Because if you park a guy by the opponent’s goal you’re giving up a defender. And defending in 11 on 10 (in soccer) is not really giving up much (the last 2-3 guys on either team wouldn’t be part of the action anyway), but defending 5 on 4 (in basketball) is close to giving a free score.
The one serious problem I have with soccer is the binary nature of both punishments and rewards. The difference between a foul and a yellow card is huge. And a red card even larger.
The difference in punishment for a foul just outside the box and one inside it is ridiculously large.
Similarly, the reward for drawing a PK or a red card is so overwhelming that it’s almost impossible to blame players for trying to do it. They’d be hurting their team not to.
So my answer is to provide more granularity in the punishments and rewards. A foul in the box can be a penalty, or it can be a free kick from outside the box - purely at the ref’s discretion. A foul that is somewhere between a “normal” foul and a yellow card could be a short sin-binning. One between a yellow and a red could be a longer sin-binning. More options, more to argue about, less incentive to draw a “harsh” PK if it’s just a free kick from 20 yards.
The only other two proposed changes I have (relatively minor): add another substitution if a game goes to extra time and if a GK commits a red-carded offense that results in a PK, he’s not banned from the next match (he’s already punished twice, the triple/quadruple punishment is far too harsh).
My idea is similar to this. In the NBA, if you get fouled and have to make free throws and you are unable to do so, then you get taken out of the game on injury and can’t return.
For soccer, if you’re writhing in pain and the other side gets a foul, then the person who’s down has to come out for a while for injury purposes. Let’s say they are gone for 30 mins or 45. This should reduce flopping and allow penalties to affect the current game, not just on review the next day. This should only apply to flops where people stay on the ground for an extended period of time. If they get tripped and bounce right back up and the other player gets a foul, then you don’t have to come out of the game
^^
How would you define the length of time before we consider taking a player off for 30+ mins? What if there was a real foul and the medical staff wanted to make sure the player was still fit to play? I remember Makelele stepped on Iniesta’s foot once in a match. Iniesta was still able to play after but 1)he rolled around a bit in pain and 2)if the referee missed the foul(he didn’t) then your rules would have rewarded the fouling team by taking out a key player for the opposition.
We would just end up with defenders taking yellow cards for the team in order to keep the more dangerous attackers off the pitch.
It’s already been pointed out but refs do ignore contact/diving all the time. The difference is that no one makes youtube compilations of refs missing penalty calls or divers being ignored while they roll on the ground.
It’s clearly shown how much time is being added on when you get close to the 90 minute mark.
There are actually four levels:
Indirect free kick (they can’t shoot at goal, the referee holds his arm up as the free kick is taken)
Direct free kick (can be shot at goal)
Yellow Card
Red Card.
ETA:
It is entirely possible to have an indirect free kick in the penalty area. A good example is the “back pass” rule. If a player kicks the ball to his keeper and handles it then the indirect free kick is taken when the keeper handled it. This can be a matter of yards from the goal line, so you’ll see the defending team packing behind the goal line and then as soon as the free kick is taken (usually backwards, to give the receiver time to shoot) they all race out and try to close him down.
Yes, and I would like to see referees given the option of awarding regular free kicks, be they direct or indirect, inside the penalty area* if they deem the foul to not have prevented a “clear goal-scoring opportunity”, which is something they are already accustomed to ruling on. I agree with the view that penalties are very often an excessively harsh punishment, and can change games too much in what is a low-scoring sport.
- there perhaps would need to be a minimum distance rule to avoid ridiculous free kicks one yard from goal
Football? Make the ball, ball-shaped and played with the feet. No breaks in play, limited one-time substitutions, just shin-pads for protection.
It could really take off.
I have kind of a soft spot for baseball since it gives the slow fat guys a sport for them to do well in. So I propose a minimum weight requirement for all MLB players of 300 pounds.
We may have to shorten the number of innings played, though.
This.
The main purpose of diving or “exaggerated display of pain” is to slow down play. If play could go on while an injured or hurt player is being treated, there would be no real benefit do fake an injury. On the plus side, if players really *are *injured, medical staff would arrive earlier, as they would not have to wait for the referee to stop play.
Alternatively, the referee should be able to force players to be substituted if they show more pain, than they actually feel. Maybe a new card could be implemented to warn players, such as a pink or blue card. If they receive a second of these cards, they have to be substituted.
Well sure, it can be abused, but I think it would be less so than the current system. Maybe the fouling player can be removed as well. I’m not sure how yellow and red cards work in soccer, maybe if someone’s fouled and has to sit 30 mins for injury, the fouling player can be issued the NBA equivalent of a flagrant foul and ejected from the game, and the fouled player’s team gets a penalty kick
Are the players expected to keep the time in their heads?
I’m 100% behind the time clock idea in the OP. Also, count down like they do in the NFL/NBA/NHL. And fer Chrissake, just stop the damned clock when there’s an injury or whatever. Instead of this ferkakte “ref ads time to the game based on his own discretion” system.
Right, but at the 88-minute mark it’s still relevant information that’s a secret.
There already is a rule about that. Any free kicks awarded inside the 6 are moved to the 6. See Law 13.
I like the idea of a ref having the discretion to award a PK or not based on whether it was an obvious goal scoring opportunity. But I wonder if that will just have the effect of lowering scoring even further. Players are aware of the severe punishment for a penalty in the box, so there is some hesitancy and need to be extra cautious in that area. If they knew they could get away with more, would the scoring decrease? Similarly, refs are reluctant to call fouls in the box because of the implications. So maybe calls would increase in the box. It would be an interesting experiment to see which way it would go.
Not really. Soccer attacks take in the neighborhood of 20 to 30 seconds from start to finish. Sometimes longer, sometimes shorter. This isn’t like American Football or Basketball where a buzzer goes off and you are done. If a team is pressing an attack and the ref feels time has expired, they wait for the ball to get to neutral territory before ending the game or half. In other words, knowing whether there is 2 minutes left or 5 isn’t that big a deal in soccer.
I agree with your point that the severity of the penalty rule is already taken into account by players and referees.
I don’t think it’s a problem if reducing the number of penalties leads to fewer goals, because my whole argument is that penalties are slightly artificial goals, often resulting from incidents in which an actual goal was not imminent.
I’m in favour of goals. I wouldn’t mind seeing more goals in football in general, but not from a referee rolling a dice in their head, which is what a lot of penalties are.
Randomly exploding soccer balls kicked by ultra busty naked lesbians.
It doesn’t make a big difference, that’s for sure, but it’s still of some import. How many typical attacks do we have time to develop? Can we afford for them to clear the ball twice? Three times? How far forward can our fullbacks afford to press? Etc.
To flip the question: Is there a good reason not to make the official match time known? Assume all the other rules and practices remained as they are. The only difference is that the referee’s stopwatch is hooked up to, and synchronized with, the scoreboard.
It is probably connected to one of the basic issues with FIFA: they honestly think that officiating should be done using the same available tools from the top level all the way down to sunday leagues. Frankly it is amazing they’ve finally allowed goal-line technology, but the amount of times teams lost to non-goals and FIFA responded with “it is just part of the game” was getting silly.
If we are lucky this is just the start. Their excuse doesn’t hold water anymore. Although the time one doesn’t really seem to bother anyone apart from people that come to the sport from other sports where time remaining is seen as a huge thing. We are much more likely to see changes in the areas that are often moaned about in longterm footballing nations. I expect to see video replays allowed for offside in a couple of World Cups or so and before that I expect retroactive punishments, whether noted by the referee at the time or not, to come in.
Everyone is free to wear a watch and start timing from the kickoff, so it isn’t as if the length of the half is any huge secret. The only “secret” is how much time the ref thinks needs to be added to account for delays because of injury, substitutions or the leading team taking too much time restarting play. To within probably 30 seconds everyone would know this, too. If you accept added time to each half as a reasonable way to deal with a running clock, giving the ref flexibility to deal with additional delays in added time as well as not cutting off a team pressing a attach in the last 30 seconds doesn’t seem like a big stretch to me. How many times in an NFL game do you see the refs need to get on the mic asking for the clock to be changed one way or another? Soccer gets away from having to deal with those hassles.