A&H

'Rules' that need to be changed Daily Telegraph

The Referee Store
"Some" common sense, "some" humour and "some" sensible suggestions but some of the writers get themselves in an awful mess, with their "solutions" either poorly thought through and/or just as likely to cause as much confusion/angst as now.

My own pet hate of referees and GKs impersonating each other at the top levels, strangely doesn't get a mention!;)
 
Any credibility they had as a football journalist was immediately lost by their constant referral to "rules" :mad:

For me the suggestion of doing away with the penalty kick is beyond ridiculous. They say that it would encourage referees to punish softer offences regardless of it's location on the pitch. Absolute nonsense!! I think it would have the opposite effect, defenders would be safe in the knowledge that if they commit an offence in the area which the referee or his assistant sees and decides to punish, they could stick all 11 players behind the ball regardless of the distance between the free kick and the goal. On the rare occasions you see a keeper guilty of handling a back pass, how often do you see a goal scored from the resulting IDFK in the box?
 
I'll play. Ignoring the colloquialisms here..

'handball' - they make a fair point that the applicaiton is at odds with the LOTG, though their solution is a poor one. All it needs is a rewrite. Call it 'handles the ball when the player could reasonably have been expected to avoid contact between ball and arm'

Fouls not given in the PA - true, but not a law change. We all know the PA is refereed differently to the rest of the field - and this approach only encourages, almost forces diving.

Replace the PK with a FK inside the area....I see the logic, but I think the idea behind the PK is that if you're that close to goal, then even with 10 players in front of you, you could score at any second

Quadruple punishment - basically trying to be clever with the 'triple punishment' argument. This has been done to death on here, but I think it's fine how it is

Dissent - agree completely. Zero tolerance across the board. I ranted about this, but there is no reason why dissent has to be accepted. 'It's an emotional game' is just a load of crap. Same as the 'manage the players' business. Zero tolerance is needed - fed up with just how ugly this makes the game look. Again, not a law change.

Complaining about advantage - again, the complaint is just about poor application of the lotg

Encroachment on penalties - agreed, enforce it. Seems to be getting better

I got bored at this point...complaining about the TA is laughable.

Pretty much just complaining about existing laws not being applied properly rather than advocating for any changes....
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Pretty much just complaining about existing laws not being applied properly rather than advocating for any changes....
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I was thinking.

It also strikes me as rather curious timing to come out with this now, when we're only four months away from a major overhaul of the laws that may well address some of these issues.

Mooseybaby said:
Any credibility they had as a football journalist was immediately lost by their constant referral to "rules" :mad:
Click to expand...
Or even worse, referring to them as "the FA's rules."
 
Handball is the one I agree with most. Not entirely comparing like for like I know but I use the knock-on in rugby as an example. A knock-on is penalised, irrespective of intent.
Sanctions in the form of a card are employed if necessary, but otherwise it's a scrum with the non-offending team getting the feed. Apply similar in our game. Free-kick or penalty if needed. Done to deny a clear advantage, or gain an unfair one - caution. DOGSO - red. Some grey areas still? Maybe, but they'd be tenuous. Might even see less cards, but the free kick award will often satisfy the "wronged" team.
 
Tealeaf said:
Handball is the one I agree with most. Not entirely comparing like for like I know but I use the knock-on in rugby as an example. A knock-on is penalised, irrespective of intent.
Sanctions in the form of a card are employed if necessary, but otherwise it's a scrum with the non-offending team getting the feed. Apply similar in our game. Free-kick or penalty if needed. Done to deny a clear advantage, or gain an unfair one - caution. DOGSO - red. Some grey areas still? Maybe, but they'd be tenuous. Might even see less cards, but the free kick award will often satisfy the "wronged" team.
Click to expand...

I would make it handball if player gained an advantage from ball hitting hand/arm.
 
I long to see the laws changed with respect to handball. For me, handball is the most difficult and contentious thing to judge when I am refereeing. The "deliberate" aspect doesn't help as we give (and are instructed/expected to give) handball in situations where the handball is not deliberate in the literal sense of the word. I would suggest a foul is given if "a player gains an advantage as result of careless contact between ball and hand".
 
OIREF! said:
I long to see the laws changed with respect to handball. For me, handball is the most difficult and contentious thing to judge when I am refereeing. The "deliberate" aspect doesn't help as we give (and are instructed/expected to give) handball in situations where the handball is not deliberate in the literal sense of the word. I would suggest a foul is given if "a player gains an advantage as result of careless contact between ball and hand".
Click to expand...

Agree, that's what I said, only better put!;)
 
PinnerPaul said:
I would make it handball if player gained an advantage from ball hitting hand/arm.
Click to expand...

OIREF! said:
I long to see the laws changed with respect to handball. For me, handball is the most difficult and contentious thing to judge when I am refereeing. The "deliberate" aspect doesn't help as we give (and are instructed/expected to give) handball in situations where the handball is not deliberate in the literal sense of the word. I would suggest a foul is given if "a player gains an advantage as result of careless contact between ball and hand".
Click to expand...

In essence we're going the same way. I have no wish to feed the pedants (let them eat cake), but while your examples are perfectly laudable, there is still that grey area - Define the idea of gaining an advantage? "Is this and advantage, but that not?" etc etc. That would end up being debated and disputed ad infinitum sadly.
 
With regard the handball law, I would add the "rule" ;)

Any player deliberately, in the the opinion of the referee, kicking the ball at an opponents hand in attempt to gain advantage in the form of a free kick or penalty kick shall be adjudged guilty of usb and issued a caution. Game restarts with an idfk to the offended against team.

Now, hands up who thinks I am being serious? :)
 
Tealeaf said:
Handball is the one I agree with most. Not entirely comparing like for like I know but I use the knock-on in rugby as an example. A knock-on is penalised, irrespective of intent.
Sanctions in the form of a card are employed if necessary, but otherwise it's a scrum with the non-offending team getting the feed. Apply similar in our game. Free-kick or penalty if needed. Done to deny a clear advantage, or gain an unfair one - caution. DOGSO - red. Some grey areas still? Maybe, but they'd be tenuous. Might even see less cards, but the free kick award will often satisfy the "wronged" team.
Click to expand...

Really? In Rugby Leage, intent is relevant to a 'knock on'.

The problem with removing intent or a 'careless' element is that you'd otherwise encourage attackers to kick the ball into the arm of the defenders to win a PK. Why should a player be penalised for something that was unavoidable?
 
Tealeaf said:
In essence we're going the same way. I have no wish to feed the pedants (let them eat cake), but while your examples are perfectly laudable, there is still that grey area - Define the idea of gaining an advantage? "Is this and advantage, but that not?" etc etc. That would end up being debated and disputed ad infinitum sadly.
Click to expand...

That's what keeps us amused - the debate!;)
 
Tealeaf said:
In essence we're going the same way. I have no wish to feed the pedants (let them eat cake), but while your examples are perfectly laudable, there is still that grey area - Define the idea of gaining an advantage? "Is this and advantage, but that not?" etc etc. That would end up being debated and disputed ad infinitum sadly.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the advantage part.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Really? In Rugby Leage, intent is relevant to a 'knock on'.

The problem with removing intent or a 'careless' element is that you'd otherwise encourage attackers to kick the ball into the arm of the defenders to win a PK. Why should a player be penalised for something that was unavoidable?
Click to expand...

More a Union thing, than the paradox* version

* "Northern" game that Southerners (hemispheric type) are actually better at
 
Tealeaf said:
the knock-on in rugby as an example. A knock-on is penalised, irrespective of intent.
Click to expand...
True in most cases but Union has a concept of 'intentional knock on' which draws a penalty kick/try rather than the usual scrum/lineout.
 
David Sutton said:
True in most cases but Union has a concept of 'intentional knock on' which draws a penalty kick/try rather than the usual scrum/lineout.
Click to expand...

That's the essence I want to capture. It's a freekick irrespective; the sliding scale of punishment is where the caution or DOGSO sending off kicks in
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top