gank 9:26 Sat Mar 7
The Laws of Football
|
|
It seems to me that we've reached the end of the line with amendments to the original set of rules which make up the Laws of Football - VAR was a great idea made farcical by referees in full kit agonising over trying to disallow good goals on the current version of the handball and offside laws.
A really fundamental change was made quite recently regarding the laws surrounding kick-off, because it was finally accepted well over 100 years after inception that teams don't want to start by kicking it from the centre circle as hard as theycan and having 10 players belt after it. They wanted to pass backwards to secure possession and retain shape but had to knock it forwards into the opposition half first for no reason - so they changed a fundamental law just on common sense. But they still amended an existing law.
We also have the very strange situation where the laws are either actually different or are implemented differently depending upon where you're playing (VAR another good example, as the Premier League use it in an entirely unique way).
My point here is that perhaps it would be of greater long-term benefit for FIFA to literally start again with a blank page and write the laws of the game from scratch.
There would be no need for the 6 yard box, no need for the 'D' and depending upon the offside law, no need for a half-way line either.
Would the out-of-play sanctions (corners, throw-ins and goal kicks) be the same? Surely a spot-kick with an exclusion zone for defending players would always be the answer?
We would also finally be rid of the ridiculous 'drop-ball' sanction which is great fun at low-level with two fat blokes trying to kneecap each other but has absolutely no real benefit at the higher level.
There are only actually 17 Laws right now, what would a complete restart look like? I reckon 10 laws encompassing every aspect of what is deemed acceptable and what is a breach, and simplified sanctions.
What would be your simplified offside and handball laws? Any others you feel need to be rewritten, struck off or added?
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
Pee Wee
2:22 Thu Mar 12
Re: The Laws of Football
|
crystal falace 12:29 Thu Mar 12
Those fouls should be punished by two penalties and he offender being sent off for stupidity.
|
gph
12:33 Thu Mar 12
Re: The Laws of Football
|
Stupid fouls are still fouls.
|
crystal falace
12:29 Thu Mar 12
Re: The Laws of Football
|
I've always said it seems a bit daft that you get a penalty for a foul that may have occurred on the very corner of the area with the player going away from goal, seems like a very OTT punishment.
|
Sven Roeder
10:52 Wed Mar 11
Re: The Laws of Football
|
What would football be like if you got rid of the penalty area and penalties?
Foul near the goal is a free kick
|
FruityBoots.
10:48 Wed Mar 11
Re: The Laws of Football
|
Penalties only given if it’s preventing a direct effort at goal ie a played lining up to shoot or head a goal, as the award of a penalty is a direct effort at goal. Any other foul in the penalty area is a yellow card and an indirect free kick.
All penalties, no players can follow up as in what’s done in a penalty shoot out. If not scored results in a goal kick ( no corner or kick from hands.
VAR Decisions are 1 per team for the whole game and up to the captain or manager to explain why they want it looked at again within 15 seconds of speaking to the referee, if upheld they retain that 1 decision. Once 1 decision is not upheld it’s lost.
|
Far Cough
7:46 Wed Mar 11
Re: The Laws of Football
|
I'd make it 11 a side one legged arse kicking contest for 90 minutes
Lets face it, it's basically what it is now, anyway
|
Bonzomilts
7:30 Wed Mar 11
Re: The Laws of Football
|
I would make football 10 a side. Pitches are the same size as ever but players are way fitter so there is less space available.
|
Mace66
2:50 Wed Mar 11
Re: The Laws of Football
|
Pee Wee - yep, I like those
|
Mace66
2:49 Wed Mar 11
Re: The Laws of Football
|
Westside - if recipient shoots no problem. If recipient passes the chap who crossed is triggering offside. Seems fairly straightforward to me. You’re talking about the existing shit rules anyway whereas what we’re trying to do here is simplify things. Don’t think about the current rules, think about how things could be changed to make things simpler and more enjoyable all round.
|
Pee Wee
12:10 Wed Mar 11
Re: The Laws of Football
|
Obvs I’d get rid of VAR as it’s a complete mess.
However if they insist on keeping it as looks likely, I’d make either of the following changes.
1) Review can look at all available camera angles, just once, at normal speed and if decision to overturn refs decision isn’t obvious, you stick with ref.
2) Each manager gets one review. If there is a decision they aren’t happy with, they call for a review. If review is upheld they keep their review for another decision. If they’re wrong they lose it. They get 10 seconds after an incident to decide to review or not.
|
Westside
10:05 Wed Mar 11
Re: The Laws of Football
|
Westside - I reckon your man crosses the ball from the by line and is then out of play. If he isn’t out of play and the recipient of his pass then passes the ball forward then unfortunately yes he’s offside. If the recipient shoots at goal then the recipient isn’t attempting a pass so there isn’t an offside. Easy peasy lemon squeezy !
You cannot leave the field of play without the referees permission, so the player that crosses would be in an offside position, even off the pitch. Not interfering with play, but some people are saying it should be "offside, is offside, regardless". Same applies if the attacker shoots from the passback.
|
gank
5:06 Wed Mar 11
Re: The Laws of Football
|
Regarding handball, I agree with most posts. However, look at the Rice to Snodgrass disallowed goal. It was given, VAR looked at it, it was then disallowed.
In normal circumstances, it's a goal.
With VAR, they disallowed it. According to the handball law, that was correct (even though it's stupid).
But Rice also plays in defense. If the same thing happens the other end, is it a penalty? You'll immediately say no, but do we play on to a goal and allow that goal?
|
tnb
12:58 Wed Mar 11
Re: The Laws of Football
|
Not going to argue. 30 seconds may be too long. But it would certainly be an improvement on the time taken currently. Look at the Ogbonna goal against Arsenal. It was clear after one replay that there was no issue, but nevertheless they looked at endless alternative angles, over and over again. And that time is never - never - accurately added on to the injury/ extra time.
|
Mace66
12:49 Wed Mar 11
Re: The Laws of Football
|
tnb - 30 seconds is too long, refs were previously tasked with making instant decisions and those decisions were pulled apart by overpaid pundits with the benefit
of slow mo replay after replay. 10 seconds should be plenty enough to spot something obvious.
As pointed out below ( sorry can’t remember who by ) it’s all become too forensic and as such the punditry and over analysis and obsession with getting it ‘spot on’ is killing the enjoyment. Rules need simplifying.
|
Mace66
12:41 Wed Mar 11
Re: The Laws of Football
|
Sven, id rather see somebody use a bit of skill to win a pen than dive. I don’t think it’s that easy to do it, defenders keep their hands out of the way anyway. Hands should
Be kept out of the way. And I’m talking about below the elbow here not the whole arm.
If it’s blatantly obvious that an attempt is made and it fails, give a pen the other way.
|
gph
12:39 Wed Mar 11
Re: The Laws of Football
|
Last to Sven.
Not sure if that was Asperger's or Alzheimer's
|
tnb
12:38 Wed Mar 11
Re: The Laws of Football
|
The current interpretation of handball is bullshit, because we are apparently counting the shoulder and everything south of that as a hand which is biologically nonsense. But that isn't even the biggest issue. If that is the way they want to go then fine, as long as it is consistent. But whatever the interpretation, it simply has to apply the same for a player in a defensive position as it does in the build up to a goal.
This has been shown up by the couple of occasions whereby a player 'handballs' in defence (not a foul) but from the resulting break a goal is scored (a foul, if so...a penalty? Never given as such, but by the literal interpretation of the rules perhaps it should be, which just shows how ludicrous they are). Rice a few months ago was similar - how can it not be a foul at the time, but then retrospectively a foul because of what happened afterwards?
In terms of handball and offside, the law surely has to be that of attempting to gain an advantage.
There is no way someone is attempting to gain an advantage by having the ball hit against an arm by their side, nor is there by being an armpit further forward than the nearest defender.
A time limit on VAR seems inevitable. If it's not apparent that an error has been made within 30 seconds or whatever, it wasn't a clear error and the decision stands.
As with cricket, the 'soft signal' of the on field decision has to continue to mean something.
|
gph
12:25 Wed Mar 11
Re: The Laws of Football
|
They really annoy me when you turn up with a ball for a game and they hijack it to play with it by themselves in what's supposed to be the kick-around before the game itself.
Fucking bring your own ball if you want to do that.
|
Ronald_antly
12:24 Wed Mar 11
Re: The Laws of Football
|
Fifth Column 11:01 Tue Mar 10
I can read, thanks.
I was just surprised that the goal would not stand. I'm not sure I've ever seen that situation occur.
|
Sven Roeder
12:22 Wed Mar 11
Re: The Laws of Football
|
Yes, but the point of the game is to beat a man and kick the ball in the net.
Not have some circus game where players are trying to flick the ball onto peoples hands.
The sort of thing those dreary cunts who do 5 million keepy uppys might be good at.
I think we can all agree those ball juggling types should be physically seized and be fed feet first into a wood chipper
|
Mace66
12:08 Wed Mar 11
Re: The Laws of Football
|
Falace - same rule for everyone. There’s an element of skill in aiming and hitting a hand and there’s a risk that the attacker may lose possession in doing so. Maybe if it’s an obvious attempt that misses, a pen is given the other way ( though there’s an element of interpretation in that so maybe not )
|
| 
