Blatter's time penalty proposal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25586007

Where do you stand on this? I can see where he's coming from and it is very annoying when these fake injuries occur but this kind of measure would be unfair on players who genuinely needs treatment and their teams.

Simulation and diving can be dealt with by giving three match bans post match.

Nice idea, won't happen though.

There are so many other ways the game could be improved before meddling around the edges of the game like this. There are laws already in place to prevent fake injury. Firstly, time is added on at the end of the game. Secondly, an offender can be booked. I'd much rather some of these ideas were considered:

1) Offside - ALWAYS allow benefit of the doubt to the striker. At professional level, allow play to continue and pull it back if offside on a video replay
2) Only the captain to be allowed to talk to the ref. If not, yellow card or:
3) Sin bin
4) Allow ref to be able to award a penalty even if a foul is committed outside the box, where a foul is deemed to prevent a goalscoring opportunity.

Simster said:

There are so many other ways the game could be improved before meddling around the edges of the game like this. There are laws already in place to prevent fake injury. Firstly, time is added on at the end of the game. Secondly, an offender can be booked. I'd much rather some of these ideas were considered:

1) Offside - ALWAYS allow benefit of the doubt to the striker. At professional level, allow play to continue and pull it back if offside on a video replay
2) Only the captain to be allowed to talk to the ref. If not, yellow card or:
3) Sin bin
4) Allow ref to be able to award a penalty even if a foul is committed outside the box, where a foul is deemed to prevent a goalscoring opportunity.

Click to expand...

Please no. Video replays during the game would be crazy. Nobody would know what was going on unless they took even longer and announced it. Then the game would go on for hours like gridiron.
Penalties for fouls outside of the box? Are you serious? Sin bins? How about we leave the rules alone?

Simster said:

:

1) Offside - ALWAYS allow benefit of the doubt to the striker. At professional level, allow play to continue and pull it back if offside on a video replay

4) Allow ref to be able to award a penalty even if a foul is committed outside the box, where a foul is deemed to prevent a goalscoring opportunity.

Click to expand...

Oh, you're serious.

dougdeep said:

Please no. Video replays during the game would be crazy. Nobody would know what was going on unless they took even longer and announced it. Then the game would go on for hours like gridiron.
Penalties for fouls outside of the box? Are you serious? Sin bins? How about we leave the rules alone?

Click to expand...

I'm not saying we should change ALL of the rules at once, douglas.

And as for video replays, well you could always have a review system, such as in tennis or cricket? It doesn't work so well in cricket but works very well in tennis. And really, how many people are going to consider my second suggestion as a daft one? Aren't you fed up at a multitude of aggrieved players gobbing off at the ref?

The whole thing of making players leave the pitch if they have treatment was introduced to reduce the amount of feigned injuries that were used to waste time. I seem to remember it being a big thing at one of the early nineties world cups. I always shake my head at those pundits who question why we have this stupid rule, since there is that reason for it.

Though it has become less effective because people seem to have forgotten why it was introduced and so refs allow a greater degree of treatment on the pitch then wave them back on almost immediately.

I've thought for a while the refs should wait longer before allowing back on players whose injuries are more suspicious, so this idea gets my support.

Simster said:

I'm not saying we should change ALL of the rules at once, douglas.

And as for video replays, well you could always have a review system, such as in tennis or cricket? It doesn't work so well in cricket but works very well in tennis. And really, how many people are going to consider my second suggestion as a daft one? Aren't you fed up at a multitude of aggrieved players gobbing off at the ref?

Click to expand...

Tennis is a stuttered- point by point format.

It couldn't be more different to football.

Tennis is ideal for reviewing points. It has a natural stoppage. Football does not.

mejonaNO12 aka riskit said:

Oh, you're serious.

Click to expand...

1) How often have we seen this happen?
[yt]nsGeR6Xbf2I[/yt]

Sterling (I think) is a yard ON SIDE there. How many times in a game do you really think a decision like this would need to go upstairs? If it's that much of an issue, just add an appeal system.

4)
[yt]tGq7VcaHoqo[/yt]

Had Battiston just nudged this round Schumacher (the keeper) before he was flattened just outside the box, he'd have been able to tap it into an unguarded net. Surely a penalty would have been the correct decision if allowed?

And at the moment, an onrushing keeper can handle outside the box and step back in, rather than uses his head - at a cost of a card and a free kick rather than a penalty. I think that's wrong.

The idea of bans for diving is not new, and some kind of retrospective action seems plausible.

The idea of the ref as a medic is, of course, a nonsense, and I doubt any ref would act in the manner suggested.

A thing that could be addressed is a player genuinely hurt, needing attention after a foul on him should be allowed that attention and should not have to wait on the sideline to be allowed back. The fourth official should be allowed to send him back on ( a break from arguing the toss with managers on the sideline when he can do rugger all about the on-pitch decision).

If a player goes off after a foul, then the foulee should also go off until the injured player returns or is subbed ; as we all realise the team that was "sinned" against is currently disadvantaged by having to play with a man short which cannot be fair.

Yes I know.McCammon is fouled by Messi and goes off for 35 minutes taking Messi with him. Even so, this must be a fairer way of operating.

As for the obvious divers, constant actors, foul mouthed ref abusers and the such.........suspensions would work.

How about anyone leaving the field of play for treatment is required to wait a minimum of three minutes before being let back on. Players faking injuries, or with very minor ones that don't actually need treatment, would think twice (as they would leave their team a man down). Players with actual injuries would probably actually need that long for treatment anyway. A player who has left the field of play could be substituted before the three minutes, at a break in play.

Acker79 said:

The whole thing of making players leave the pitch if they have treatment was introduced to reduce the amount of feigned injuries that were used to waste time. I seem to remember it being a big thing at one of the early nineties world cups. I always shake my head at those pundits who question why we have this stupid rule, since there is that reason for it.

Though it has become less effective because people seem to have forgotten why it was introduced and so refs allow a greater degree of treatment on the pitch then wave them back on almost immediately.

I've thought for a while the refs should wait longer before allowing back on players whose injuries are more suspicious, so this idea gets my support.

Click to expand...

Yep I agree. Rule changes do need to be made sometimes. The best ever rule change was the rule that prevents the keeper picking the ball up from a pass back. It seems so obvious now, but even at the time Gary Lineker was complaining about it to anyone who would listen. It took professional goalkeepers (and defenders) about a season to adjust to this rule but has been resounding success ever since.

Surely this is pretty much already covered by the existing laws of the game? If the officials added all the time wasted by pillock footballers rolling around like pathetic toddlers, no time-wasting advantage would be gained. It would potentially make a difference to make the team with the pain-sensitive toddler play on for a while with 10 men, but there would be some middle ground where it would be a hard call to make to decide what was play-acting and what was genuine injury.

I would much prefer it if play just carried on for all bar head injuries (or other clearly serious injuries). Then any player with said head injury must undergo a 5 minute medical assessment before being allowed back on. If it's a genuine injury, this is good medical practice (or the player would be subbed off immediately anyway) and if it was fake, the team is penalised by playing with 1 player fewer for 5 mins. (in line with Blatter's idea)
For all other injuries, the physio could be allowed on the pitch to treat the player while play carries on (perhaps excluding the penalty area). I just don't get the 'gentlemanly' practice of kicking the ball out so a player can receive treatment - it's just not necessary unless it's serious and is too often abused. I like that Blatter is saying that players are 'not required' to do this, though I wish FIFA would go further and say that players are required not to - leave it up to the ref!


Article copied for convenience...

Sepp Blatter: Fifa president wants time penalty for diving in football

Fifa president Sepp Blatter has proposed the use of a time penalty as a deterrent to diving in football.
Blatter feels players who get treatment but are not badly injured should have to wait longer before rejoining play.
"I find it deeply irritating, when the half-dead player comes back to life as soon as they have left the pitch," said Blatter, 77, in his weekly column.

"The referee can make the player wait until the numerical disadvantage has had an effect on the game."
Blatter, the head of world football's governing body, added: "In practical terms, this is a time penalty and it could cause play-actors to rethink.
"The touchline appears to have acquired powers of revival which even leading medical specialists cannot explain."
Former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher agrees simulation is an issue in the game, but feels penalising players in Blatter's proposed way may not be feasible.
"You're going to need a very, very brave referee to say a players wasn't really injured, I'm not sure it's a real solution," said Gallagher.
"I think most people in this country would adhere to retrospective action.
"For me, I think an ex-referee, an ex-manager and an ex-member of PFA could look at video evidence and if all three agree on a dive, it's a three match ban."
Blatter's comments come two days after Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho criticised one of his own players, Oscar, for diving in their victory at Southampton.
Mourinho also urged referees to "kill the situation" after his Brazilian attacker was cautioned for appearing to dive in the the area after rounding Southampton goalkeeper Kelvin Davis.
Blatter is intent on ridding the game of simulation, which has prompted 13 yellow cards in the Premier League this season.
"Even though simulation is incredibly unfair and looks preposterous when viewed in a replay, some people regard it as smart or in the worst case as a harmless misdemeanour," added Blatter, who has been re-elected three times since becoming Fifa president in 1998.
"The longest breaks in the game nowadays are almost exclusively the result of dives, simulation and play-acting to feign injury.
"This kind of thing is treated with scorn in other sporting disciplines but it has become a normal and accepted part of football nowadays."

Manchester United attacker Adnan Januzaj, 18, has received three of his five yellow cards this season for simulation.
United fanzine Red Issue, via its Twitter account, called on manager David Moyes to speak to the youngster as well as Danny Welbeck and Ashley Young, who have been booked for diving in the past.
Fifa's vice-president Jim Boyce has previously proposed the use of video evidence to help take retrospective action against divers.
As part of his proposals to clamp down on cheating within the game, Blatter emphasised Fifa's stance on whether the ball should be put out of play if a player is injured.
"The ball is in the referees' court," added Blatter.
"The instructions are now clear on this matter: if a player is lying on the floor, the opposing team are not required to put the ball into touch.
"The referee should only intervene if he believes a serious injury has occurred."

Simster said:

4) Allow ref to be able to award a penalty even if a foul is committed outside the box, where a foul is deemed to prevent a goalscoring opportunity.

Click to expand...

In that case the ref should also be allowed to award a free-kick if there is a foul in the box but it clearly isn't a goalscoring opportunity.

Simster said:

There are so many other ways the game could be improved before meddling around the edges of the game like this. There are laws already in place to prevent fake injury. Firstly, time is added on at the end of the game. Secondly, an offender can be booked. I'd much rather some of these ideas were considered:

1) Offside - ALWAYS allow benefit of the doubt to the striker. At professional level, allow play to continue and pull it back if offside on a video replay
2) Only the captain to be allowed to talk to the ref. If not, yellow card or:
3) Sin bin
4) Allow ref to be able to award a penalty even if a foul is committed outside the box, where a foul is deemed to prevent a goalscoring opportunity.

Click to expand...

Like some of those. But NO video replays please. part of the joy of football is being certain you've scored when the ball hits the net.

Let them back on the pitch but blindfold them for 2 minutes. I'd watch every match.

Has Blatter had a brain transplant or something? This is the first sensible thing
that he's ever said.

Simster said:

1) How often have we seen this happen?
[yt]nsGeR6Xbf2I[/yt]

Sterling (I think) is a yard ON SIDE there. How many times in a game do you really think a decision like this would need to go upstairs? If it's that much of an issue, just add an appeal system.

Click to expand...

The problem is, in reality, it would be an absolute shambles.

1) Linesman will just let ANY offside go that they may have the SLIGHTEST fear about. If you were the linesman you would much rather let every piece of play go on and then be reviewed rather than being the "idiot" who raises his flag, stops a goal, and then is lambasted because the player was just onside. "Why didn't he just leave it to play on and let it get reviewed!!!" I can hear the cries now. It would make the skill of a linesman spotting an offside completely removed.

Also, it removes the JOY of a goal. Imagine it, Ulloa is slipped through, rounds the keeper and scores a last minute winner, the crowd go mad!!! but no....hang on....we need to go to a review first to see if he really is onside...delay those "wild "celebrations.

It would be horrible.

Simster said:

It took professional goalkeepers (and defenders) about a season to adjust to this rule but has been resounding success ever since.

Click to expand...

I remember the law initially was that you could not pass back to the keeper with your foot.

I recall Gary Chivers getting down on one knee to knee it back to Keeley on several occasions!

The law was then changed again.