Rule changes

Originally Posted by Grimson

There is no requirement to play the ball in the laws of the game, nor should there be. But I agree that sometimes there ARE fouls in these situations, and refs turn a blind eye because it's just easier to give the goal kick.

For the 'if it happened anywhere else on the pitch' argument - it doesn't happen anywhere else on the pitch. The only thing stopping other players getting involved is the ball going across the line. Imagine trying this at midfield.

Well, you could argue players block other people off all the time elsewhere. Letting it go for a goal kick is just another way of retaining possession. Stepping across someone to stop them running onto a pass shouldn't be different from stopping them keep the ball in.

But I think we agree. I'm not talking about every instance, but sometimes it takes the piss.

Originally Posted by Grimson

There is no requirement to play the ball in the laws of the game, nor should there be. But I agree that sometimes there ARE fouls in these situations, and refs turn a blind eye because it's just easier to give the goal kick.

For the 'if it happened anywhere else on the pitch' argument - it doesn't happen anywhere else on the pitch. The only thing stopping other players getting involved is the ball going across the line. Imagine trying this at midfield.

I'm sure one of our #@&%! midfielders has probably tried it at some point.

We could be seeing a lot more desperate lunges in the box next season then, take a yellow and an opportunity for the keeper to save a pen over a certain goal.

I've made my feelings on shielding the ball out of play plenty enough before. Physicaly impeding another player whilst making no attempt to play the bell feels completely against the spirit of the rules. If the attacking side have played the ball too long for someone to get on the end of it then there's no need to block them anyway.

Definitely need to punish players who think they can decide when a foul has happened and handle the ball. Good shouts there

Anyway

"Injured player can get treatment on pitch for up to 20 seconds & stay on, i.e. not have to go to touchline & await ref's nod to come back on"

Interesting one, this. Not least because they're specifying 20 seconds, when I think back to any time a physio has to come on 20 secs is barely enough for them to make an assessment.

I'd like to see it changed so if a physio comes on, they have to indicate to the ref if the player can stay on the pitch or not. If it's not serious, play can resume whilst the physio gives quick treatment during play (like in the rugby codes) and the player can stay on the pitch. If it is more serious, the physio tells the ref they should go off and the player isn't allowed back on the pitch for, say, two minutes.

If it's serious enough that you need to go off then your side is losing out already, a forced break makes little difference. If it's not serious enough but you want to go off anyway in order to take up time, then it's your side who should be punished.

Originally Posted by Grimson

I can't get behind that one. If the defending player gets to the ball/space first, he's entitled to that space & imo shouldn't be required to play the ball, especially when 99% of the time the situation you're describing is caused by an over-hit pass.

Originally Posted by Grimson

Well, because it's not obstruction if he's within playing distance of the ball.

we are talking about rule changes, no?

Originally Posted by MrBishi

I've made my feelings on shielding the ball out of play plenty enough before. Physicaly impeding another player whilst making no attempt to play the bell feels completely against the spirit of the rules.

this.

you should be able to shield the ball if you have possession, which you can only establish by contact - you can't have possession just because you're nearish and got there first. making no attempt to play the ball, whilst deliberately preventing an oponent from playing the ball, should be punishable by death.

or at least a free kick.

Originally Posted by Grimson

There is no requirement to play the ball in the laws of the game, nor should there be. But I agree that sometimes there ARE fouls in these situations, and refs turn a blind eye because it's just easier to give the goal kick.

For the 'if it happened anywhere else on the pitch' argument - it doesn't happen anywhere else on the pitch. The only thing stopping other players getting involved is the ball going across the line. Imagine trying this at midfield.

Playing the man instead of the ball? It happens all the time mate. Have you never seen a player knock one past and get taken out by an opponent who has absolutely no intention of making an effort to play the ball? And what is the usual outcome? Am i going mad or something?

Originally Posted by utd99

Playing the man instead of the ball? It happens all the time mate. Have you never seen a player knock one past and get taken out by an opponent who has absolutely no intention of making an effort to play the ball? And what is the usual outcome? Am i going mad or something?

That's not the same thing at all though.

What happens in the corner is a defender shielding the ball from a player who never had possession of it, and simply letting the ball run without playing it.

That doesn't happen anywhere else. It can't; someone else would just come from the other side and play the ball.

Originally Posted by Grimson

That's not the same thing at all though.

What happens in the corner is a defender shielding the ball from a player who never had possession of it, and simply letting the ball run without playing it.

That doesn't happen anywhere else. It can't; someone else would just come from the other side and play the ball.

But in most cases where this happens the defender doesn't have possession either; nor is he even trying to gain possession by definition. Simply being the closest player to the ball doesn't signify possession does it?

Ok, look at it a little differently then. Is an outfield player entitled to body block a goalkeeper from collecting a cross merely because he is technically closer to it?

Originally Posted by utd99

But in most cases where this happens the defender doesn't have possession either; nor is he even trying to gain possession by definition. Simply being the closest player to the ball doesn't signify possession does it?

Ok, look at it a little differently then. Is an outfield player entitled to body block a goalkeeper from collecting a cross merely because he is technically closer to it?

Well, 'possession' is not really a part of the laws of the game, except for goalkeepers. All other players can be fairly challenged for the ball at any time.

Here's how the law is written:

All players have a right to their position on the field of play, being in the way of
an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.
Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an
opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence as
long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off
the opponent with his arms or body

Regarding goalkeepers, the law is that they cannot be 'unfairly impeded.' Up to the ref's discretion what that means.

IFAB: "At kick-off, the ball can now be kicked in any direction, including backwards so no team-mates allowed to stand in opponents' half"

"IFAB on throw-ins: "The ball must be thrown with BOTH hands and not thrown with one hand and 'guided' with the other'."

Apparently the the team that scores the MOST goals will now be declared the winner.

"IFAB may in the future debate changes to hand-ball laws, including on the line (Suarez v Ghana) which could be punished with a penalty goal."

Originally Posted by Grimson

Well, 'possession' is not really a part of the laws of the game, except for goalkeepers. All other players can be fairly challenged for the ball at any time.

Here's how the law is written:

All players have a right to their position on the field of play, being in the way of
an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.
Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an
opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence as
long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off
the opponent with his arms or body

Regarding goalkeepers, the law is that they cannot be 'unfairly impeded.' Up to the ref's discretion what that means.

And I think the crux of where we disagree is that I think not attempting to gain possession yourself while impeding an opponent from trying to is the same type of 'unfair impediment' that goalies are protected from.

Originally Posted by Zorg

Apparently the the team that scores the MOST goals will now be declared the winner.

Where does this leave the possession stat then? Van Gaal must be livid.

Originally Posted by utd99

Where does this leave the possession stat then? Van Gaal must be livid.

he'll be made up that we can sustain 100% possession simply by being somewhere near the ball, though.

Originally Posted by Zorg

Apparently the the team that scores the MOST goals will now be declared the winner.

Bugger!

goalkeepers not allowed to pass back to themselves.

time keeping taken out of refs hands - or he has control of a stadium clock that stops when he stops his watch. they need to crack down on all time wasting.

professional fouls - hauling opponents back to stop a counter attack etc - straight red.

why stop the game for a substitution? maybe 1 of the 3 you are allowed to stop the game to give a player the moment...

clampdown with red cards for touching the ref as well.

managers sit the £#%&! down. you've got 10 minutes total per half in the technical area.

Throw in laws are weird. I can see why GK-style single arm 60 yard throws aren't allowed but why can't I do a basketball style pass or roll it out with two hands?

Originally Posted by Luffy

Throw in laws are weird. I can see why GK-style single arm 60 yard throws aren't allowed but why can't I do a basketball style pass or roll it out with two hands?

Originally Posted by jem

he'll be made up that we can sustain 100% possession simply by being somewhere near the ball, though.

The Lord giveth....

Originally Posted by Grimson

Here's how the law is written:

All players have a right to their position on the field of play, being in the way of
an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.
Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an
opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence as
long as the ball is kept within playing distance ( Often in these instances it's not) and the player does not hold off
the opponent with his arms or body (That's pretty much exactly what they do tbh.)

Regarding goalkeepers, the law is that they cannot be 'unfairly impeded.' Up to the ref's discretion what that means.

.

Originally Posted by utd99

The Lord giveth....


.

Yep. Spot on. Ball is five yards from either player and the defender is just stepping backwards and smacking into the attackers chest

Boils my piss, that one.

Defenders doing 'just enough' when jumping for headers and forcing the striker to miss. So he made no contact with the ball and the contact with the player was enough to stop him scoring.....right, so that would be a penalty then.

The only rule I'd introduce is a life ban and preferably a custodial sentence for anyone falling to the floor clutching their face, even if they've had their nose smashed in (which literally never happens).