? What's that about? Takes away some fun and surely you'll get some keepers pretending to fluff a kick so they can pick the ball up? Unless I'm misunderstanding something...

 

[kevo]

Free-kicks

When a defending team has three or more players in a wall, the attacking team can no longer place a player in or next to it.

If an attacker is standing within one yard (1m) of the wall when the kick is taken, they will be penalised with an indirect free-kick.




Whats the point of that

Presumably so refs don't have to deal with all the pushing and shoving in walls at free kicks. Again, it takes a bit of fun out of the game.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

Why they have to keep tinkering with the rules I have no idea. (Other than try and justify their exorbitant salaries)

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

Read the rule - there is a get-out and this is why players about to be subbed will locate themselves deep into oppo fan territory (in the goal mouth) meaning they can walk half the length and width of the pitch to the half way line in order to 'avoid putting their health and safety at risk'.

One of the other changes now allows a player to kick, knee or head the ball onto his own hand or arm deliberately and get away with it.

The clowns have changed the rules without beta testing them. Who knew they would do that?

Previously they've played a season with the new laws in a lower league haven't they? I remember watching Horsham and I'm sure they were doing something odd like kicking the ball in for a throw in or no offside; something different and it was binned after the first three or four rounds of matches.

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

Why they have to keep tinkering with the rules I have no idea. (Other than try and justify their exorbitant salaries)

Adam Crozier only earns £500k per year, poor sod. That's only about £240 an hour plus a fantastic expense account and free football and hospitality everywhere he goes plus Wimbledon, Open Golf, Rugby, F1 etc etc tickets for free!

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Thanks for posting.

Agree with some bits not with others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Easy 10]

Adam Crozier only earns £500k per year, poor sod. That's only about £240 an hour plus a fantastic expense account and free football and hospitality everywhere he goes plus Wimbledon, Open Golf, Rugby, F1 etc etc tickets for free!

Adam Crozier left the FA in 2002...

 

[dejavuatbtn]

Adam Crozier only earns £500k per year, poor sod. That's only about £240 an hour plus a fantastic expense account and free football and hospitality everywhere he goes plus Wimbledon, Open Golf, Rugby, F1 etc etc tickets for free!

The New York Times newspaper quotes anonymous source as saying that each of the elected representatives on FIFA’s 37-member council earned $250,000, plus tens of thousands of dollars more in travel expenses.
The Swiss Tages-Anzeiger newspaper, picking up the story, says FIFA declined to comment. But the alleged salaries are expected to be confirmed when FIFA officially releases its latest financial report in March.
For a council scheduled to meet only three times this year, such compensation “far exceeds payments for similar work at some of the world’s largest for-profit companies”, says the New York Times. It also appears to contradict repeated pledges by FIFA President Gianni Infantino to restore the organisation’s credibility by imposing financial discipline.
“There should be, especially for a non-profit [organisation], some sort of justification for the sum,” Alexandra Wrage, president of the corporate governance advisor Trace International, told the New York Times.

Well, we now have the answer.