[Football] Rule change for next season

[Dick Swiveller]

He had no time to react, We are literally going to get to a point where defenders are going to have to be HANDCUFFED to avoid conceding penalties like that.

It has long been my concern that handball will turn out like the ridiculous feet rule in hockey. They just whack the ball at the defender's feet from a foot away to get a penalty corner as there doesn't need to be intent. I made a brief return to playing league snooker a couple of years ago having not played for 10 years or so. All you need to know about my abilities is that I started in Division 6 and although that changed, it was nearly always the lowest division due to teams dropping out. I think my high break is around 30 odd. So imagine my surprise when I was put in a horrible snooker, just missed getting out of it and had a miss called. It seems to be that all referee discretion is being taken out of sport.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

I would like to see all handballs as an offence. Deliberate or not. If it hits a defenders hand in the box, Penalty. Consistency is key.

That is a contradiction in terms. The ball hitting the hand with no intent from the player is not handball. See my post above - you seem to want the hockey fiasco which will result in players not attempting to score - just hoofing the ball towards hand height.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Injured players should be treated on the field whilst the game is being played except goalies . I suggest that injuries will drastically reduce

Problem with that its open to abuse.

Player goes down injured out wide of the touch line, physio comes on and "attends" to him, and then ball it played towasds him, he suddenly gets up and is in the clear. If a player goes down injured, just call the physio on straight away like they used to. Not have the ref walk towards the downed player, have a chat and let him get up after the opposition has kicked the ball out. Its happening too much, and was allowed to happen by referees.

 

[Audax]

It is generally. Check out the reaction to it in Spain today.

Sid Lowe talking about why he’s now against it after being pro previously before this season started:

Sorry. Lots of you asking why. Essentially because it has become clumsy, horribly intrusive, time consuming, and still wrong. It sometimes intervenes when unnecessary and not when it is. Clear, obvious errors left; borderline things acted upon. Perhaps protocol needs changing.

It's early days yet for VAR. Similar systems in other sports had shaky first year(s) as well. I remember some absolute howlers in cricket when they first brought in video reviews. For the most part, though, they've now got on top of it and it's pretty much agreed (even when the odd howler sneaks through) that the video reviews *have* improved the rate of correct decisions being made. Give it time, it'll happen in football as well.

Another VAR fiasco tonight, that was never a penalty. It’s going to make a farce of so many matches.

VAR isn't the problem. The issue is that the football rules are ambiguous or just not thought through :

1. Offside. Make it where your furthest foot is not any body part. No-one is sure.
2. Hand ball. If it hits the hand tough shit. This deliberate stuff is open to interpretation. Make the rule more black and white.
3. Have proper angles or goal line tech for balls going out of play. Not the "it might be" like the Ajax game.
4. Sort out the clock. "3 minutes injury time" is made up bollocks. Stop the clock when a player is injured. Make injured players go off. Have a clock in the stadium like NFL. Lots of suggestions all better than the current crock of shit.

The handball rule is being cleared up, if the arm is outside of the 'natural silhouette' (arms completely down by side), it will be handball if it strikes the arm.

The final quote of these three makes me happy. I picked out the other two to respond to initially and was going to say "clearly the referees are interpreting the handball law differently from the general public (and a lot of pundits as well), as this has becoming a bit of a trend now. VAR tends to award handball if the arm is away from the body, whether clearly deliberate or not. Feels like the refs have decided that players have found ways to deliberately do things to use their arms to make themselves wider without it appearing deliberate, and they're going to award handball pens unless they are certain it's an unavoidable accident."

Which essentially means: have your arm away from your body and it gets hit by the ball ... expect VAR to award a pen.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Has anyone really said he moved his hand to the ball? Isn't the point that his arm is away from his body and has blocked a shot!

That isn't the point. The current rule is about deliberate handball (and it isn't changing until next year). With the pace of that shot from the distance its hit from, there is no way that's a deliberate handball (even in slow mo). Anyone that's ever blocked a shot in football knows you can't do it with your arms at your side.

 

[Gazwag]

The handball rule is being cleared up, if the arm is outside of the 'natural silhouette' (arms completely down by side), it will be handball if it strikes the arm.

So for a freekick outside the box the players in the wall can no longer protect their sensitive area as that is not a natural silhouette of the body.

In fact if the wall is outside the box then they will be fine, it won't be handball as won't go to VAR but the opposite when the wall is inside the box

 

[DumLum]

That is a contradiction in terms. The ball hitting the hand with no intent from the player is not handball. See my post above - you seem to want the hockey fiasco which will result in players not attempting to score - just hoofing the ball towards hand height.

If an attacker is skillfull enough to aim at an arm then so be it. It would be a lot easier to hit a foot in hockey.

 

[Triggaaar]

Huddersfield had a free-kick in their area on Saturday. They took it, and as the ball didn't leave the area, the linesman flagged and they had to retake it. It wasn't even a goal kick.

 

[wealdgull]

So for a freekick outside the box the players in the wall can no longer protect their sensitive area as that is not a natural silhouette of the body.

But their arms will be *inside* the natural silhouette so will be fine.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

If an attacker is skillfull enough to aim at an arm then so be it. It would be a lot easier to hit a foot in hockey.

From a few feet away, surely it is no more skilful than playing it against a defender's legs for a corner? Most games have at least one half hearted shout for a penalty and often many more when it hits someone's arm from close range. You really want a penalty every time that happens?

 

[Dick Swiveller]

If an attacker is skillfull enough to aim at an arm then so be it. It would be a lot easier to hit a foot in hockey.

Come to think of it, how is what you want different from giving a penalty every time a defender touches an attacker in the area? Penalties for fouls are a lot more inconsistent than penalties for handball and nearly always include intent of some description.

 

[Gazwag]

But their arms will be *inside* the natural silhouette so will be fine.

In theory then so would Glenn Murray's hand v Sheff Wed and maybe even the Burnley player the other week

 

[kjgood]

His arms were not in any way extended, there were just "there". He was hardly doing the Angel of the North. That ball travelled for about half a second, if that.

Watch that again in realtime, and tell me that was honestly hand-to-ball.

Have to agree, we would be going mad if that had been given against us. Thought a very weak penalty corner the correct decision in my view. But then i'm not a highly paid professional referee.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

The goal-kick infringement [or free-kick inside the box] where the ball does not come out of the area is easily resolved - like a foul-throw infringement, the ball is turned-over to the opposition. So where a defender makes contact inside the box with a goal/free kick to avoid getting in trouble, knowing the risk is only a re-take [for his team], now risks a free kick against, at the point where he illegally made contact with the ball - i.e. just inside the box.

Another use of VAR I would like to see brought in - when a penalty kick is taken, all bar the kicker are supposed to be out of the area [inc. the D], if a defender is observed inside, the kick will be retaken if a goal was not scored and if an attacker is observed inside, any goal will be disallowed - that'll stop the feckers breaking the laws.

Agree something must be done to resolve the fake injury issue - I'd quite like the ref [or 4th official] to have a stop/start clicker linked to a big digital clock visible to all - when the ball is dead, the clock stops - no more injury / added time required - 45 mins, no more and no less. Will make any attempt of time wasting pointless ... so it will soon disappear.

 

[Spiros]

The way I'd like to see VAR used is a bit like the way they use the 3rd umpire in cricket. For most decisions you go with the ref. If a team feels really strongly that a decision was incorrectly given (or not) against them then they can ask for a VAR review through the captain. Each team is allowed, say, 2 reviews per match. They keep it if successful and lose it if not. An extra review each if the game goes to extra time.

To stop fake injuries (1) player goes down so if play is stopped (whether by the ref or a player kicking it out) the player has to go off, whether the physio comes on or not. Though I do also like the idea of allowing a neutral doctor onto the pitch while play continues. Neutral doc then tells ref whether to stop play or not. Also if a player goes down looking injured then miraculously recovers then a yellow card should follow.

Football could learn so much from cricket and rugby regarding how they've used technology well, and not so well. For some reason it continually fails to do so.

 

[LlcoolJ]

The way I'd like to see VAR used is a bit like the way they use the 3rd umpire in cricket. For most decisions you go with the ref. If a team feels really strongly that a decision was incorrectly given (or not) against them then they can ask for a VAR review through the captain. Each team is allowed, say, 2 reviews per match. They keep it if successful and lose it if not. An extra review each if the game goes to extra time.

What if it's "umpire's call"?

 

[brightn'ove]

So for a freekick outside the box the players in the wall can no longer protect their sensitive area as that is not a natural silhouette of the body.

In fact if the wall is outside the box then they will be fine, it won't be handball as won't go to VAR but the opposite when the wall is inside the box

It is within the silhouette though.

 

[brightn'ove]

Which means any player jumping or sliding will probably be ripe for handball calls. Have to wonder how many would have been given against Dunk in the past couple of seasons if that rule were in play...

Maybe one or two max? It works both ways though.

 

[Spiros]

What if it's "umpire's call"?

I suppose "umpires call" might happen if VAR replays are inconclusive. Stick with the ref's decision and the team keep their review.

 

[Lindfield by the Pond]

If I'm reading this right, you're getting your wish... https://www.skysports.com/football/...among-those-amended-by-international-fa-board

In other changes approved by IFAB, substitutes will have to leave the pitch at the nearest goal line or touchline instead of walking to their technical area in a bid to stop time-wasting.

"Following experiments in different parts of the world, the AGM also approved changes to the Laws of the Game related to a player being substituted having to leave the field of play at the nearest boundary line, yellow and red cards for misconduct by team officials and the ball not having to leave the penalty area at goal kicks and defending team free-kicks in the penalty area," IFAB said.

I’m sure I saw a game at the Amex, where the subs did not walk to the Technical Area