[Football] Sin bin trial...

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Tedious just tedious just get the majority of big decisions right, plain and simple.

 

[BevBHA]

Not for me Clive. Will ruin the flow of games as said above time wasting etc will go through the roof. Refs have already decided they’re not using the new time wasting rules brought in this season, so they won’t manage this properly and it will lead to 10 mins a time of dreadful stop/start football.

 

[pb21]

Time wasting from the GK being sin binable offence would get my vote.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Why can't we just get the things we have right first. I reckon the average pissed up football fan sitting at a bar watching the screen opposite will get the vast majority of decisions correct, unlike the current bunch of officials, yet they want to introduce more complexity and decisive things.

Ruining it for those that bother to see live football. Idiots the lot of them.

 

[East London Exile]

Time wasting from the GK being sin binable offence would get my vote.

If the GK gets sin binned then it will take 9 mins to a replacement in goal!

 

[Badger]

Should include time wasting - for some teams the bin would have to have plenty of seats.

I understand they're going to add another stand to Villa Park for the sin bin.

 

[Giraffe]

Nope. Just another way for them to mess it up.

 

[Weststander]

Sorry but No. Teams on the receiving end will just fake injuries, take even longer to take throw ins etc.

This, ironically.

Led by Emery and Silva.

The 10 minutes ‘power play’ would disappear in a flash. Whilst in frequently stop the clock rugby union and ice hockey you get the full benefit.

 

[LamieRobertson]

No thanks …games getting complicated enough …soon be unrecognisable

 

[zefarelly]

If we had competent officials, a sin bin would be irrelevant.

creating an issue/situation that doesn't exist, doesn't solve the problem the FA/Ref club are scared of resolving.

a complacent gentleman's organisation will always be self protective. . . . .

 

[the larks]

Personally I'd ban the ability to let a player shepherd a ball over the line without trying to play it, similar to Aussie Rules ( there We can't deliberately put the ball out of play periid)

 

[American Seagle]

Giving the EPL's inept officials even more to do does not sound like it will work well. It will simply be yet another thing they won't get right.

 

[gazingdown]

Not sure the teams would try to waste that amount of time (10m) just to wait for 1 player to get back on. That tactic wouldn’t work well, especially if we’re not talking 2m but 10m here. That’s a LOT of time wasting, and if wasting time on things like free kicks/throw ins then the ref can card (i.e sin bin) any players breaking time wasting rules - the team would soon stop as more players have to leave the pitch!!!

Note time stoppages would be added on to sin bin time.

So any yellow is a 10m sin bin. Could introduce green card for non-sin bin warning if need be.

Especially if that team is losing/drawing, that‘s time they would rather spend trying to score.

Anyway, put aside the idea, ultimately any rule change will need to be implemented by the refs (and VAR I suppose) and their competence at the moment isn’t exactly in high regard!

 

[Baldseagull]

To combat dissent and time wasting, we have yellow cards. The problem is that for time wasting, only one player can no longer risk it once booked, and the rest carry on, make time wasting a red card offence after the first player on a team has been cautioned.

For dissent, make it a yellow card with a one match suspension, or a bit like having to do a speed awareness course, give the player the option of reffing a Sunday league game to avoid the suspension.

To combat feigning injury, player goes off if play is delayed for more than a few seconds, whether physio comes on or not, and they stay off for however long the delay was plus 1 minute. Physios have the option to run on and pick an injured player up and carry him off for treatment, or delay the game.

If substituted players that are not injured take more than 30 seconds to leave the pitch, the oncoming sub has to be held back by 4th official for 1 minute of play to have elapsed before joining the field.

 

[Insel affe]

I like and am in favour of only the captain can speak to the ref.

 

[chaileyjem]

Lots of posters saying its impractical , won't work and refs have other options. This is partly the reason its being trialled but also overlooks that its been in place lower down the pyramid for years where dissent and abuse is arguably far worse and has made a real difference. I interviewed multiple refs/teams when i wrote about it a few years ago and the feedback was universally positive. it seemed inevitable it would be adopted in the professional game.

 

[rippleman]

I have absolutely no confidence that the incompetent officials we have in the EPL will be able to run the sin bin arrangement any more consistently than they do VAR.

It doesn't matter how good the laws, rules, regulations are if the officials don't apply them in exactly the same way.

 

[METALMICKY]

I like and am in favour of only the captain can speak to the ref.

That's the only change that would make sense and could be implemented adding to the mess created by VAR.

The only flaw being our captain would only be calling the ref a bald bell end!

 

[The Albion Roar]

Another rule where it might be introduced into football because it works in other sports. That notion, for its own sake, has little value.

Advancing ten yards for dissent - that died on its arse. It works in rugby because territory is far more key than it is in football.

VAR - equivalent of the third umpire. That took a while to get right. For the most part, it works well, but - considering football wanted to follow cricket's lead - has made no attempt to administer it in a manner that those aspects that work for cricket are being made to work for football.

Firstly, who is going to define 'ten minutes'? Administratively, it works in rugby as there is a separate time-keeper who will inform the referee when the ten minutes are up. The same time-keeper is informed by the ref 'time-on' and 'time-off', so the 10 minutes are accurately managed. it's an extra administrative burden the referee can easily cock up. The referees themselves may like the idea, but are they OK with the practice?

So, do you have a separate time-keeper? Otherwise, '10 minutes' on the pitch, without anyone in the stadium knowing what the countdown clock is at, can seem pretty arbitrary if the referee - in his/her opinion - is going to add on time for time-wasting, a goal, a substitution, VAR check etc.

 

[chaileyjem]

Firstly, who is going to define 'ten minutes'? Administratively, it works in rugby as there is a separate time-keeper who will inform the referee when the ten minutes are up. The same time-keeper is informed by the ref 'time-on' and 'time-off', so the 10 minutes are accurately managed. it's an extra administrative burden the referee can easily cock up. The referees themselves may like the idea, but are they OK with the practice?

So, do you have a separate time-keeper? Otherwise, '10 minutes' on the pitch, without anyone in the stadium knowing what the countdown clock is at, can seem pretty arbitrary if the referee - in his/her opinion - is going to add on time for time-wasting, a goal, a substitution, VAR check etc.

This is hard in grassroots for obvious reasons . Its an additional task for the ref. But they made it work across years and tens of thousands of matches The review of sin bins in lower leagues- where its worked well (i think professional leagues can work out a process for time keeping) was overwhelmingly positive (from refs, players) and whats being proposed is just more trials.
The goal anyway is to prevent behaviours ...i think this works as a sanction to prevent fewer "F Offs" to refs. Right for the FA to make a stand here given the scale of referee abuse at all levels.