Someone posted a thread yesterday asking what changes folks would like to see in football, on the field.
On the surface this article, may seem a bit redundant , but as it turns out, IFAB, the governing body that approves changes to the laws of the game will hold its Annual Business Meeting (ABM) on January 7th. This is their last meeting to discuss issues prior to their AGM where the changes are actually proposed and voted on.
The agenda for the ABM has been released. Items up for discussion are:
1) Sin Bins: An update on Uefa trials.
I am not sure where the latest trials have been conducted, but previously they had taken place at an U16 tournament hosted by the FA. 10 minute Sin Bins were implemented. It seems this wasn't as successful as hoped with Board members commenting that the flow of the game was impacted, players were wary of making tackles and teams became very defensive.
http://keirradnedge.com/2014/03/01/not-so-fast-uefa-trial-suggests-sin-bins-are-not-so-simple-for-soccer/
2) A Fourth Substitute
Suggestions have included a 4th sub in extra time, and also temporary subs in the case of a player being injured and needing treatment before he can return to the pitch. the idea being that this would maintain the number of players on the field.
3) Triple Punishment law
That is, the red card/penalty/suspension issue. Should a penalty supersede a red card? Should a suspension be waived in these situations? Should there be a different determination based on whether the penalty is scored or not?
4) Video assistance for refs.
The conversation continues. It seems this time it is to clarify what IFAB/FIFAs actual stance is. Up until now its been no to video tech and no to actual trials, despite the Dutch talking of having secret and successful trials. MLS and Brazil have expressed an interest previously in hosting such trials.
http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/news/y=2015/m=10/news=advisory-panels-meet-ahead-of-the-ifab-annual-business-meeting-2711889.html
Theres a few other issues to be debated, such as additional ref hand signals for more clarity and a discussion on unsporting behavior. Full agenda of the meeting here:
http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/ifab/02/74/75/51/ifab_abm_agenda_7_january_2016_neutral.pdf
I am not a great fan of the idea of video refs, even less so of sin bins, but at the same time, surely extensive trials should be given a go before concrete decisions are made? Thoughts?
IFAB To Discuss Changes to the Game
posted on 29/12/15
2, 3 and 4 for me are things I've been saying for years. Hopefully it comes in.
posted on 29/12/15
comment by There'sOnlyOneRedNoseReindeer (U1721)
posted 8 minutes ago
2, 3 and 4 for me are things I've been saying for years. Hopefully it comes in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IFABs 2, 3 and 4 or Forza's?
posted on 29/12/15
Yeah, I don't see why we can't have a clock that stops when the play stops. I am not for reducing the halves to 30 mins though, that's a terrible idea IMO.
posted on 29/12/15
comment by Mamba - The Master of Disaster, King of Sting,... (U13041)
posted 2 minutes ago
Yeah, I don't see why we can't have a clock that stops when the play stops. I am not for reducing the halves to 30 mins though, that's a terrible idea IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would need decreased somehow. Can't expect players to be playing for so long, especially now when there are so many games.
posted on 29/12/15
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRedNoseReindeer (U1721)
posted 8 minutes ago
2, 3 and 4 for me are things I've been saying for years. Hopefully it comes in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IFABs 2, 3 and 4 or Forza's?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forza's are great ideas also.
posted on 30/12/15
I'm sure they play for more than 30 mins per half. Having a clock that stops means we get exactly 45mins of play, the way it's intended. I expect players to be able to handle it, will only make a few mins difference and in this age of mega huge squads and money in the game? Kill the Fergie time controversy without monumentally affecting the game as we know it.
posted on 30/12/15
comment by Mamba - The Master of Disaster, King of Sting,... (U13041)
posted 43 minutes ago
I'm sure they play for more than 30 mins per half. Having a clock that stops means we get exactly 45mins of play, the way it's intended. I expect players to be able to handle it, will only make a few mins difference and in this age of mega huge squads and money in the game? Kill the Fergie time controversy without monumentally affecting the game as we know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's good that you expect it but it's just not visible. It's not only a few minutes more. It's a lot of minutes more. Think of the amount of throw ins, corners, freekicks, injury stoppages etc.
In fact, the average amount of time the ball is in play in the Premier League is about sixty minutes, hence the reason some who advocate stopping the clock also advocate reducing the time to thirty minutes each half.
posted on 30/12/15
You make a great point but they are not exactly sprinting when the ball is out of play or when waiting for that corner, are they? In fact, the stoppages are a very good opportunity for them to catch their breathe. Perhaps a reduction to 40 mins like Rugby might work but 30 mins is too little for me.
posted on 30/12/15
comment by Mamba - The Master of Disaster, King of Sting,... (U13041)
posted 1 hour, 30 minutes ago
You make a great point but they are not exactly sprinting when the ball is out of play or when waiting for that corner, are they? In fact, the stoppages are a very good opportunity for them to catch their breathe. Perhaps a reduction to 40 mins like Rugby might work but 30 mins is too little for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's 30 minutes in play time but would still be around 45 in real time. There's no real change, apart from this ridiculous thing that referees do when the time is added at the end they let it run over the time of a team is on the attack, benefitting one team.
I would be all for stopping the clock and 30 minutes, even 35. Of course it needs to be trialled more before the change is made but in my opinion it would be for the better. Anything that takes away referees using judgement rather than fact, is a good thing for me.
posted on 30/12/15
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator