DAFC.net
Home 26 July 2021 
 Post Message  |  Top of Board  |  Go to Topic  |  Search  |  Twitter Updates  |  Log In   Forum Rules  |  Newer Topic  |  Older Topic  |  end 
[ please login to use the Like feature ]
 New rule?!
Topic Originator: PARrot  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 16:00

Few folk like to see changes in The Beautiful Game but it is about scoring goals, so why not intrduce some rules to encourage that.

Penalty boxes are packed in the current system because teams, too often, setup not to lose more than to win.
Would it benifit the game if they limited the number of players allowed in the boxes?
If so, how would they have to adjust the offside rule?

Just a discussion. Naebody needs to set up the gallows!

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: Rigger Al  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 16:19

Quote:

PARrot, Mon 25 Jan 16:00

Few folk like to see changes in The Beautiful Game but it is about scoring goals, so why not intrduce some rules to encourage that.

Penalty boxes are packed in the current system because teams, too often, setup not to lose more than to win.
Would it benifit the game if they limited the number of players allowed in the boxes?
If so, how would they have to adjust the offside rule?

Just a discussion. Naebody needs to set up the gallows!


I dont think there is a need for anymore changes to the rules .

We need tactics and capabilities of players to improve.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 16:36

I thought the change in the interpretation of handball in the penalty box was to increase the number of goals in games. I can`t see any other justification for it.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: Buspasspar  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 16:51

VAR would take forever PARot ..... Now then what has var spotted here ? were there 8 in the box ? was his foot on or over the line ? nope ..think there was only 7 but the ref has gone to the touchline monitor Mmmm looks like his left hand was over the line so 8 in the box ...Ref decision ... draw an imaginary square in the sky and award an indirect free kick ... All tongue in cheek sir :)

We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: msgribbin  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 17:25


How about increasing the size of the goals ?

Mark G
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: JoeBarclay95  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 17:37

I was thinking, what if a 0-0 draw meant no points for either team. That would mean there is an incentive to always push for that first goal. Just a thought.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: ParfectXI  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 17:39

Not about scoring goals directly (or even indirectly) but I’d like to see harsher rules on simulation. Even allowing action to be taken after the game through video evidence. The game is a mess right now with players diving here there and everywhere to get free kicks or bookings. That’s not what we want to see, and how many games have been won or lost with a dodgy penalty or an incorrect red
Card?

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 17:41

Or it might lead to an Austria/Germany situation where, with game goalless, each team arranges in the final minute to each score a goal against each other.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 18:04

I can only find English statistics, but the number of goals per game averages around 2.6 in the Premier League for the last few seasons. The lowest historical averages are listed below and none are from the last decade. The early 1970s was probably not a good time to be a striker. I think the offside law was changed around 1925 because the numbers of goals had fallen.



1998/1999 2.5237
1971/1972 2.5108
1972/1973 2.5108
1979/1980 2.5087
1987/1988 2.4976
2005/2006 2.4842
2008/2009 2.4789
1923/1924 2.4740
2006/2007 2.4500
1973/1974 2.3961
1970/1971 2.3571

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: ianbd6  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 18:10

I have always thought that keepers shouldn`t be allowed to come out of the box. So many times a good pass through a high defensive line is wasted because the keeper comes charging out and hoofs the ball up the park. I would also like to see a point awarded if a team scores three or more goals. If a team is losing say 5-2 there would be an incentive to go for a third goal because they would get a point.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: PARrot  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 18:39

Quote:

Buspasspar, Mon 25 Jan 16:51

VAR would take forever PARot ..... Now then what has var spotted here ? were there 8 in the box ? was his foot on or over the line ? nope ..think there was only 7 but the ref has gone to the touchline monitor Mmmm looks like his left hand was over the line so 8 in the box ...Ref decision ... draw an imaginary square in the sky and award an indirect free kick ... All tongue in cheek sir :)


I was thinking more like 2 defenders and two attackers allowed in the big box and only 1 each in the wee box. Corners would be ekshiting.

A keeper should never be out his box but Andy Goram woulda had plenty to say about that.



Post Edited (Mon 25 Jan 18:41)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: 1985Par  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 19:37

Regarding hypothetical new rules I`d ask does the punishment fit the crime?

Player with his toe in an offside position. Does it merit a goal being disallowed? Not in my opinion. Would rather there had to be clear daylight between attacker and defender. ie significantly offside, not just a bawhair.

Ball hitting a players hand from close range? Penalty? No way. Accidental handball shouldn`t be a foul at all IMO.

Every foul these days seems to result in a yellow card. Not a fan of that. Seems odd that players work on their physique and fitness all week - players have never been faster, fitter or stronger yet when they inevitably collide on the pitch the ref can`t wait to get his cards out. Ridiculous.

Relax offside, get rid of penalties for accidental handball, stop booking players for anything and everything.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: PARrot  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 20:32

On the other hand, im all for sin bins. Yellows should mean an advantage to the opposition. 10 to 15 mins on the bench.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: d3monstrate  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 20:47

Just do away with offside completely, then there`s no contention. The game then becomes more stretched. And I would go for 5 minute sin bin for a yellow...

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: pars4life1  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 20:52

Getting rid of offside is an horrendous idea. Really don’t want to see teams with 5 or 6 players terrified to move outside of their own box.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: Socks  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 21:26

Football is not all about scoring goals - there`s far more to it than that. I contend that almost all attempts at tweaking the rules over the years, with the intention of artifically producing more goals, have chagned the game for the worse. A good well-contested low-scoring game is every bit as worthy as a game with many goals.

The 1925 change to the offside law that was mentioned above did indeed come about in an attempt to produce more goals. There was a good bit about this in the book `Inverting the Pyramid`, where it was argued that it wasn`t a successful change. Prior to the change, an attacker had to be nearer the goal line than the third-last defender, so changing it to the second-last defender must have seemed likely to produce more goals and more attacking football. The author of that book argued that the change actually caused teams to be more cautious in attack, because the offside safety net they previously had when they lost the ball, was now gone. It was an interesting read, and it annoys me that my copy of it was lost by a Rovers fan I lent it to.

The current handball rule, that sees more penalties given, is an absolute joke. The penalty Dundee were given last Friday was absolutely correct by the rules as they are, but there`s no way the rules should ever be such that a penalty is given for that.

Only one change I can think of that was really successful - the `passback` rule of 1992. Pretty much every attempt at `innovation` has been crap - golden goal was pointless, silver goal that replaced it even worse.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: PARrot  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 21:27

Quote:

pars4life1, Mon 25 Jan 20:52

Getting rid of offside is an horrendous idea. Really don’t want to see teams with 5 or 6 players terrified to move outside of their own box.


....but if only 2 were allowed in the box?

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 22:35

Thoughtful stuff from Socks about the law of unintended consequences.

Goalkeepers have now become sweepers, except without a hint of the style of Beckenbauer and Baresi. A short jab pass to a defender in the penalty area (usually to an oaf like McGuire) or a whoof up the park does not do it for me at my age. Bring back Kaiser Franz, or even Dave Smith or Bobby Moore.

I agree with ianbd6: keepers are quite rightly given great protection within their penalty area but they should not be allowed outside. The sweeper keeper is against the spirit of the rules. They are constricting the natural length of the playing area and artificially allowing high press football to flourish. No wonder the Germans are laughing.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: Ben,D.A  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 22:58


The sweeper keeper , sounds like something the Swedish back four should be called.

Send off the Ref and play by your rules.

Sorted

only 11 make the team,the rest can just but dream.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: pars4life1  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 23:03

Keepers coming out and being more involved is a significant positive of the last 20 years. Love the excitement seeing who will get to the ball first, striker or keeper.

Fully agree with socks here. I saw a good statistical study on 3 points for a win. And it proved pretty competitively that it resulted in teams taking less risks in games. The desperation to hold onto 1-0 far outweighed the desire to turn a draw into a win.

Finding the general theme of the thread just bizarre. There’s nothing wrong with 0-0 and the suggested rule changes just seem absolutely mental.

For me, the biggest rules that need changed are on penalties, both on the number given (the thresholds on handball and amount of contact need to be far higher) And in how they are taken, there is a huge problem IMO with allowing Fernandes and the like take absolutely joke of a run up deliberately designed to make the keeper move early that has no use in open play whilst simultaneously being harsh as **** on keepers for blinking too early. I’d like to see a move too a hockey style one on one from maybe 30 yards out, both striker and keeper are free to do what they want within normal rules after the refs whistle. Traditional strike from 12 yards only given for more severe fouls ‘let’s say ones that incur a card’.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 23:24

With you on the 0-0 being a good game so long as it is end to end. When the Pars and Celtic drew 0-0 in the first semi in 1961 it was universally agreed to be a really good game of football. End to end football is more exciting than goals. I saw a Pars v Raith match that ended 0-0- maybe the record attendance for a second tier game- and everyone went home happy after seeing a really good game of football.

Mind you, in these possession based times, the Pars have had 0 shots on target in their last two games. The public are being short changed: Charlie Dickson would managed that number of attempts on target within the first 15 minutes of any game he ever played in. Lack of goalmouth incident is more of a problem than goals I think. The manicured game is good on the eye but soft on the heart.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 23:28

I'd like to see one small tweak but I think it would be very subjective and would probably lead to a lot of arguments and might not be too popular.

I'd like to see a similar rule to the Charging Rule in basketball where if a defender has his feet planted and doesn't move he's allowed to stand his ground and if an attacker runs into him it's a free kick to the defender.

It happens a lot that attackers with nowhere to go play the ball past the defender and run into them and then get a free kick.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak  
Date:   Tue 26 Jan 02:49

I remember a good while ago now that it was proposed to replace throw ins with kick ins. Would like to at least see it trialed.
Defenders might be under more pressure not to put the ball out as it will result in having to defend a set piece.

Another rule touted at the same time was when a player goes to take a throw in then leaves it to someone else it should result in a booking.
I wouldn't go that far but think if you go to take it you should have to take it as too often leaving it to someone else is used as a time wasting tactic.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Tue 26 Jan 05:53

``I was thinking, what if a 0-0 draw meant no points for either team. That would mean there is an incentive to always push for that first goal. Just a thought.``

``Or it might lead to an Austria/Germany situation where, with game goalless, each team arranges in the final minute to each score a goal against each other.``

Indeed. Bulgaria tried this idea out in the 80s. It was abandoned after only one season, due to the number of games which finished 1-1, with both teams scoring in the closing minutes, so that they got a point each - obviously prearranged.



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Tue 26 Jan 06:11

``Football is not all about scoring goals - there`s far more to it than that. I contend that almost all attempts at tweaking the rules over the years, with the intention of artificially producing more goals, have changed the game for the worse. A good well-contested low-scoring game is every bit as worthy as a game with many goals.

The 1925 change to the offside law that was mentioned above did indeed come about in an attempt to produce more goals. There was a good bit about this in the book `Inverting the Pyramid`, where it was argued that it wasn`t a successful change. Prior to the change, an attacker had to be nearer the goal line than the third-last defender, so changing it to the second-last defender must have seemed likely to produce more goals and more attacking football. The author of that book argued that the change actually caused teams to be more cautious in attack, because the offside safety net they previously had when they lost the ball, was now gone. It was an interesting read, and it annoys me that my copy of it was lost by a Rovers fan I lent it to.

The current handball rule, that sees more penalties given, is an absolute joke. The penalty Dundee were given last Friday was absolutely correct by the rules as they are, but there`s no way the rules should ever be such that a penalty is given for that.

Only one change I can think of that was really successful - the `passback` rule of 1992. Pretty much every attempt at `innovation` has been crap - golden goal was pointless, silver goal that replaced it even worse.``

Socks, spot on - a well argued post, as always.

I once floated an idea on here some years back which didn`t garner any support, but nobody really explained why, so I`ll outline it again and see what folk think:-

Before a game, there are 3 pts to play for, but if it ends in a draw each team only gets one point, so a point is effectively `lost.` What if teams still got 3 pts for a win and 1 pt each for a 0-0 draw, but if it ended in a score draw, the team which opened the scoring got a bonus pt. i e. 2 pts? That might encourage teams who might normally ``park the bus`` to adopt a more positive approach to try and score first. Of course, it might make no difference, or even make things worse, which would be why I would recommend a trial period rather than a permanent change.

Anybody know IFAB`s contact details? ;-)



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: Roobz  
Date:   Tue 26 Jan 09:48

I don’t want to sound like a bitter old git, but the route football is going down is spoiling the game and ultimately is turning people off.

Some of the suggestions above are decent ideas, but again would have unintended consequences eg a sin bin, in the current format of the game would only lead to more time wasting as teams run down the clock before being restored to a full complement.

Time wasting is one of the biggest bugbears for fans so here are a couple of suggestions to eliminate it.

Firstly reduce each half to 30 minutes, but that would be 30 minutes of playing time, with the clock stopping and starting each time the ball is out of play. I believe that currently each game has somewhere between 50 and 60 minutes of playing time, so we would actually get more football if we went down this route.

Secondly, rather than stop games for injuries, let the game continue while a player is getting treatment if he is not in a crucial area of the pitch ie outside the penalty box. This happens in rugby and I suspect it would lead to far fewer “injuries” that require treatment. It may not work, but in my view it’s worth experimenting with.

Far too many games are now being decided by penalties given for very minor offences. We need to remember that football is a contact sport and just because there is a slight touch on a player it is not necessarily a foul.

Perhaps we need to consider allowing a direct free-kick from within the box and reserve the award of a penalty for only the most serious of offences which have directly led to the prevention of a goal, or a clear chance of a goal. Another option might be the award of a free shot from 18 yards, rather than 12 for minor offences.

Sadly the way the game is going, we are seeing more and more close games being decided by teams “winning” a crucial decision and players more intent on getting a decision from the ref than putting the ball in the back of the net and it is only going to get worse.

And get rid of VAR until such point as it works for the game and not, as we are seeing now, having the laws twisted to try and suit the technology.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: Roobz  
Date:   Tue 26 Jan 09:52

I don’t want to sound like a bitter old git, but the route football is going down is spoiling the game and ultimately is turning people off.

Some of the suggestions above are decent ideas, but again would have unintended consequences eg a sin bin, in the current format of the game would only lead to more time wasting as teams run down the clock before being restored to a full complement.

Time wasting is one of the biggest bugbears for fans so here are a couple of suggestions to eliminate it.

Firstly reduce each half to 30 minutes, but that would be 30 minutes of playing time, with the clock stopping and starting each time the ball is out of play. I believe that currently each game has somewhere between 50 and 60 minutes of playing time, so we would actually get more football if we went down this route. It would also allow the use of properly controlled sin-bins.

Secondly, rather than stop games for injuries, let the game continue while a player is getting treatment if he is not in a crucial area of the pitch ie outside the penalty box. This happens in rugby and I suspect it would lead to far fewer “injuries” that require treatment. It may not work, but in my view it’s worth experimenting with.

Far too many games are now being decided by penalties given for very minor offences. We need to remember that football is a contact sport and just because there is a slight touch on a player it is not necessarily a foul.

Perhaps we need to consider allowing a direct free-kick from within the box and reserve the award of a penalty for only the most serious of offences which have directly led to the prevention of a goal, or a clear chance of a goal. Another option might be the award of a free shot from 18 yards, rather than 12 for minor offences.

Sadly the way the game is going, we are seeing more and more close games being decided by teams “winning” a crucial decision and players more intent on getting a decision from the ref than putting the ball in the back of the net and it is only going to get worse.

And get rid of VAR until such point as it works for the game and not, as we are seeing now, having the laws twisted to try and suit the technology.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: d3monstrate  
Date:   Tue 26 Jan 10:23

Agree that too many penalties are given. Most fouls should be given as indirect free kicks, unless like has been said, for more serious fouls.

Another thought I had, when a substitutuon is announced, play can resume straight away, and the player going off is not allowed to play the ball, once they have left the field, the other player can then come on. Should give some urgency to players usually taking their time. Teams in possession who are making a substitution will be deemed to be time wasting if they don`t play on waiting for their mates to swap.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: widtink  
Date:   Tue 26 Jan 12:55

Monster trucks at half time with added time multi-ball if the score is tied after 90 mins.
Sorted min


[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: Socks  
Date:   Tue 26 Jan 12:57

"It happens a lot that attackers with nowhere to go play the ball past the defender and run into them and then get a free kick. "

That annoys me as well. As long as the defender just stands his ground rather than deliberately moving to block a man off, he hasn`t committed any offence, yet it seems that a free kick is given for this every time it happens. There always seems to be a presumption that the player with the ball doesn`t commit a foul, while the player without the ball does. This is wrong.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: veteraneastender  
Date:   Tue 26 Jan 14:24

"Agree that too many penalties are given. Most fouls should be given as indirect free kicks, unless like has been said, for more serious fouls."

What about abolishing the penalty kick altogether - except for denying a clear goal scoring opportunity in the penalty area.

To include handball, except as above.

That would (hopefully) eliminate the number of "soft" penalties award when a defender handles under the revised rules.

Indirect freekicks are for technical offences where there is no foul play involved betwen opposing players - offside the most common of these.

Best left as is.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: Johan_Cruyff  
Date:   Tue 26 Jan 14:48

Should copy the old subbuteo field and draw a line halfway in each half across the field and you can only be offside in the area closest to goal.

Would stretch the field a little and give more space in the midfield

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: veteraneastender  
Date:   Tue 26 Jan 15:06

"Should copy the old subbuteo field and draw a line halfway in each half across the field and you can only be offside in the area closest to goal."

Was tried in the short lived Dryborough Cup some years ago without much success.

It simply allowed fast direct attackers (like Bobby Lennox) "poaching" around further up the pitch - in essence, for offside purposes, the halfway line was moved much closer to the opposing goal.

Likewise, defenders were obliged to remain further back in their own half when their side had possession further upfield.



Post Edited (Tue 26 Jan 15:08)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: eastendalloapar  
Date:   Tue 26 Jan 16:37

Perhaps making the goals a foot higher to nine feet. Most goalkeepers are far taller than they were in the late 1800s. Making them higher might help.

matt forsyth
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Tue 26 Jan 16:57

Quote:

eastendalloapar, Tue 26 Jan 16:37

Perhaps making the goals a foot higher to nine feet. Most goalkeepers are far taller than they were in the late 1800s. Making them higher might help.


The idea of enlarging the goals was first touted by former FIFA President Sepp Blatter. Like some fans, he thought that increasing the average number of goals scored per game would automatically make the game more attractive - a view which doesn't hold up when you think it through more thoroughly.

He abandoned the idea when the cost of such a project world wide was calculated. Obviously, there would have been less cash sloshing around for him and his pals to skim......



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe  
Date:   Tue 26 Jan 17:57

A game of football where it is only about goals is when I depart from the game.
I love all the nuances about football, whether it is the attack, midfield or defence.
Some of the 0-0 games are fascinating to watch as both teams try to find something different to break a deadlock with two evenly matched teams.
Or, even an underdog giving everything they have to defend their goal under an onslaught.

Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: pars4life1  
Date:   Tue 26 Jan 18:20

Exactly. There is no problem in the game with a lack of goals. And if we do needlessly chase more goals all we’ll end up with is more quality, less quality.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: Bedworth par  
Date:   Wed 27 Jan 15:57

In hockey and rugby a player can restart by playing ball to themselves. It has to be from the correct place. Defenders can`t interfere if they haven`t gone back 10metres. Could work.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: New rule?!
Topic Originator: pars4life1  
Date:   Wed 27 Jan 16:12

I think that’s been discussed by IFAB in recent years, wouldn’t surprise me if it came in at some point.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Top of Board  |  Forum List  |  Threaded View   Forum Rules  |  Newer Topic  |  Older Topic  |  end 


Rows: 0
 Forum List  |  Need a Login? Register Here 
 User Login
 User Name:
 Password:
 Remember my login:
   
 Forgot Your Password?
Enter your email address or user name below and a new password will be sent to the email address associated with your profile.
Security : type 'pars' in the box:
email:
© 2021-- DAFC.net