Law Changes

[Sutekh]

There will be some minor fiddling to the laws of the game commencing next season. IFAB (International Football Association Board​) have announced

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... ology.html

Changes planned are :

1. At kick off the ball does not have to be played forward
2. Referees will have the power to send players off BEFORE a match starts
3. The stupid treatment rule will be rescinded and players will once again be able to receive treatment on the pitch and not have to walk off and wait until the referee says they can come back on again
4. Referees will be allowed more leeway over player punishments e.g currently, a player who denies a goalscoring opportunity in the box is automatically dismissed and handed a suspension, as well as giving away a penalty. However the law will be changed so that players committing accidental fouls that deny such chances are booked rather than automatically sent off.
5. Italy will trial video technology in private for before moving to a 'live' pilot phase with replay assistance by the 2017-2018 season at the latest. If successful 13 countries (inc. England and Scotland) have expressed an interest in taking up the technology

[Jack Celliers]

4 sounds like it is going to be very messy. I didn't know there was such a thing as an accidental foul.

[paultheroyal]

Disagree with 3. I actually think it works.

Because feigning and time wasting has been growing in recent years you will have players going down for everything.

The amount of players who go down but then don't receive treatment because they will be removed from the pitch is high.

Trainers will be on all the time now, slowing game down particularly in second half. If they are going to do this, do the rugby law and have them treated on pitch whilst game still going on lol.

[Winston Smith]

Agree with the principle of 4 but it will create more arguments and hands some faux anger to certain managers in their post match interview.

What is the point in changing 1? Makes little difference to the overall game but means kick offs will just become 1 player hooooofing the ball back to their keeper or defence to play safe. At least now it can mean the opposition can charge in and the action starts straight away.

[Winston Smith]

I didn't know there was such a thing as an accidental foul.

Not sure if serious

[harry]

Disagree with 3. I actually think it works.

Because feigning and time wasting has been growing in recent years you will have players going down for everything.

The amount of players who go down but then don't receive treatment because they will be removed from the pitch is high.

Trainers will be on all the time now, slowing game down particularly in second half. If they are going to do this, do the rugby law and have them treated on pitch whilst game still going on lol.

Agree with you. It it is annoying when a genuine injury means you go down to 10 players while player is treated. However the benefits, to my mind, far outweigh this disadvantage.

[harry]

I didn't know there was such a thing as an accidental foul.

Not sure if serious

In my day I accidentally fouled quite a few players. I only ever intentionally fouled one. I was gutted when the (alleged) little scumbag subsequently signed on loan. Had to massively eat humble pie when celebrating his debut goal - the 2nd last -minute equaliser in the "you're not singing anymore" game at Gillingham.

[harry]

Agree with the principle of 4 but it will create more arguments and hands some faux anger to certain managers in their post match interview.

What is the point in changing 1? Makes little difference to the overall game but means kick offs will just become 1 player hooooofing the ball back to their keeper or defence to play safe. At least now it can mean the opposition can charge in and the action starts straight away.

Agree on both of those.
Especially if the team that has just conceded are say now only 2-1 up with seconds to go.
Still, it'll be worth it when the first own goal goes in.

[stealthpapes]

Disagree with 3. I actually think it works.

Because feigning and time wasting has been growing in recent years you will have players going down for everything.

The amount of players who go down but then don't receive treatment because they will be removed from the pitch is high.

Trainers will be on all the time now, slowing game down particularly in second half. If they are going to do this, do the rugby law and have them treated on pitch whilst game still going on lol.

There's a small part of me that thinks it would be an idea to see how that actually works in practice.

If you know that play will go on, you're not going to risk faking, surely?

[stealthpapes]

4 seems like a tin of worms, with a comedy inflatable worm waiting to burst out.

[Deadlock]

How often would 2 happen?

[stealthpapes]

I'm going for "often enough to be moderately controversial"

TBF, players have been sent off before being substituted on, so who knows how silly they are?

[Silver Fox]

Didn't Viera and Keane once have a bit of a barney in the tunnel pre-match once? Or am I just imagining something you could easily see happening?

[John Madejski's Wallet]

Agree with 4, but 3 is a massive sh'tty backwards step

It was brought in to stop all the faking and timewasting, so why has it been brought back? It's going to be awful seeing the timewasting now. The ONLY way it should be changed is to allow play to continue while treatment on the pitch occurs. Mental

[Ian Royal]

Agree with 4, but 3 is a massive sh'tty backwards step

It was brought in to stop all the faking and timewasting, so why has it been brought back? It's going to be awful seeing the timewasting now. The ONLY way it should be changed is to allow play to continue while treatment on the pitch occurs. Mental

It doesn't really work though, as the players inevitably stay on the pitch for ages in case moving them might make things worse (not that half of them are injured anyway). I agree the change should be for physios to just come on and play continue.

You can usually tell when someone is seriously hurt. I've generally been of the opinion that anyone else should just get off the fricking pitch if they want treatment. It pisses me off no end when there's some twat sat right next to the line with what's either a faked injury, or one that isn't particularly debilitating and all they have to do is roll three feet and they can have treatment.

[From Despair To Where?]

How often would 2 happen?

I'd send Neil Warlock off just for turning up.

[tmesis]

Having seen how badly video replays work in rugby half the time, I'm not sure about No.5

It only seems to give a conclusive decision about 3/4s of the time at best, I'd say. Part of the problem is that they just use Sky/BT Sport's camera feed, which isn't often very well placed to see what's happened.

Also, if you get an indecisive ref, it can add 10-15 minutes to a game, as they keep going to the reply.

[Tony Le Mesmer]

Dislike 3, but agree with the principal of 4.

The current triple punishment is wrong. I'd like to see a pen and yellow given in all cases, except where a certain goal is denied (eg deliberate hand ball on the line). The award of a penalty is adv the attacking team in almost all circumstances apart from that.

[Ian Royal]

Dislike 3, but agree with the principal of 4.

The current triple punishment is wrong. I'd like to see a pen and yellow given in all cases, except where a certain goal is denied (eg deliberate hand ball on the line). The award of a penalty is adv the attacking team in almost all circumstances apart from that.

Taking what you say literally.
Punch someone outside the box - red card and freekick.
Punch someone inside the box - yellow card and penalty.

Whether it's a red card or not depends on the offence. You could argue ref's should put more emphasis on intent to 'prevent a clear goalscoring opportunity' for that specific offence, but not prevent reds happening with penalties.

[Tony Le Mesmer]

Dislike 3, but agree with the principal of 4.

The current triple punishment is wrong. I'd like to see a pen and yellow given in all cases, except where a certain goal is denied (eg deliberate hand ball on the line). The award of a penalty is adv the attacking team in almost all circumstances apart from that.

Taking what you say literally.
Punch someone outside the box - red card and freekick.
Punch someone inside the box - yellow card and penalty.

Whether it's a red card or not depends on the offence. You could argue ref's should put more emphasis on intent to 'prevent a clear goalscoring opportunity' for that specific offence, but not prevent reds happening with penalties.

Should really have said red cards for denying a goalscoring opportunity. Violent conduct is a different matter obviously