Vanishing Spray and other ways to fix football

[EastStandBlue]

And a manager should be allowed 3 appeals per match, to be viewed by the ref in the stand. If the appeal fails he loses a substitution.
The fans wouldn't be unhappy about the delay as the replay would be shown on the big screen. I know its only Prem and big clubs now but it will filter down the divisions later.

Nope. No. Not a chance. This works in tennis because it's inherently a stop-start game, while football would suffer if every time a decision is made - or not made - managers could stop the game and request a replay. It's far too open to manipulation in flowing sports for it to be even worth considering.

Plus, if anything there should be more substitutions in football. If a player picks up a head injury and is clearly concussed then that should be a "free" substitution, while an extra sub should be allocated to both teams if a game goes into extra time.

 

[steveo]

while football would suffer if every time a decision is made - or not made - managers could stop the game and request a replay. .

Hence the possible penalty of losing an important substitution.

 

[EastStandBlue]

Hence the possible penalty of losing an important substitution.

You're 1-0 up with a minute to go and your opponent breaks from a tackle on the edge of their own box. You know full well it's a fair tackle, but you've a reply/substitution left so you can bring the play back.

 

[Pubey]

I like the idea that a head injury/concussion is a free substitution. Coaches (and to some extent club medics) can't be trusted to act in the best interest of the injured player and therefore it should be forced by officials. Some of the recent decisions to allow players to play on have been scandalous. Sadly it'll probably take a life-changing injury as a result before something is done about it.

 

[South Bank Hank]

My way to fix football would be to remove any judgement of simulation from the referee. If the ref sees a foul, he awards a kick and any other required sanction. If the ref doesn't, play continues. No yellow cards for supposed simulation offences.

Then, once a week, AFTER games, a panel of judges who have played football at the highest level use TV to review any contentious moments where simulation is alleged. If a player is found guilty of simulation, diving, feigning injury or similar, he is banned for 3 matches for bringing the game into disrepute. This way we have a consistent measure that doesn't hold up the game. As players get banned from games, so we see one of the most odious elements creeping into the game removed from football.

 

[steveo]

I like the idea that a head injury/concussion is a free substitution. Coaches (and to some extent club medics) can't be trusted to act in the best interest of the injured player and therefore it should be forced by officials. Some of the recent decisions to allow players to play on have been scandalous. Sadly it'll probably take a life-changing injury as a result before something is done about it.

But how long will it take teams to feign head injuries to replace a player? Unless they make a ruling that anyone taken off with a head injury is automatically out of the next game.

 

[steveo]

You're 1-0 up with a minute to go and your opponent breaks from a tackle on the edge of their own box. You know full well it's a fair tackle, but you've a reply/substitution left so you can bring the play back.

No, the appeal happens next time the game stops, or the ball is in midfield.

 

[Its Only A Game]

Moving onto a different thing that annoys me in football is extra time/penalties.

Penalties may be exciting but it is a rubbish way to settle a game. I've always fancied extra time carrying on until someone scores, first goal wins. In order to stop matches going on forever you just reduce each teams amount of players by 1 every 5 minutes.

After half an hour you are effectively playing five a side on a full size pitch. It wouldn't take long for a goal. Would be interesting to see the managers tactics in who to remove from play

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Moving onto a different thing that annoys me in football is extra time/penalties.

Penalties may be exciting but it is a rubbish way to settle a game. I've always fancied extra time carrying on until someone scores, first goal wins. In order to stop matches going on forever you just reduce each teams amount of players by 1 every 5 minutes.

After half an hour you are effectively playing five a side on a full size pitch. It wouldn't take long for a goal. Would be interesting to see the managers tactics in who to remove from play

The Golden Goal was of course tried out in the 1998 World Cup in France.

Personally,I don't see the problem with penalties after extra-time.

 

[Blue_Wes]

The Golden Goal was of course tried out in the 1998 World Cup in France.

Personally,I don't see the problem with penalties after extra-time.

Agreed, I love a penalty shoot-out, providing Southend/England aren't involved of course. I think they're brilliantly exciting, and adds to the drama.

 

[SouthUpperShrimper]

At some games it seems like the ball is only in play for about 25 minutes.

Play-off second leg versus Burton is an obvious example!

 

[1966 and all that]

Back to vanishing spray, have they changed the minimum distance between ball and wall? If not, strictly speaking, shouldn't the referee spray an arc as the defenders at the edge of the wall will be standing more than 10 yards away from the ball. (OK I'm in pedantic mood this morning!)

 

[maninasuitcase]

I can't remember if it was in the press or the tele, but a FIFA stat stated that at the last world cup it was taking an average of 90 seconds to organise a free kick around the penalty spot, but in Brazil it was down to about 45 seconds.

When a goal is scored, I'd like to see the ref take charge of the ball, put it on the centre spot and whistle to restart the game whether the team are still celebrating or not (someone mentioned this earlier). Although the ref is supposed to add on time for this, it is rarely equivalent to the time lost. When Uruguay scored their second against us, I reckon it was close to 4 minutes before the game restarted.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

When there is an accredited 4th official on the job with not much to do why not put him/her in charge of the substitutions and allow them to take place like they to in Egg Chasing with out stopping play. The announcer will still tannoy it out and the numbers board will still go up & aren't the officials microphone linked.
It would save the slow walk off antics.

 

[RobM]

I'd like to see penalties during the game treated like those in a shoot-out in that if the penalty is scored, no change but if it's saved or missed then re-start with goal kick. It would stop encroachment which largely goes unpunished.

Also I'd like to see the practice of taking the ball into the corner to waste time outlawed, it even irritates me when WE do it!

 

[londonblue]

I think retrospective action against any player caught diving should be brought in.

And the argument that there was contact so he was entitled to fall over is ridiculous. A proper test should be applied, such as would that level of contact have caused a pedestrian to fall over, or would they have been able to stay on their feet?

Following on from that, any commentator or pundit who says "well, there was contact" should be shot.

 

[Blue_Wes]

I think retrospective action against any player caught diving should be brought in.

And the argument that there was contact so he was entitled to fall over is ridiculous. A proper test should be applied, such as would that level of contact have caused a pedestrian to fall over, or would they have been able to stay on their feet?

Following on from that, any commentator or pundit who says "well, there was contact" should be shot.

A pedestrian wouldn't be running at speed with a ball at his feet, potentially weaving in and out amongst players. It doesn't take much contact to knock over someone moving at pace, compared to say your test of a pedestrian, plus in your test a pedestrian will be expecting it and will be bracing themselves for impact. I'm not saying contact necessitates a foul, just that a little contact on a fast moving player is often enough to knock them off balance.

I do agree with retrospective action regarding players who con the referee, this needs to happen.

 

[steveo]

I think retrospective action against any player caught diving should be brought in.

And the argument that there was contact so he was entitled to fall over is ridiculous. A proper test should be applied, such as would that level of contact have caused a pedestrian to fall over, or would they have been able to stay on their feet?

Following on from that, any commentator or pundit who says "well, there was contact" should be shot.

I'm pretty sure the law states if you make contact with your opponent before the ball its a foul. Often if a player doesn't go down when contact is made he wont get a free kick. The law should be re written to include something like "enough contact to impede a players progress"

 

[dloman]

I'm pretty sure the law states if you make contact with your opponent before the ball its a foul. Often if a player doesn't go down when contact is made he wont get a free kick. The law should be re written to include something like "enough contact to impede a players progress"

This kinf of thing is a bug bear with me, especially on penalty decisions, usually some awful commentator will say "He had lost control of the ball before contact was made" So? it's still a foul and still a penalty. It makes no difference it the ball is fast heading out play if the opposing player trips, pushes or just plain fouls then it's a penalty no matter where the ball is heading.

 

[londonblue]

A pedestrian wouldn't be running at speed with a ball at his feet, potentially weaving in and out amongst players. It doesn't take much contact to knock over someone moving at pace, compared to say your test of a pedestrian, plus in your test a pedestrian will be expecting it and will be bracing themselves for impact. I'm not saying contact necessitates a foul, just that a little contact on a fast moving player is often enough to knock them off balance.

I do agree with retrospective action regarding players who con the referee, this needs to happen.

I get your point about moving at pace, hence the tactic of a tap-tackle in rugby. However I disagree with you about a pedestrian expecting it. Why would they expect someone to bump into them? And why would they expect someone to bump into them any more than a footballer in the middle of a contact sport? Those questions aside, I do agree that a "pedestrian test" isn't appropriate, but I still think we need a proper test along those lines. The argument that there was contact simply doesn't wash. Grown men should be strong enough to stay on their feet and, more importantly, should be obliged to do so if they're able to.