I like the penalty one because it seems fair and simple. One team fouled, stopping a potential goal. The other has one, good, opportunity of scoring to make up for it.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 57 seconds ago
I like the penalty one because it seems fair and simple. One team fouled, stopping a potential goal. The other has one, good, opportunity of scoring to make up for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. No-one should really be missing a penalty anyway, so it's not like the team fouled doesn't still have a gilt-edged chance to score.
At first I thought BS but then it may stop players always encroaching into the box even though it is against the rules as well, just puts emphasis on the pen taker and ‘keeper. It also gives more credit to ‘keepers who can pull gf a great save in a big moment only to succumb to an unlucky rebound shot. Or less luck to players who ‘miss’ the pen by hitting the post only for it to go back in on rebound. Those types of rebound goals seem to rarely happen anyway. In terms of the defender clearing the ball away on rebound this doesn’t change much - the only arguement I can think against it from the defending team’s point is that Watford’s famous play off semi final Deeney goal wouldn’t happen if play had to be stopped when Gomes caught the ball.
comment by Billy The Yidd (U3924)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 33 minutes ago
No attacking players in a wall is a joke, players should be allowed to stand where they want provided they are the required distance from the ball. Nonsensical new rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep this is a farce, every player on the pitch is potentially an attacking player, full backs for example are often attackers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are talking about oppo team players
comment by Tottenham Chronic (U3423)
posted 16 minutes ago
4. Gets rid of all of the jostling in the wall. Good idea.
-------
what will happen is attacking players will go at end of wall, with a slight gap, and argue that they are not in the wall.... so there is a grey area straight away
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Love to see that
Hopefully the ref would say, "Yes you are, so go and stand somewhere else. The ref is, or should be, the boss.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 23 minutes ago
I like the penalty one because it seems fair and simple. One team fouled, stopping a potential goal. The other has one, good, opportunity of scoring to make up for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard to understand why anyone has an issue with this one. And as Melts said earlier, it has clearly been brought in because of VAR.
2. Gets rid of the encroachment like Verts on Saturday. Also, I think a penalty is award enough, if you miss a pen then a sneaky rebound is just lucky.
------------------------------
Quite often a penalty is in place of a clear goal... Now you are reducing the chances of rectifying that even further.
Amazed how many support this rule.
No mention of the penalty one on the sky sports link you posted.
I don't think it is often in place of a clear goal, often it is not a good opportunity really. And what constitutes a clear goal chance more than a penalty ? Yes, it can happen , but not so often.
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Ole's joy squids (U2958)
posted 16 minutes ago
2. Gets rid of the encroachment like Verts on Saturday. Also, I think a penalty is award enough, if you miss a pen then a sneaky rebound is just lucky.
------------------------------
Quite often a penalty is in place of a clear goal... Now you are reducing the chances of rectifying that even further.
Amazed how many support this rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm astonished that anybody doesn't, you should convert a penalty and if you can't you don't deserve a goal.
I would imagine that any keeper who's made a blinding pen save only to be beaten on the follow up will be happy to see this change.
Amazed how many support this rule.
......
Why? It is clearly designed for VAR.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
"For a start, the attacking side can outnumber defenders away from the wall."
They can already do that!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In practical terms, this increases the likelihood though. If the attacking team no longer has 2-3 players in the wall, they are likely to be deployed in other positions, and still with an attacking mindset, since there's still the same amount of defensive. The defending team still requires a wall. Seems likely we'll have more situations where the attacking team tries 'training ground' routines, where they slip in a player around the side.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 9 minutes ago
I don't think it is often in place of a clear goal, often it is not a good opportunity really. And what constitutes a clear goal chance more than a penalty ? Yes, it can happen , but not so often.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea where Ji pulled that one from.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
"For a start, the attacking side can outnumber defenders away from the wall."
They can already do that!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In practical terms, this increases the likelihood though. If the attacking team no longer has 2-3 players in the wall, they are likely to be deployed in other positions, and still with an attacking mindset, since there's still the same amount of defensive. The defending team still requires a wall. Seems likely we'll have more situations where the attacking team tries 'training ground' routines, where they slip in a player around the side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't really see your point.
If there's such an advantage to be gained from it then teams would be doing it already.
Remember that the defending team will most likely leave only one player upfield whilst the attacking team will leave at least two back.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 8 minutes ago
Amazed how many support this rule.
......
Why? It is clearly designed for VAR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because when a ball is in play, it should stay that way until it goes out of play or there is a foul. Not sure why VAR justifies such a big rule change or why it should instantly make me comfortable with the idea.
Football is about entertainment, having the ball in play as much as possible is where that entertainment lies. As RR said, the opposition team can also take advantage of the situation to quickly break.
The penalty one is rubbish and not happening.
The wall one is to stop the pushing and shoving and should have been addressed years ago. Stuart Pearces free kick in the 91 FA Cup final should have been disallowed for a blatant foul on a player in the wall, and similar has been happening ever since.
Subs makes sense.
Handball goals makes sense, especially with VaR available.
The silhouette handball thing will cause a lot of debate, even with VAR.
Because when a ball is in play, it should stay that way
....
Why? If you miss the penalty or the keeper saves it tough $hit.
This way all ref has to do is watch the keepers movement to determine he keeps within the rules and there will be no further need for any VAR.
I can easily understand why people are for this.
A keeper making a save is no reason to stop the game. Ridiculous idea that has rightfully been binned at the brainstorming stage.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 28 seconds ago
A keeper making a save is no reason to stop the game. Ridiculous idea that has rightfully been binned at the brainstorming stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Glad to hear (should have read the article!)
The penalty one appears to be.a moot point anyway as the OP may have made that one up as it isn't in the link.
So an attacker can't join the wall but presumably he can stand 1 foot in front of it. If this idea is to stop fouls in the wall then VAR will come to the rescue.
What constitutes a wall ? Can you have a 1-man wall in which case you could have 10 walls where attackers cannot stand or 5 2-man walls.
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 1 minute ago
So an attacker can't join the wall but presumably he can stand 1 foot in front of it. If this idea is to stop fouls in the wall then VAR will come to the rescue.
What constitutes a wall ? Can you have a 1-man wall in which case you could have 10 walls where attackers cannot stand or 5 2-man walls.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think an ounce of common sense would help solve the issue you raise.
The wall one is to stop the pushing and shoving and should have been addressed years ago.
----------------------
Is it? Instead of changing the rule the ref should just give a foul.
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 43 seconds ago
The wall one is to stop the pushing and shoving and should have been addressed years ago.
----------------------
Is it? Instead of changing the rule the ref should just give a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they don't. Hence why it needs to be addressed.
Sign in if you want to comment
New Football Rules from next season
Page 4 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 5/3/19
I like the penalty one because it seems fair and simple. One team fouled, stopping a potential goal. The other has one, good, opportunity of scoring to make up for it.
posted on 5/3/19
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 57 seconds ago
I like the penalty one because it seems fair and simple. One team fouled, stopping a potential goal. The other has one, good, opportunity of scoring to make up for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. No-one should really be missing a penalty anyway, so it's not like the team fouled doesn't still have a gilt-edged chance to score.
posted on 5/3/19
At first I thought BS but then it may stop players always encroaching into the box even though it is against the rules as well, just puts emphasis on the pen taker and ‘keeper. It also gives more credit to ‘keepers who can pull gf a great save in a big moment only to succumb to an unlucky rebound shot. Or less luck to players who ‘miss’ the pen by hitting the post only for it to go back in on rebound. Those types of rebound goals seem to rarely happen anyway. In terms of the defender clearing the ball away on rebound this doesn’t change much - the only arguement I can think against it from the defending team’s point is that Watford’s famous play off semi final Deeney goal wouldn’t happen if play had to be stopped when Gomes caught the ball.
posted on 5/3/19
comment by Billy The Yidd (U3924)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 33 minutes ago
No attacking players in a wall is a joke, players should be allowed to stand where they want provided they are the required distance from the ball. Nonsensical new rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep this is a farce, every player on the pitch is potentially an attacking player, full backs for example are often attackers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are talking about oppo team players
posted on 5/3/19
comment by Tottenham Chronic (U3423)
posted 16 minutes ago
4. Gets rid of all of the jostling in the wall. Good idea.
-------
what will happen is attacking players will go at end of wall, with a slight gap, and argue that they are not in the wall.... so there is a grey area straight away
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Love to see that
posted on 5/3/19
Hopefully the ref would say, "Yes you are, so go and stand somewhere else. The ref is, or should be, the boss.
posted on 5/3/19
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 23 minutes ago
I like the penalty one because it seems fair and simple. One team fouled, stopping a potential goal. The other has one, good, opportunity of scoring to make up for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard to understand why anyone has an issue with this one. And as Melts said earlier, it has clearly been brought in because of VAR.
posted on 5/3/19
2. Gets rid of the encroachment like Verts on Saturday. Also, I think a penalty is award enough, if you miss a pen then a sneaky rebound is just lucky.
------------------------------
Quite often a penalty is in place of a clear goal... Now you are reducing the chances of rectifying that even further.
Amazed how many support this rule.
posted on 5/3/19
No mention of the penalty one on the sky sports link you posted.
posted on 5/3/19
I don't think it is often in place of a clear goal, often it is not a good opportunity really. And what constitutes a clear goal chance more than a penalty ? Yes, it can happen , but not so often.
posted on 5/3/19
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Ole's joy squids (U2958)
posted 16 minutes ago
2. Gets rid of the encroachment like Verts on Saturday. Also, I think a penalty is award enough, if you miss a pen then a sneaky rebound is just lucky.
------------------------------
Quite often a penalty is in place of a clear goal... Now you are reducing the chances of rectifying that even further.
Amazed how many support this rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm astonished that anybody doesn't, you should convert a penalty and if you can't you don't deserve a goal.
I would imagine that any keeper who's made a blinding pen save only to be beaten on the follow up will be happy to see this change.
posted on 5/3/19
Amazed how many support this rule.
......
Why? It is clearly designed for VAR.
posted on 5/3/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
"For a start, the attacking side can outnumber defenders away from the wall."
They can already do that!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In practical terms, this increases the likelihood though. If the attacking team no longer has 2-3 players in the wall, they are likely to be deployed in other positions, and still with an attacking mindset, since there's still the same amount of defensive. The defending team still requires a wall. Seems likely we'll have more situations where the attacking team tries 'training ground' routines, where they slip in a player around the side.
posted on 5/3/19
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 9 minutes ago
I don't think it is often in place of a clear goal, often it is not a good opportunity really. And what constitutes a clear goal chance more than a penalty ? Yes, it can happen , but not so often.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea where Ji pulled that one from.
posted on 5/3/19
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
"For a start, the attacking side can outnumber defenders away from the wall."
They can already do that!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In practical terms, this increases the likelihood though. If the attacking team no longer has 2-3 players in the wall, they are likely to be deployed in other positions, and still with an attacking mindset, since there's still the same amount of defensive. The defending team still requires a wall. Seems likely we'll have more situations where the attacking team tries 'training ground' routines, where they slip in a player around the side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't really see your point.
If there's such an advantage to be gained from it then teams would be doing it already.
Remember that the defending team will most likely leave only one player upfield whilst the attacking team will leave at least two back.
posted on 5/3/19
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 8 minutes ago
Amazed how many support this rule.
......
Why? It is clearly designed for VAR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because when a ball is in play, it should stay that way until it goes out of play or there is a foul. Not sure why VAR justifies such a big rule change or why it should instantly make me comfortable with the idea.
Football is about entertainment, having the ball in play as much as possible is where that entertainment lies. As RR said, the opposition team can also take advantage of the situation to quickly break.
posted on 5/3/19
The penalty one is rubbish and not happening.
The wall one is to stop the pushing and shoving and should have been addressed years ago. Stuart Pearces free kick in the 91 FA Cup final should have been disallowed for a blatant foul on a player in the wall, and similar has been happening ever since.
Subs makes sense.
Handball goals makes sense, especially with VaR available.
The silhouette handball thing will cause a lot of debate, even with VAR.
posted on 5/3/19
Because when a ball is in play, it should stay that way
....
Why? If you miss the penalty or the keeper saves it tough $hit.
This way all ref has to do is watch the keepers movement to determine he keeps within the rules and there will be no further need for any VAR.
I can easily understand why people are for this.
posted on 5/3/19
A keeper making a save is no reason to stop the game. Ridiculous idea that has rightfully been binned at the brainstorming stage.
posted on 5/3/19
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 28 seconds ago
A keeper making a save is no reason to stop the game. Ridiculous idea that has rightfully been binned at the brainstorming stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Glad to hear (should have read the article!)
posted on 5/3/19
The penalty one appears to be.a moot point anyway as the OP may have made that one up as it isn't in the link.
posted on 5/3/19
So an attacker can't join the wall but presumably he can stand 1 foot in front of it. If this idea is to stop fouls in the wall then VAR will come to the rescue.
What constitutes a wall ? Can you have a 1-man wall in which case you could have 10 walls where attackers cannot stand or 5 2-man walls.
posted on 5/3/19
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 1 minute ago
So an attacker can't join the wall but presumably he can stand 1 foot in front of it. If this idea is to stop fouls in the wall then VAR will come to the rescue.
What constitutes a wall ? Can you have a 1-man wall in which case you could have 10 walls where attackers cannot stand or 5 2-man walls.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think an ounce of common sense would help solve the issue you raise.
posted on 5/3/19
The wall one is to stop the pushing and shoving and should have been addressed years ago.
----------------------
Is it? Instead of changing the rule the ref should just give a foul.
posted on 5/3/19
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 43 seconds ago
The wall one is to stop the pushing and shoving and should have been addressed years ago.
----------------------
Is it? Instead of changing the rule the ref should just give a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they don't. Hence why it needs to be addressed.
Page 4 of 7
6 | 7