mike_l
Well-Known Member
- Jul 29, 2005
- 5,171
- 3,676
Why on earth are you do desperate to cling on to all the negatives that you've just listed will be lost? Just so you feel like you got your money's worth?
Rule Changes Discussion
- Thread starter Krule
- Start date
fluffybunnyuk
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 2,210
- 2,473
Its a good thing england,n. ireland,wales and scotland (1 vote each) and fifa (4 votes) have seperate seats on ifab. With a 3/4 majority needed makes it very difficult for people to screw with the games laws. I dont mind minor changes like suggested in this thread.
Lighty64
I believe
- Aug 24, 2010
- 10,400
- 12,476
because the game is meant to be played for 90 mins and its annoying that more than 1/3 of it is heavily weighted on time wasting, in a business that is meant to be entertainment. if the stats where closer to the ball being in play for 80 I don't think anyone could complain.
I am also in a camp where I think whoever you support, the cost now days is way over the top
LexingtonSpurs
Well-Known Member
- Aug 27, 2013
- 13,456
- 39,042
They should make a new rule regarding the total time a player can spend with a national team in any given calendar year. Maybe make exceptions for tournament years - or instead of limiting "days" limit the number of call-ups per year - maybe 4 call-ups per year.
That would rotate the national squad players a bit, so other players get a chance to prove themselves, and you make sure everyone gets some break during the club season.
That would rotate the national squad players a bit, so other players get a chance to prove themselves, and you make sure everyone gets some break during the club season.
Gb160
Well done boys. Good process
- Jun 20, 2012
- 23,666
- 93,382
Why would they implement a rule that doesn't favour the national side in any way?
LexingtonSpurs
Well-Known Member
- Aug 27, 2013
- 13,456
- 39,042
I think it does favour the national teams in the long run - but not burning out the players, and reducing injury risks for those players...
Gb160
Well done boys. Good process
- Jun 20, 2012
- 23,666
- 93,382
Obviously not an accepted view as they have the option to do this now , yet they don't.
Also never understood the notion that it leads to injuries...its not like if a player doesn't get called up they get a few weeks at home with their feet up, they'd still be training everyday.
I understand that as an American you couldn't care less about our players representing England, I bloody love it, it makes me proud...you should also remember that it's probably what these players have dreamt about and worked towards for their entire careers, so I imagine its something they bloody love as well.
LexingtonSpurs
Well-Known Member
- Aug 27, 2013
- 13,456
- 39,042
It has nothing to do with being an American. I probably watch as many England matches as US matches these days.
But, injuries happen more frequently when players are fatigued. This is true in every athletic endeavor - not just football. Teams often give players time off during the International breaks - and the training that takes place would be less stressful than a match.
And, there is a reason that its not done now - National team managers are paid to win - not to rotate the squad, or to protect the assets of the players' clubs. Nobody is looking out for the players' best interests here. And, I agree, that playing for a national team is a great honour for the player (and for the clubs they represent) but as Poch likes to say - the players are not machines. It should not be down solely to the club to rest players who are over-extended on national duty - those club managers are also paid to win...
Gb160
Well done boys. Good process
- Jun 20, 2012
- 23,666
- 93,382
All managers are paid to win, so im not sure what your point is there.
Seems a strange coincidence that this point is raised a lot more often by our foreign fans, and by English fans who don't follow the national side.
Personally I think the schedule doesn't do any favours...the players are expected to play too many games these days, but I don't see how you can expect the national side to rest fully fit players, when the club coach very rarely does it either.
LexingtonSpurs
Well-Known Member
- Aug 27, 2013
- 13,456
- 39,042
Suit yourself.
Poch agrees with me, but he probably doesn't know anything about football, or football players either.
nailsy
SC Supporter
- Jul 24, 2005
- 30,536
- 46,630
I doubt it will make that much difference. Time wasting isn't just about using up minutes, it's also about disrupting the flow of the game, ruining momentum, about taking a breather, or giving your team mates time to move into position.
Danners9
Available on a Free Transfer
- Mar 30, 2004
- 14,012
- 20,777
Bump
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/attackers-face-ban-from-wall-vtg2sfpv6
Attacking players are to be banned from standing next to opposing defenders in the wall at free kicks as part of a shake-up of football’s laws. The International FA Board (Ifab) is set to impose a rule at a meeting today that from next season players from the team taking the free kick must be at least a metre away from the defenders in the wall.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/attackers-face-ban-from-wall-vtg2sfpv6
Attacking players are to be banned from standing next to opposing defenders in the wall at free kicks as part of a shake-up of football’s laws. The International FA Board (Ifab) is set to impose a rule at a meeting today that from next season players from the team taking the free kick must be at least a metre away from the defenders in the wall.
Saoirse
Well-Known Member
- Aug 20, 2013
- 6,161
- 15,638
Don't think I like this one. Direct free kicks are already hard enough to score from. We're risking a position where giving them away is trivial.
chrissivad
Staff
- May 20, 2005
- 51,646
- 58,072
- Staff
- #55
Just let the defending team set up a wall and then the attacking players can go were they like.
Stops players trying to push in or pushed out of a wall
Stops players trying to push in or pushed out of a wall
nailsy
SC Supporter
- Jul 24, 2005
- 30,536
- 46,630
Sounds like an interesting change. The pushing in the wall can be a bit much.
I get what you're saying, but I don't remember pushing in the wall being a thing years ago. It's something that's crept into the game and it seems the rule change is just trying to re-set things.
I get what you're saying, but I don't remember pushing in the wall being a thing years ago. It's something that's crept into the game and it seems the rule change is just trying to re-set things.
nailsy
SC Supporter
- Jul 24, 2005
- 30,536
- 46,630
There's some more changes:
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47429316
Goals scored or created with the use of an accidental handball will not stand from next season onwards, the International FA Board (Ifab) have confirmed.
The changes mean that a free-kick will be awarded when a goal or clear chance occurs from a handball.
Ifab technical director David Elleray explained the changes at their AGM in Aberdeen.
"Deliberate handball remains an offence," Elleray stressed.
"In the past we've managed to improve the laws by focusing on outcome rather than intent.
"What we are looking at particularly in attacking situations is where the player gets a clear unfair advantage by gaining possession or control of the ball, as a result of it making contact with their hand or arm."
The changes mean gaining control or possession and then scoring as a consequence of handling the ball will not be allowed - neither will a goal scored directly from handling the ball, regardless of intent.
Another change to the laws of the game means that if the player's arms extend beyond a "natural silhouette", handball will be given, even if it is perceived as accidental.
Elleray says this is an effort to put an end to defenders placing their arms behind their backs in fear of giving away a free-kick.
"We've changed it to say the body has a certain silhouette," said Elleray. "If the arms are extended beyond that silhouette then the body is being made unnaturally bigger, with the purpose of it being a bigger barrier to the opponent or the ball.
"Players should be allowed to have their arms by their side because it's their natural silhouette."
In other changes approved by Ifab, substitutes will have to leave the pitch at the nearest goalline or touchline instead of walking to their technical area in a bid to stop time wasting.
Additional approved law changes included measures to deal with attacking players causing problems in the defensive wall, giving a dropped ball in certain situations when the ball hits the referee and the goalkeeper only being required to have one foot on the line at a penalty kick.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47429316
Goals scored or created with the use of an accidental handball will not stand from next season onwards, the International FA Board (Ifab) have confirmed.
The changes mean that a free-kick will be awarded when a goal or clear chance occurs from a handball.
Ifab technical director David Elleray explained the changes at their AGM in Aberdeen.
"Deliberate handball remains an offence," Elleray stressed.
"In the past we've managed to improve the laws by focusing on outcome rather than intent.
"What we are looking at particularly in attacking situations is where the player gets a clear unfair advantage by gaining possession or control of the ball, as a result of it making contact with their hand or arm."
The changes mean gaining control or possession and then scoring as a consequence of handling the ball will not be allowed - neither will a goal scored directly from handling the ball, regardless of intent.
Another change to the laws of the game means that if the player's arms extend beyond a "natural silhouette", handball will be given, even if it is perceived as accidental.
Elleray says this is an effort to put an end to defenders placing their arms behind their backs in fear of giving away a free-kick.
"We've changed it to say the body has a certain silhouette," said Elleray. "If the arms are extended beyond that silhouette then the body is being made unnaturally bigger, with the purpose of it being a bigger barrier to the opponent or the ball.
"Players should be allowed to have their arms by their side because it's their natural silhouette."
In other changes approved by Ifab, substitutes will have to leave the pitch at the nearest goalline or touchline instead of walking to their technical area in a bid to stop time wasting.
Additional approved law changes included measures to deal with attacking players causing problems in the defensive wall, giving a dropped ball in certain situations when the ball hits the referee and the goalkeeper only being required to have one foot on the line at a penalty kick.
nailsy
SC Supporter
- Jul 24, 2005
- 30,536
- 46,630
Not sure about this natural silhouette business. Arms by the side not being a penalty is fine, but does this mean that every time a player has his hands away from his body and the ball hits an arm it will be a penalty? How's a player meant to run and block a cross with his hands by his side?
WalkerboyUK
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2009
- 21,658
- 23,476
The rule change seems to only be in the attacking sense, not defending. Doesn't mention conceding a penalty for handball, just scoring a goal as the result of an accidental handball. I don't think it's a big change really as there aren't many instances of goal scored via handball.
That being said, surely this will also require VAR in order to be implemented properly. If the ref doesn't see if, and there's no VAR, then the change in rule is completely pointless.
nailsy
SC Supporter
- Jul 24, 2005
- 30,536
- 46,630
This is the bit about the defenders:
"Another change to the laws of the game means that if the player's arms extend beyond a "natural silhouette", handball will be given, even if it is perceived as accidental.
Elleray says this is an effort to put an end to defenders placing their arms behind their backs in fear of giving away a free-kick.
"We've changed it to say the body has a certain silhouette," said Elleray. "If the arms are extended beyond that silhouette then the body is being made unnaturally bigger, with the purpose of it being a bigger barrier to the opponent or the ball. "
Are they saying that if the ball here was to hit the players arm that would be a handball/penalty? The player's trying to block the cross with his foot.
