[Albion] Rule changes - What would you make?

[MrSnuggles]

As an example of the problems, in a hypothetical situation the Dunk tackle on Adams after the penalty if the same happened on the penalty spot and the ref deemed it a foul would that mean an auto red card.

Hypothetically it wouldn't have been a penalty. Even if Stephens was adjudged to have committed a foul then it would have been a free kick from that spot! But your point has raised another point.. goalkeepers now don't get an automatic red card, so should outfield players? Is a yellow card and a penalty enough punishment? If it's a dangerous tackle then he should see red, but not just because he is the last defender. Dunks tackle was nothing less than heroic, and l would have been mightily peeved if he had got a red card for that! Perhaps penalties should be one shot only. He scores or he doesn't! Bit like a penalty shot out. Then that would eliminate encroachments!

 

[BensGrandad]

Hypothetically it wouldn't have been a penalty. Even if Stephens was adjudged to have committed a foul then it would have been a free kick from that spot! But your point has raised another point.. goalkeepers now don't get an automatic red card, so should outfield players? Is a yellow card and a penalty enough punishment? If it's a dangerous tackle then he should see red, but not just because he is the last defender. Dunks tackle was nothing less than heroic, and l would have been mightily peeved if he had got a red card for that! Perhaps penalties should be one shot only. He scores or he doesn't! Bit like a penalty shot out. Then that would eliminate encroachments!

People saying a goal scoring opportunity should be a red card my point was if the ref deemed that a foul; would it mean a red card. I realize that it wasnt a foul; but some pundits said it should have been and or handball. I was talking hypothetically.

 

[withdeanwombat]

How about if a foulee has to leave the pitch for treatment then the fouler should be sent off the pitch until the foulee can return.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

We are talking of changing the rules and if need be the laws.

Then you need to change the law not enforce the existing as your posts suggests

 

[BensGrandad]

Then you need to change the law not enforce the existing as your posts suggests

Granted it was 20 years ago but Ray Lewis told me that technically it was obstruction but there would be uproar from managers if they gave it. FIFA may have made a ruling since then but I still see it as obstructing a player from getting to the ball. if shepherding the ball out.

 

[Meade's Ball]

A yellow card for any player keeping their shirt on after scoring. A yellow from a previous game rescinded if the shorts also come off. I'd like to see Maty Ryan chasing Schelotto around the pitch with him just in a pair of jaguar-skin briefs after he scores his first whizzbang.

 

[studio150]

I don't like throw in's, they're nothing to do with football. Replace it with a kick in which can't leave the ground (or else it's awarded to the opposition), and the oppo have to retreat 5 yards

What a brilliant idea, 88 minutes of tedium, with most games ending 0-0

First time the ball goes out for a throw in (or kick in as per your rule change), the opposition team all sprint to within 5 yards of where the ball is to reenter play and form a semi circular barrier. Ball is not permitted to leave the ground, so to avoid losing possession the ball is kicked hard against an opposition player, ball goes out of play, repeat, repeat, repeat...half time whistle, second half starts ball goes out of play, repeat, repeat, repeat.....

 

[MrSnuggles]

A yellow card for any player keeping their shirt on after scoring. A yellow from a previous game rescinded if the shorts also come off. I'd like to see Maty Ryan chasing Schelotto around the pitch with him just in a pair of jaguar-skin briefs after he scores his first whizzbang.

If l could find a thumbs up emoji, then that would deserve one!

 

[pasty]

If a player was badly injured they would want the physio on if not he could get off the pitch himself for treatment without being penalised.

You missed my point BG. When a player is treated on the pitch, he is then forced to go off and has to wait for the ref to wave him back on. That gives the other side an advantage, so that should be evened out by the player that caused the injury, if it was a foul, should have to go off at the same time.

 

[MrSnuggles]

What a brilliant idea, 88 minutes of tedium, with most games ending 0-0

First time the ball goes out for a throw in (or kick in as per your rule change), the opposition team all sprint to within 5 yards of where the ball is to reenter play and form a semi circular barrier. Ball is not permitted to leave the ground, so to avoid losing possession the ball is kicked hard against an opposition player, ball goes out of play, repeat, repeat, repeat...half time whistle, second half starts ball goes out of play, repeat, repeat, repeat.....

Perhaps that needs tweaking a little! Ball can leave the ground!

 

[BensGrandad]

Perhaps that needs tweaking a little! Ball can leave the ground!

as per 5 a side not above head height?

 

[amexer]

Watch stopped when goal scored and restarted on kick off

 

[biddles911]

No substitutes in extra time unless a player is injured. These “tactical” substitutions 30 seconds from time really annoy me.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BN9 BHA]

And a player having to leave the pitch after the physio has been on...what's that all about!!? A defender could be injured in a challenge that's not his fault, the ball goes out for a corner, and he has to leave the field so penalising the defending team! Nonsense!
!

Agree with this, saved me typing here.

 

[cunning fergus]

#pedantalert

There are no rules in football, only Laws

Anyway, I’d change the match time to 30 minutes each way but stop the clock every time the ball is out of play of the match is inactive.

Roll on, roll off subs

Ditch yellow cards where and introduce 15 minute sin bins for dissent, foul and abusive language or unsporting behaviour including celebrating goals in front of opposition fans and therefore causing inflammatory situations.

All red card fouls/challenges offences to be reviewed by VAR to remove element of doubt.

Think there are others I thought of but they are my starters





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have to say I am deeply suspicious about the motives behind VAR.

In my sense of the world there has not been a groundswell of opinion by fans etc that is demanding VAR, it seems to be foisted on leagues by their respective governing associations.

My particular fear is that VAR is the thin end of the capitalist wedge and in 3-5 years the rules about VAR will have morphed into time outs for teams to use or more simply a device that encourage more advertising.

I may just be getting too cynical, but football fans should be treating VAR with the upmost suspivio

 

[Triggaaar]

Defender bringing down an attacker, goalkeeper bringing down an attacker, deliberate handball on the line...you don't need me to explain. Something that the ref feels is an illegal attempt to prevent a direct goal scoring opportunity!

Yes it does need to be explained. So if an attacker is going towards goal, 17 yards from the goal line, back 4 are in a line with the keeper behind, defender goes in for the ball but miss-times it (or the attacker moves it a little to the side etc) - clear foul, is it a penalty?
What if the defending team had parked the bus and there were 8 players behind the ball?
What if there were only 2 behind the ball?
What are your rules?

The rule is clear enough for red cards - if it's the last defender, and they foul the attacker, they're off. But if it had to be that bad for a penalty, there'd be loads of fouls in the box just to stop a striker getting a shot away.

 

[OzMike]

VAR should be used for all penalty decisions.

 

[MrSnuggles]

Yes it does need to be explained. So if an attacker is going towards goal, 17 yards from the goal line, back 4 are in a line with the keeper behind, defender goes in for the ball but miss-times it (or the attacker moves it a little to the side etc) - clear foul, is it a penalty?
What if the defending team had parked the bus and there were 8 players behind the ball?
What if there were only 2 behind the ball?
What are your rules?

Does it prevent a direct goal scoring opportunity?

 

[Triggaaar]

Does it prevent a direct goal scoring opportunity?

Debatable. The current rules would only count such an opportunity when it's the last man - if you did that, there'd be fouls galore, and a lot less goals in open play.

 

[MrSnuggles]

I think if there were 8 on the line plus the goalkeeper then it wouldn't be a direct goal scoring opportunity. I think my original point of doing away with penalties for those frivolous decisions is getting lost in some technicalities! Jese's 'dive' on Saturday when the ball was sailing out of play no way warranted a penalty. Even if it was a foul, which it wasn't, it didn't deny Stoke a direct shot at goal. I would advocate a free kick, the same as if it were outside the 18 yard box. There may be a few scenarios where the idea is not just black and white but generally with a bit more thought and a bit of tweaking hypothetically it could work and avoid those situations where the attacking team haven't got a Scooby Doo chance of scoring but still get awarded a penalty. I'm fed up with these 'soft' penalties getting awarded which encourages attackers to dive or leave out a leg so there is contact, when they have no hope of actually getting a shot at goal. I wonder if you analysed ever penalty given this season, how many are genuine penalties and how many would have resulted in denying the attacking team a direct goal scoring opportunity? Not many l bet. I obviously know that the current rules are that a foul in any part of the box is a penalty, but more often than not the punishment doesn't fit the crime!