comment by Troy's Tanguy Tanganga of Tottenham (U6468)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
If the ball goes over the goal line and come back out then no goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AT Old Trafford the local bye law is that the ball has to hit the back of the net for it to be a goal.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/23/article-1268332-01F865D10000044D-827_308x185.jpg
They sound ok to me, wouldn't mind seeing Roberto Carlos type corners, swerving out of play then back in again, keepers looking baffled.
I don't get why they don't simply make offside whichever part of your body that touches the ball has to be onside.
The biggest problem with the corner one is 99% of corners would not come onto the pitch. Would these be retaken, or would it be a goal kick?
They should get rid of the handball rules all together if it’s accidental the handball rule is just ambiguous and controversial
comment by AFC Bash - Pepe like to Partey with Auba (U21751)
posted 17 seconds ago
They should get rid of the handball rules all together if it’s accidental the handball rule is just ambiguous and controversial
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So people can just pick the ball up and run with it?
FFS! All this forensic examination will kill the game. Just let refs get on with it - the game is designed to be played and ref'd by humans, and they ALL make mistakes.
That's why it's a game, not a computer program.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Mason, Marcus, Martial - Mountains are there t... (U3867)
posted 5 minutes ago
Oh and I don't understand the thinking in the corner kick one. If it's so more goals are scored why not make the rule for in play as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is to give the attacking team the advantage, allow the corner taker to swing it in to the box. The corner quadrant is actually quite restrictive as to what you can do, so maybe an alternative is to make the area you can take a corner from bigger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't really see how it is fair. How is the keeper supposed to keep a track of the flight of the ball when it is being him and the posts, crossbar and nets are in the way?
Imagine someone like Becks swinging them in from the right to the back post? He'd be able to get it so that it is only in play for the last few yards and drops right in on the post. Its not fair on the defending team.
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Mason, Marcus, Martial - Mountains are there t... (U3867)
posted 5 minutes ago
Oh and I don't understand the thinking in the corner kick one. If it's so more goals are scored why not make the rule for in play as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is to give the attacking team the advantage, allow the corner taker to swing it in to the box. The corner quadrant is actually quite restrictive as to what you can do, so maybe an alternative is to make the area you can take a corner from bigger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't really see how it is fair. How is the keeper supposed to keep a track of the flight of the ball when it is being him and the posts, crossbar and nets are in the way?
Imagine someone like Becks swinging them in from the right to the back post? He'd be able to get it so that it is only in play for the last few yards and drops right in on the post. Its not fair on the defending team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why it is an advantage to the attacking team.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Mason, Marcus, Martial - Mountains are there t... (U3867)
posted 5 minutes ago
Oh and I don't understand the thinking in the corner kick one. If it's so more goals are scored why not make the rule for in play as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is to give the attacking team the advantage, allow the corner taker to swing it in to the box. The corner quadrant is actually quite restrictive as to what you can do, so maybe an alternative is to make the area you can take a corner from bigger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't really see how it is fair. How is the keeper supposed to keep a track of the flight of the ball when it is being him and the posts, crossbar and nets are in the way?
Imagine someone like Becks swinging them in from the right to the back post? He'd be able to get it so that it is only in play for the last few yards and drops right in on the post. Its not fair on the defending team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why it is an advantage to the attacking team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its an advantage by being completely unfair. If the defending team can't even see the flight of the ball, how are they supposed to compete for it? It is quite a ridiculous idea. No need to make these changed for what is already a fantastic sport. Goals should be earned. Not gifted from unfair corner situations or from what would have previously been a throw-in in your own half.
I mean come on. With the throw in one you'd have managers like Pullis playing 2 6ft 5" strikers and looking to win throw ins/kick ins in their own half so that he could flood the penalty box with his forwards and and huge defenders. It'd be farcical.
How can the attacking team see the flight of the ball but the defending team can't? You are making it out to be some major thing, but in reality it is nothing.
1. Agree. I've always said this.
2. No.
3. Agree, but only if static, ie no run up.
2 and 3 look like they're trying to fix problems that don't need fixing. Just leave it.
1, I think is at least addressing the situation that we don't want to see people offside by millimetres in VAR, but I don't particularly like this as the answer. Personally I think a better solution is to alter how VAR is used rather than the law itself - Let the assistant make a decision on pitch and anything where (eg) a part of the body is offside but not the whole body is "Umpire's call" like in cricket. The purpose of reviewing should be to eliminate howlers, not apply minutiae.
Agree with Dungeon Master on 2 and 3 - who watches football and thinks it's being held back by corners blowing back into play and the game being stopped? It's a non-issue as far as I can see. Same with throw-ins.
1 basically sounds like the old "daylight" rule. I've never liked the "any part of his body that can score" rule and would favour Wenger's suggestion.
While I agree that "the purpose of reviewing should be to eliminate howlers, not apply minutiae", that's likely to lead to issues with consistency, where a team have a goal disallowed on the Sunday that was demonstrably the same as one that stood on the Saturday etc - it's just that they'd been interpreted differently. As depressingly forensic as the current VAR/offside situation is, at least it's generally objective.
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 2 seconds ago
Agree with Dungeon Master on 2 and 3 - who watches football and thinks it's being held back by corners blowing back into play and the game being stopped? It's a non-issue as far as I can see. Same with throw-ins.
1 basically sounds like the old "daylight" rule. I've never liked the "any part of his body that can score" rule and would favour Wenger's suggestion.
While I agree that "the purpose of reviewing should be to eliminate howlers, not apply minutiae", that's likely to lead to issues with consistency, where a team have a goal disallowed on the Sunday that was demonstrably the same as one that stood on the Saturday etc - it's just that they'd been interpreted differently. As depressingly forensic as the current VAR/offside situation is, at least it's generally objective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I appreciate my view isn't particularly popular. I'm basically content with football being a game of interpretation, almost a game of "what you can get away with", rather than having black and white rules which are either broken or not. I think the sport is better for being somewhat subjective. I think the only thing you really want is for each individual ref - or set of officials - to apply his judgement fairly to both sides. Then, as long as what the refs are doing is broadly the same, I'm happy with each using their judgement as best they can.
In this country, refs tend to get praised most when they're letting the game flow and we don't see them. We prefer more relaxed interpretations of the laws in our game, more physical contact, ushering players back up when they've gone down "too easily". I think it's practically impossible to draw an absolute line on such things, and attempts to draw such a line end up with clunky gameplay. That's why I'm ok with a degree of subjectivity.
But as I say, I know that's not a popular view.
The problem is with corners going out of play is that it literally defeats the point of the rules and it is inconsistent.
If the ball is out of play, its out of play, its as simple as that, why try and bend the rules to make it easier for an out swinging corner to go right on top of the goalkeeper, its ludicrous.
Kick ins just seem like a way to bypass a high press in your own half. Good in concept but don't really see how it would be viable within the game imo and couldn't see it being a change that would benefit the game really without controversy.
The offside rule doesn't need to change. Simple.
I think we should take the new handball rule further because it's called "Football" not "bodyball" or "everything but the arm ball". So like now, how it is a foul if it touches the arm, it should be a foul if it touches any part of the body that isn't the foot. Yes, players can just blast it at eachother like they do now with the arm, but it would make it more objective and fair and therefore better. It's called "football" for a reason.
I don't much like the idea of the kick-ins thing but the reasoning Wenger made for it does make sense. His point was that throw-ins, particularly late in the game when each possession becomes more important, are often a disadvantage to the team taking them, as you have one player out of the game taking the throw, meaning the defending team have a man advantage. There's some stat that around 80% of throw-ins end up with the team taking it conceding possession!
Although I've always thought Arsenal were uncommonly terrible at throws, so maybe that's Wenger's real reason for it.
How do they scale that fact about 80% of throw-ins end up with the opposition coming away with the ball? Is it after 5 passes? After 20 passes? After 30 seconds? Not sure how reliable that stat is without seeing how it is judged first personally.
If a player commits a foul worthy of a red card, but it is that players birthday, the ref shows them the birthday card and the player remains on the pitch but misses the next match.
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 6 minutes ago
How do they scale that fact about 80% of throw-ins end up with the opposition coming away with the ball? Is it after 5 passes? After 20 passes? After 30 seconds? Not sure how reliable that stat is without seeing how it is judged first personally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Within 90 minutes at most I reckon.
comment by TheSkins (U3865)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 6 minutes ago
How do they scale that fact about 80% of throw-ins end up with the opposition coming away with the ball? Is it after 5 passes? After 20 passes? After 30 seconds? Not sure how reliable that stat is without seeing how it is judged first personally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Within 90 minutes at most I reckon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If somebody has a throw in, keep hold of possession for 10 passes and then give the ball away, is that giving the ball away off a throw in?
Or is it if somebody throws the ball in for a feet and back and the return goes out of play? This seems more logical and I can tell you that doesn't happen 80% of the time.
Wenger saving football once again.
Sign in if you want to comment
Proposed Rule changes
Page 2 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 8/10/20
comment by Troy's Tanguy Tanganga of Tottenham (U6468)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
If the ball goes over the goal line and come back out then no goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AT Old Trafford the local bye law is that the ball has to hit the back of the net for it to be a goal.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/23/article-1268332-01F865D10000044D-827_308x185.jpg
posted on 8/10/20
They sound ok to me, wouldn't mind seeing Roberto Carlos type corners, swerving out of play then back in again, keepers looking baffled.
posted on 8/10/20
I don't get why they don't simply make offside whichever part of your body that touches the ball has to be onside.
posted on 8/10/20
The biggest problem with the corner one is 99% of corners would not come onto the pitch. Would these be retaken, or would it be a goal kick?
posted on 8/10/20
They should get rid of the handball rules all together if it’s accidental the handball rule is just ambiguous and controversial
posted on 8/10/20
comment by AFC Bash - Pepe like to Partey with Auba (U21751)
posted 17 seconds ago
They should get rid of the handball rules all together if it’s accidental the handball rule is just ambiguous and controversial
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So people can just pick the ball up and run with it?
posted on 8/10/20
FFS! All this forensic examination will kill the game. Just let refs get on with it - the game is designed to be played and ref'd by humans, and they ALL make mistakes.
That's why it's a game, not a computer program.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Mason, Marcus, Martial - Mountains are there t... (U3867)
posted 5 minutes ago
Oh and I don't understand the thinking in the corner kick one. If it's so more goals are scored why not make the rule for in play as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is to give the attacking team the advantage, allow the corner taker to swing it in to the box. The corner quadrant is actually quite restrictive as to what you can do, so maybe an alternative is to make the area you can take a corner from bigger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't really see how it is fair. How is the keeper supposed to keep a track of the flight of the ball when it is being him and the posts, crossbar and nets are in the way?
Imagine someone like Becks swinging them in from the right to the back post? He'd be able to get it so that it is only in play for the last few yards and drops right in on the post. Its not fair on the defending team.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Mason, Marcus, Martial - Mountains are there t... (U3867)
posted 5 minutes ago
Oh and I don't understand the thinking in the corner kick one. If it's so more goals are scored why not make the rule for in play as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is to give the attacking team the advantage, allow the corner taker to swing it in to the box. The corner quadrant is actually quite restrictive as to what you can do, so maybe an alternative is to make the area you can take a corner from bigger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't really see how it is fair. How is the keeper supposed to keep a track of the flight of the ball when it is being him and the posts, crossbar and nets are in the way?
Imagine someone like Becks swinging them in from the right to the back post? He'd be able to get it so that it is only in play for the last few yards and drops right in on the post. Its not fair on the defending team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why it is an advantage to the attacking team.
posted on 8/10/20
1.
2. <shrugs>
3.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Mason, Marcus, Martial - Mountains are there t... (U3867)
posted 5 minutes ago
Oh and I don't understand the thinking in the corner kick one. If it's so more goals are scored why not make the rule for in play as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is to give the attacking team the advantage, allow the corner taker to swing it in to the box. The corner quadrant is actually quite restrictive as to what you can do, so maybe an alternative is to make the area you can take a corner from bigger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't really see how it is fair. How is the keeper supposed to keep a track of the flight of the ball when it is being him and the posts, crossbar and nets are in the way?
Imagine someone like Becks swinging them in from the right to the back post? He'd be able to get it so that it is only in play for the last few yards and drops right in on the post. Its not fair on the defending team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why it is an advantage to the attacking team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its an advantage by being completely unfair. If the defending team can't even see the flight of the ball, how are they supposed to compete for it? It is quite a ridiculous idea. No need to make these changed for what is already a fantastic sport. Goals should be earned. Not gifted from unfair corner situations or from what would have previously been a throw-in in your own half.
I mean come on. With the throw in one you'd have managers like Pullis playing 2 6ft 5" strikers and looking to win throw ins/kick ins in their own half so that he could flood the penalty box with his forwards and and huge defenders. It'd be farcical.
posted on 8/10/20
How can the attacking team see the flight of the ball but the defending team can't? You are making it out to be some major thing, but in reality it is nothing.
posted on 8/10/20
1. Agree. I've always said this.
2. No.
3. Agree, but only if static, ie no run up.
posted on 8/10/20
2 and 3 look like they're trying to fix problems that don't need fixing. Just leave it.
1, I think is at least addressing the situation that we don't want to see people offside by millimetres in VAR, but I don't particularly like this as the answer. Personally I think a better solution is to alter how VAR is used rather than the law itself - Let the assistant make a decision on pitch and anything where (eg) a part of the body is offside but not the whole body is "Umpire's call" like in cricket. The purpose of reviewing should be to eliminate howlers, not apply minutiae.
posted on 8/10/20
Agree with Dungeon Master on 2 and 3 - who watches football and thinks it's being held back by corners blowing back into play and the game being stopped? It's a non-issue as far as I can see. Same with throw-ins.
1 basically sounds like the old "daylight" rule. I've never liked the "any part of his body that can score" rule and would favour Wenger's suggestion.
While I agree that "the purpose of reviewing should be to eliminate howlers, not apply minutiae", that's likely to lead to issues with consistency, where a team have a goal disallowed on the Sunday that was demonstrably the same as one that stood on the Saturday etc - it's just that they'd been interpreted differently. As depressingly forensic as the current VAR/offside situation is, at least it's generally objective.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 2 seconds ago
Agree with Dungeon Master on 2 and 3 - who watches football and thinks it's being held back by corners blowing back into play and the game being stopped? It's a non-issue as far as I can see. Same with throw-ins.
1 basically sounds like the old "daylight" rule. I've never liked the "any part of his body that can score" rule and would favour Wenger's suggestion.
While I agree that "the purpose of reviewing should be to eliminate howlers, not apply minutiae", that's likely to lead to issues with consistency, where a team have a goal disallowed on the Sunday that was demonstrably the same as one that stood on the Saturday etc - it's just that they'd been interpreted differently. As depressingly forensic as the current VAR/offside situation is, at least it's generally objective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I appreciate my view isn't particularly popular. I'm basically content with football being a game of interpretation, almost a game of "what you can get away with", rather than having black and white rules which are either broken or not. I think the sport is better for being somewhat subjective. I think the only thing you really want is for each individual ref - or set of officials - to apply his judgement fairly to both sides. Then, as long as what the refs are doing is broadly the same, I'm happy with each using their judgement as best they can.
In this country, refs tend to get praised most when they're letting the game flow and we don't see them. We prefer more relaxed interpretations of the laws in our game, more physical contact, ushering players back up when they've gone down "too easily". I think it's practically impossible to draw an absolute line on such things, and attempts to draw such a line end up with clunky gameplay. That's why I'm ok with a degree of subjectivity.
But as I say, I know that's not a popular view.
posted on 8/10/20
The problem is with corners going out of play is that it literally defeats the point of the rules and it is inconsistent.
If the ball is out of play, its out of play, its as simple as that, why try and bend the rules to make it easier for an out swinging corner to go right on top of the goalkeeper, its ludicrous.
Kick ins just seem like a way to bypass a high press in your own half. Good in concept but don't really see how it would be viable within the game imo and couldn't see it being a change that would benefit the game really without controversy.
The offside rule doesn't need to change. Simple.
posted on 8/10/20
I think we should take the new handball rule further because it's called "Football" not "bodyball" or "everything but the arm ball". So like now, how it is a foul if it touches the arm, it should be a foul if it touches any part of the body that isn't the foot. Yes, players can just blast it at eachother like they do now with the arm, but it would make it more objective and fair and therefore better. It's called "football" for a reason.
posted on 8/10/20
I don't much like the idea of the kick-ins thing but the reasoning Wenger made for it does make sense. His point was that throw-ins, particularly late in the game when each possession becomes more important, are often a disadvantage to the team taking them, as you have one player out of the game taking the throw, meaning the defending team have a man advantage. There's some stat that around 80% of throw-ins end up with the team taking it conceding possession!
posted on 8/10/20
Although I've always thought Arsenal were uncommonly terrible at throws, so maybe that's Wenger's real reason for it.
posted on 8/10/20
How do they scale that fact about 80% of throw-ins end up with the opposition coming away with the ball? Is it after 5 passes? After 20 passes? After 30 seconds? Not sure how reliable that stat is without seeing how it is judged first personally.
posted on 8/10/20
If a player commits a foul worthy of a red card, but it is that players birthday, the ref shows them the birthday card and the player remains on the pitch but misses the next match.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 6 minutes ago
How do they scale that fact about 80% of throw-ins end up with the opposition coming away with the ball? Is it after 5 passes? After 20 passes? After 30 seconds? Not sure how reliable that stat is without seeing how it is judged first personally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Within 90 minutes at most I reckon.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by TheSkins (U3865)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 6 minutes ago
How do they scale that fact about 80% of throw-ins end up with the opposition coming away with the ball? Is it after 5 passes? After 20 passes? After 30 seconds? Not sure how reliable that stat is without seeing how it is judged first personally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Within 90 minutes at most I reckon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If somebody has a throw in, keep hold of possession for 10 passes and then give the ball away, is that giving the ball away off a throw in?
Or is it if somebody throws the ball in for a feet and back and the return goes out of play? This seems more logical and I can tell you that doesn't happen 80% of the time.
posted on 8/10/20
Wenger saving football once again.
Page 2 of 7
6 | 7