Blatter's time penalty proposal

[Acker79]

Refs have to 'retire' at an early age because of the physical demands yet their knowledge & experience then goes to waste. Why can't these be used as the 'ref in the stand' with access to screens? they can then be miked up to the onfield ref to act as 'assitance' with the onfield ref still having the last word. this might stop some of decisions which, at full speed seem fine but on review are flawed, like B'muffs pen.

Because the laws are mostly "in the opinion of the referee...", the referee may simply have a different opinion to the assistant in the stands (we frequently see commentators and "expert" analysts disagree with each other after looking at replays, so two refs disagreeing doesn't necessarily mean one is right or wrong, just different opinions of the incident) which undermines the laws of the game, or they would have to be completely re-written to remove any interpretation from the laws.

The ref on the field can gauge his assistant's point of view and judge whether the linesman has a better view than he does and can overrule them based on that, he can't judge that difference with a video ref and know whether it is simply different interpretations or if that video replay showed something the ref missed.

 

[Creaky]

Totally agree that if an offside is marginal or the linesman is unsure the play should continue, and if a goal is scored within a set time limit of say 5 seconds an official in the video box should view the replay and radio the decision down to the ref.

There would be no need to play the video on the big screen like rugby, and the decision would be made before the ball gets picked out of the net.

There have been so many games ruined by bad offside decisions this season.

But why not do so?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I remember Ole Gunner did it for Man Utd in a game they were drawing, but Arsenal won the title anyway. It just summed up how desperate Utd were. But yes, that's the exact case where a penalty would be the better option than a red card.

One option is to ask the captain of the team fouled whether they would rather have a penalty or the man off. The player who did the foul would be suspended the same amount of games either way.

My mistake, I tend to blank out Arsenal winning things.

Thats another option, I just think with the amounts of money spent I want to be entertained rather than a game ruined after 5 minutes.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Refs have to 'retire' at an early age because of the physical demands yet their knowledge & experience then goes to waste. Why can't these be used as the 'ref in the stand' with access to screens? they can then be miked up to the onfield ref to act as 'assitance' with the onfield ref still having the last word. this might stop some of decisions which, at full speed seem fine but on review are flawed, like B'muffs pen.

along the same sort of lines, I dont know why they dont fast track players who have had to retire early to the elite refs list.

 

[Creaky]

Because the laws are mostly "in the opinion of the referee...", the referee may simply have a different opinion to the assistant in the stands (we frequently see commentators and "expert" analysts disagree with each other after looking at replays, so two refs disagreeing doesn't necessarily mean one is right or wrong, just different opinions of the incident) which undermines the laws of the game, or they would have to be completely re-written to remove any interpretation from the laws.

The ref on the field can gauge his assistant's point of view and judge whether the linesman has a better view than he does and can overrule them based on that, he can't judge that difference with a video ref and know whether it is simply different interpretations or if that video replay showed something the ref missed.

Offside is not an interpretation except for deciding if a player is interfering in the 'play'. In simple cases of offside the video ref is in a far better position to make a correct call than either the referee or the linesman.

Likewise with diving - it is far clearer normally on video whether or not a player has made contact.

When there is a doubt then the decision gets passed back to the on-field ref - as in rugby.

 

[Acker79]

Offside is not an interpretation except for deciding if a player is interfering in the 'play'. In simple cases of offside the video ref is in a far better position to make a correct call than either the referee or the linesman.

Likewise with diving - it is far clearer normally on video whether or not a player has made contact.

When there is a doubt then the decision gets passed back to the on-field ref - as in rugby.

Offside, fine. But diving requires judging intent, and determining how much of the fall is due to momentum that carried someone over, if there was a degree of contact that is acceptable to the referee to deem it not a dive - those are opinions that are meant to be decided by the referee.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Totally agree that if an offside is marginal or the linesman is unsure the play should continue, and if a goal is scored within a set time limit of say 5 seconds an official in the video box should view the replay and radio the decision down to the ref.

So, say we took the time limit as an official ruling, if a player picks up the ball just inside the half and out wide (therefore as far away from the goal as he can receive it and offside to be an "issue") and he scores...if he took more than 5 seconds to do so then a review would not take place?

 

[symyjym]

But why not do so?

Well you could, but depends on how much of a side show we want. I would rather the goal just be ruled out.

Rugby make a bit of a meal about it, 20 angles and slow motion backwards and forwards over and over again.

 

[Creaky]

Offside, fine. But diving requires intent, and determining how much of the fall is due to momentum that carried someone over, if there was a degree of contact that is acceptable to the referee to deem it not a dive those are opinions that are meant to be decided by the referee.

I accept the principle as to whether there was intent in such an incident but that would not be the job of the video ref to decide - the video ref's job is to decide on facts and pass that information to the on-field officials.

So in such a case the video ref would report that the player that went down had not been touched and therefore there was no foul - the pitch ref would still make any decision regards the 'diving'.

 

[Creaky]

Well you could, but depends on how much of a side show we want. I would rather the goal just be ruled out.

Rugby make a bit of a meal about it, 20 angles and slow motion backwards and forwards over and over again.

Which can really get the crowd rocking!

Imagine if some of the fouls we see on MOTD, and which trigger 'debate' by fans after the game, were shown in slow motion on the big screens at the time.

 

[Acker79]

I accept the principle as to whether there was intent in such an incident but that would not be the job of the video ref to decide - the video ref's job is to decide on facts and pass that information to the on-field officials.

So in such a case the video ref would report that the player that went down had not been touched and therefore there was no foul - the pitch ref would still make any decision regards the 'diving'.

But there being no contact doesn't mean there's no foul. A foul is determine by how much concern the challenge shows for an opponent's safety. A challenge becomes a foul if it is reckless, careless, or uses excessive force. And there being no contact doesn't mean it's a dive.

To have someone else watching a screen, whispering in the ref's ear "no contact" is just a meaningless distraction, that could potential lead to dangerous tackles being allowed to carry on until someone gets hurt, and people to be booked because their momentum carried them over because the ref wasn't allowed to think about the decision himself. (The comment from an official watching on a video would carry more weight than a player running past asking if the ref is sure, so that players try to distract refs doesn't really counter this)

 

[Bwian]

I agree with this, and would go further. I would say ANY foul that prevents a goal-scoring opportunity should be punished with a penalty and a yellow card. An early automatic red ruins the game, and of course currently denying a goal-scoring opportunity in a close game in the last ten minutes is a risk worth taking.

With diving, Blatter is right to bring this up but I think video evidence after the game is the way forward.

It's ironic that Blatter now wants to do something to rein in the cheats. It's his legislation and Platini's bleating within the game that has given every cheating footballer the opportunity to influence games. By making the game almost totally non-contact it has given the divers and actors a perfect vehicle to get a free kick/penalty/defender booked or sent off. Nobody wants to see the likes of Chopper Harris and co types back in the game but neither do we want to see a player rolling over three or four times after being tackled. If you're really hurt, the last thing you want to do is roll over and over and over. If Blatter was serious about eliminating cheating, he'd also try and do something about the grabbing and shirt pulling that goes unpunished inside the penalty area when there's a corner or free kick.

If video evidence shows a player has cheated then there should be a minimum 5 match ban. Cheating would be eliminated instantly.

None of us want to nsee to many changes to a game that doesn't have much wrong with it (apart from blatant cheating and disciplinary matters during a game), however, things like time wasting need sorting out. Unfortunately, we'd likely be punished more than most when it comes to throw-ins because we're so shit at them with nobody looking for the ball and the thrower having nobody to throw to.

As for legitimate injuries that require the player to go off for genuine treatment, the perpetrator should go off too-until a sub comes on or the injured player returns. I don't know how that would work if a team has used all their substitutions and an injury reduces them to 10 men-maybe allow more than three substitutions?

 

[symyjym]

So, say we took the time limit as an official ruling, if a player picks up the ball just inside the half and out wide (therefore as far away from the goal as he can receive it and offside to be an "issue") and he scores...if he took more than 5 seconds to do so then a review would not take place?

Any blatant offside on the break would be called immediately in all cases, and any offside on the break that is marginal the play continues. If it is so close you should give the attacking team the advantage which is what the offside rule states anyway. They say there has to be daylight between the players?

Try playing the time scenario in your mind, 5 seconds is quite a long time on the break and most of the defenders are back in position by then.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Any blatant offside on the break would be called immediately in all cases, and any offside on the break that is marginal the play continues. If it is so close you should give the attacking team the advantage which is what the offside rule states anyway. They say there has to be daylight between the players?

Try playing the time scenario in your mind, 5 seconds is quite a long time on the break and most of the defenders are back in position by then.

But my point is a player could marginally be offside and receive the ball out wide, run with the ball down the wing for 3 or 4 seconds, cross it (5 seconds) have the shot saved rebounds back, played out wide again, crossed in and goal.

Now the team who scored have scored a good 15 or 20 seconds after the debatebale offside but also got into the position because the original offside helped them counter attack. 20 seconds seems an awfully long time to call back play, but if we are talking about stopping key offsides then this would be one. The counter attack would never have been on if the original offside was given.

I could see it being rolled out and just being a nightmare. It would be lovely to believe we could ultimately make the game fair and errorless but it's just not possible without ****ing up the very brilliance of the game, that is, it's fluidity.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

This has just popped into my head so is probably flawed and possibly already mentioned, but would a review system like they have in cricket work for penalty decisions?

So each side gets 2 decisions in a match they can review when a penalty is/isn't given. The defending side could review instantly if a penalty is given as there would be a stop in play, if the decision is overturned they could then be given a free kick/goal kick. I guess if the attacking team want to review they would have to wait for a stoppage in play, or maybe give the ref a signal if they are still in possession of the ball after they think a penalty should have been given? The reviewing would be done by a video ref in the stands.

Shoot it down!

 

[Acker79]

This has just popped into my head so is probably flawed and possibly already mentioned, but would a review system like they have in cricket work for penalty decisions?

So each side gets 2 decisions in a match they can review when a penalty is/isn't given. The defending side could review instantly if a penalty is given as there would be a stop in play, if the decision is overturned they could then be given a free kick/goal kick. I guess if the attacking team want to review they would have to wait for a stoppage in play, or maybe give the ref a signal if they are still in possession of the ball after they think a penalty should have been given? The reviewing would be done by a video ref in the stands.

Shoot it down!

Firstly, whether or not a foul has occurred is defined by the referee's interpretation of an incident, so a video ref would be a no no, without completely re-writing the laws of the game. Video replays must be watched by the referee or else the law book goes out the window and the replacement will probably be ten times as long with much more complex definitions to remove any opinion aspect of decisions.

Secondly, the attacking team's appeal is fraught with flaws. How long do they have to make their appeal? Can any player make an appeal - if so how does a team go about discussing it rather than wasting an appeal if play hasn't stopped? What if one attacking player wants to appeal so he can take a penalty and hit a goal target (either for ego or for bonus pay reasons) while another wants to go one on one with the keeper so he can get a goal and meet his target? How do you stop them making a frivolous appeal because they just want to stop a counter attack?

 

[symyjym]

But my point is a player could marginally be offside and receive the ball out wide, run with the ball down the wing for 3 or 4 seconds, cross it (5 seconds) have the shot saved rebounds back, played out wide again, crossed in and goal.

Now the team who scored have scored a good 15 or 20 seconds after the debatebale offside but also got into the position because the original offside helped them counter attack. 20 seconds seems an awfully long time to call back play, but if we are talking about stopping key offsides then this would be one. The counter attack would never have been on if the original offside was given.

I could see it being rolled out and just being a nightmare. It would be lovely to believe we could ultimately make the game fair and errorless but it's just not possible without ****ing up the very brilliance of the game, that is, it's fluidity.

But if the offside was too close to call in the first place it shouldn't be called anyway? They wouldn't replay a clip from 10-30 seconds ago if the only thing that may have been offside was his head.

The way it is now I have seen so many games where the wrong offside decision has been made with good goals crossed out or unfairly given, and that is wrong whichever way you look at it.

As I said if it is a clear offside it would be called and play would stop immediately as it is now.

 

[symyjym]

I guess Sepp Blatter has to sit and justify his position somehow. As ideas go, it's not good - it's seriously ill-considered.

One - how can a referee tell if a player is seriously injured?
Two - the referee is not obliged to stop the game if a player is down. Sometimes officials - and definitely the crowd - tend to forget this. It might be a nicety of the modern game to stop for an 'injury', but it's not obligatory.
Three - at what point does the referee consider the sufficient time has elapsed that the 'punishment' has been served before the player can come back on?

If Blatter really wants this to stop, he needs to set about changing the culture of this happening. His resignation would be a start. At least that gets rid of one cheating crook.

If a player is seriously injured he would go off, get bandaged or stitched up, and may be substituted. So if a player is faking an injury he should go off for the same time as it takes to repair someone who needs attention.

They should leave the field for at least 2 mins once the medics have been called onto the pitch.

 

[Mowgli37]

Actually, as a separate issue, I'd make the penalty area smaller, probably narrower.

It serves two purposes - an area where the goalie can handle, and an area when a foul by the defending side is punished by a penalty.

One - the keeper doesn't need such an enormous area in which to be able to handle the ball.
Two - there are occasions where a foul is on the corner of the area, yet the resultant punishment is deliberately carried out up to 20 yards away.

I was thinking this the other day, some penalties we've received and had given against us have been no where near goal-scoring opportunities.

 

[happypig]

1. Video of game reviewed after the game. If any player is deemed to have dived, manager is fined 50% of his weeks wages for each dive.

2. Any player going off for "treatment" is assessed by an independant doctor before going back on.