Questionable football rules

[Mark Connolly]

Just now, Bairnardo said:

4 minutes ago, Mark Connolly said:

Why is that your point?
I'm not advocating the clock being stopped every time the ball goes out, just that it becomes clearer when the ref has stopped and restarted time under the current conditions, as happens in sports like rugby and hockey.

A visible stoppage time counter, perhaps then? Rather than stopping the clock as such.

I'm not sure it even has to be that complicated, but that would be better than the current system.

[parsforlife]

 

Very quick google found this...

 

"Of course a substitute once he becomes a player can take any restart including a throw in. The only difference is that the substitute must first step on to the field of play and then leave again to complete the substitution process thus becoming a player. Once that is done he then take the TI as a player. He just can't go down the line to the point of the TI.

It has nothing by the way to do with the whistle sounding to restart play.

The reason behind this process is that if any misconduct happened off the field of play involving the substitute the team can argue that they did not plan to use him and that they should not play short. Once he steps onto the FOP that all changes. "

 

http://www.asktheref.com/Soccer%20Rules/Question/26316/

 

Which does make sense.

 

Based on the explanation your scenario is fine.

 

Funny enough this scenario played out today at the pars game.

 

Ball goes out next to the dugouts, Jackson longridge is 'subbed on' takes the ball from craigen and prepares to take the throw. Linesman stopped him and asked him to step onto the pitch first. Weird situation to see him step a yard onto the pitch only to step back but I suppose it's a sound process.

[DA Baracus]

7 hours ago, tarapoa said:

Infantino and Collina among others are in the Marcliffe in Aberdeen today looking to change a few rules of fitba.

Will send a copy of this thread in there.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/47429316

 

I like this one;

"In other changes approved by Ifab, substitutes will have to leave the pitch at the nearest goalline or touchline instead of walking to their technical area in a bid to stop time wasting"

[Christophe]

12 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/47429316

 

I like this one;

"In other changes approved by Ifab, substitutes will have to leave the pitch at the nearest goalline or touchline instead of walking to their technical area in a bid to stop time wasting"

What is the current rule on this? At the Stenhousemuir - Brechin game today the referee tried to ask Alan Cook to leave and go off at the stand side (opposite to dugouts)- where he had made his way over to, knowing he was to be subbed.  Given we were two men down heading into injury time, Cook understandably gave him the rubber ear and done the slow jog towards the dugouts. I had never seen that before (the official advising him to exit the FOP at the opposite side from the change).

[DA Baracus]

25 minutes ago, Christophe said:

What is the current rule on this? At the Stenhousemuir - Brechin game today the referee tried to ask Alan Cook to leave and go off at the stand side (opposite to dugouts)- where he had made his way over to, knowing he was to be subbed.  Given we were two men down heading into injury time, Cook understandably gave him the rubber ear and done the slow jog towards the dugouts. I had never seen that before (the official advising him to exit the FOP at the opposite side from the change).

Presumably there current rule just says the player should leave the pitch with no specifics.

[ScottishZizou]

On 01/03/2019 at 18:59, Diamonds are Forever said:

 

If I interpret your post correctly, I think you can add yourself to the list of people who don't understand the handball law. You are aware that any handball has to be deliberate to be a foul?

Yes I understand that but penalties are given when hands are in “unnatural positions” for some reason.  Or do you not watch football and just read the rule book?

[BillyAnchor]

Don't wait for the guy getting substituted to actually get off the field. Let the new player on and if the other interferes with play its a foul and card.

[Busta Nut]

Quote

After pen no rebound so if it’s saved or hits post it can’t be hit in.players won’t line up along box.

is this happening? bullshit if so.

[Busta Nut]

Just now, Busta Nut said:

is this happening? bullshit if so.

Sky sports says so.

 

Quote

 

2. No rebounds from penalties
One of the changes Gallagher believes will have a big bearing on how we look at football is play stopping for a restart if a penalty is saved or hits the post.

This means players will no longer line up on the edge of the area or attempt a rebound.

Gallagher said: "We've seen Manchester United's Paul Pogba this year score a penalty from his own rebound and on Saturday the Arsenal penalty was saved and the players chased it down and the ball was still alive.

Paul Pogba wheels away in celebration after scoring a rebound from a penalty against Everton

"Now if it hits the post or the goalkeeper saves and it comes back out to the forward, the game will be stopped, there'll be no second chance."

 

[Merkie84]

Why has the penalty law been changed?

 

Did anyone have an issue with rebounds?

 

 

[HibeeJibee]

I think it's a bad move.

I appreciate it gets rid of worries on encroachment, but if the 'keeper saves or it hits the post the ball is in play - I don't see why the defending side should get a goal-kick.

Also - can the 'keeper take the restart quickly? If he catches the ball can he restart by kicking it from his hands? I've seen goals scored on counter-attacks from penalties.

[Dindeleux]

Not being allowed to take pass a goal kick to someone who's standing in the box, it's a completely pointless rule because the punishment is just re taking the goal kick.
"You can't do this"
"Ok, what happens if we do?"
"Nothing"

If you were winning a game and just kept doing this repeatedly to run down time is there anything the referees can do to force you to play?

Obviously they could add on the time but you know they wouldn’t. Yellow and then red card for unsportsmanlike behaviour?

[Salvo Montalbano]

After pen no rebound so if it’s saved or hits post it can’t be hit in.players won’t line up along box.

is this happening? bullshit if so.
It isn't.

 

They shouldn't have.

Why has the penalty law been changed?
 
Did anyone have an issue with rebounds?
 
 

It hasn't.

I think it's a bad move.

I appreciate it gets rid of worries on encroachment, but if the 'keeper saves or it hits the post the ball is in play - I don't see why the defending side should get a goal-kick.

Also - can the 'keeper take the restart quickly? If he catches the ball can he restart by kicking it from his hands? I've seen goals scored on counter-attacks from penalties.

It was discussed but rejected at the recent IFAB meeting, and some news outlets (notably Sky and Marca) reported it as gospel when it wasn't likely to happen. Having said that, I quite like it. I'm never sure why the penalty taker should get a second bite at the cherry if he misses his penalty, especially since in most (but not all) cases the keeper saves it, but can't get back up in time to save the rebound. It would also eliminate encroachment. I think if the keeper puts it over or behind for a corner it should still be a corner, but I'm not sure what the protocol was planned to be in that case. It would only be a goal kick or indirect free kick if it went wide of over as it would be currently, or if it hit the post or bar, or of the keeper pushed it back into play in my interpretation. That seems fair enough to me?

[DA Baracus]

Nah I think it would be shit. Penalties are fine as they are. 

[Marten]

In the laws of the game, a penalty kick is (despite the name) not defined as a punishment, but rather as a method of restarting the game after a foul. That means automatically that if the ball doesn't end up in the goal or outside the pitch, play just continues as normal. By scrapping rebounds, you'd have to change the whole definition of the penalty kick as well.

[Jacksgranda]

7 minutes ago, Marten said:

In the laws of the game, a penalty kick is (despite the name) not defined as a punishment, but rather as a method of restarting the game after a foul. That means automatically that if the ball doesn't end up in the goal or outside the pitch, play just continues as normal. By scrapping rebounds, you'd have to change the whole definition of the penalty kick as well.

That's right. At free kicks the ball is often blocked and play just carries on.

[Salvo Montalbano]

In the laws of the game, a penalty kick is (despite the name) not defined as a punishment, but rather as a method of restarting the game after a foul. That means automatically that if the ball doesn't end up in the goal or outside the pitch, play just continues as normal. By scrapping rebounds, you'd have to change the whole definition of the penalty kick as well.

As discussed earlier there are already cases where there are slight differences with restarting play. A drop ball has to hit the ground, a bye kick has to leave the 18 yard box, if a free kick is taken and blocked by someone less than 10 yards away it can be return etc. It wouldn't change too much, it would still be a "kick from the penalty mark" to restart play, just that there would need to be a slight tweak to how the laws are written. For instance, simply stating that a goal kick is awarded if the ball goes behind the goal line or in the event a kick from the penalty mark is not completed should be enough, with completion of a penalty being a goal scored or the ball going behind the goal line. (You could even say "going over the goal line" which would include goals and shots wide and saved for a corner). Given the amount of words and ink used on things like handball and offside, I don't see how it would need a huge change.

[craigkillie]

26 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

A drop ball has to hit the ground, a bye kick has to leave the 18 yard box, if a free kick is taken and blocked by someone less than 10 yards away it can be return etc.

In all of these cases, the ball isn't in play yet.

• For a drop ball, the ball is only in play when it touches the ground.
• For a goal kick, the ball is only in play once it leaves the penalty area (although this is about to be removed in the latest set of laws I think).
• For a free-kick, play should not be restarted until all opposing players are at least 10 yards from the ball. If a player fails to respect that then that player would be given a yellow card and a free-kick would be retaken.

In this new example of a penalty kick (which doesn't actually seem to be going ahead, fortunately), you're basically reducing it to no longer being a part of active play, which would indeed require a change to a number of rules, and indeed the whole notion of what a penalty kick is.

At the moment, a goal can only be scored when the ball is in play, so you'd have to very clearly determine when the ball starts and stops being in play after a penalty is taken. At the moment, the ball only stops being in play when it crosses one of the lines, when a foul is committed, or when the referee stops it for some other reason. You'd therefore have to rewrite that part to make explicit reference to the penalty rule. A number of the laws of the game have specific references to what happens when the ball is in play or not in play, so you'd have to adjust them too. The whole idea of a penalty (or any set piece) being "completed" or "not completed" doesn't exist in football at the moment, so you'd have to create that purely for this rule which absolutely nobody seemed to be asking for.

It favours the team that have committed the foul rather than the team who were fouled, since you are eliminating not only the possibility of rebounds, but also corners when the keeper turns it round the post, or attacking possession if the ball is cleared, or even a throw-in inside the other team's half where you can start to build pressure. It will give defenders more incentive to commit fouls (as the double jeopardy rule already has done) because the punishment is slightly less than it was before.

The only arguments I've seen put forward is that it reduces encroachment at penalties and the the taker somehow has an advantage because he starts closer to the ball. The former is only a major issue for the same sort of folk that get angry at players stealing a few yards at throw-ins, and something which is already accounted for in the laws anyway. I'm not sure how true the latter always is, since the taker has to adjust his stride to hit the penalty and then has to recover his body shape, while the other attacking and defending players can essentially run into the box full pelt.

[Busta Nut]

Well I am pleased that penalty thing is bullshit.