By and large, football writers who give their opinions of the game reveal their lack of knowledge for the Laws of the Game. They may mean well in wanting to help to improve the game, but they fail miserably because of their ignorance of what they understand match officials should do.
Not a rule as such, but a convention that no longer has any place in
the game. And for what’s supposed to be an act of sportsmanship, it’s
amazing how often this strange ritual never fails to generate maximum
ill-feeling. This is because there are two false assumptions
underpinning it. Firstly, that any player on the ground is in need of
treatment.
Handball
Honestly, nobody knows the handball rule.
"He hasn't moved his hands towards the ball", "it's ball-to-hand", "it's not deliberate", they say in an offender's defence.
The exact wording in the FA's rules says "A direct free kick [or
penalty] is awarded...if a player handles the ball deliberately" while
"distance between the opponent and ball" should be taken into
consideration.
But when does a player actually mean to block the ball with their hand?
When does someone knowingly and deliberately move his hand or arm
towards the ball? Unless he is Luis Suarez, the answer is very, very
rarely indeed.
The excuse "his hand is in a natural position" is
also used - but what does that even mean?! Who on earth knows what a
natural position is when you're sliding in at 100 miles an hour or
jumping to head the ball.
Was Daley Blind's arm unnaturally positioned as John Terry struck at goal at Stamford Bridge on Sunday? Who knows?
A solution is hard to come by but it seems to me that a blanket
every-instance-of-hand-touching-ball might be the best answer, with
destination of the ball the deciding factor. This isn't without problems
though - it may encourage attempts to deliberately flick the ball onto
an outstretched arm and will almost certainly mean even more appeals.
It's better than the mess we have at the moment, though.
Alistair Tweedale
Fouls not given in the penalty area
This is very simple really. A foul is a foul regardless of where on the
pitch it has occured. It is not the referee's job to debate whether a
penalty is too harsh a punishment for someone committing an offence
inside the 18-yard box. Yes, there are major issues with being forced to
harshly send players off in certain situations but that is a separate
debate that should not come into this equation. For the purposes of this
point the only issue should be foul = penalty. If it's a foul on the
halfway line, it's a foul in the penalty area.
NB. Tim Sherwood is yet to fully grasp the concept of penalty areas...
Ben Bloom
The penalty
The punishment system in football is a mess:
regular fouls, even
deliberate fouls, are penalised so leniently that teams use them as a
strategic ploy (“he’s taken one for the team there”). The penalty, on
the other hand, punishes
even piddling offences with an almost certain
goal, based on a completely arbitrary 18-yard measurement. The penalty
rule is a relic of the days when football was a more territorial game,
and an attacker with the ball in the penalty area was very likely to
score.
These days, it makes no sense, and simply encourages referees to take
the safe option. Of the first 53 fouls in the penalty area during Euro
2012, 52 were given against the attacking team. By introducing
free-kicks inside the area, you would
allow referees to punish minor
defensive offences (shirt-pulling, grappling in the area, marginal
handball calls), in turn rewarding attacking football.
Jonathan Liew
Get rid of the quadruple punishment
Building on the changes needed for the penalty rule, something must be
done about the quadruple punishment of your goalkeeper giving away a
penalty. A slight miscalculation from a keeper can mean a red card, a
penalty, a need for a substitution and a suspension. Would it be too
radical to just award a rugby style penalty goal, keep the cards in the
ref's pocket and move on? I can't see how either the attacking or
defending team could be too enraged by that outcome. If the foul is
violent and deserving of a red card in and of itself, then a red card
and a penalty goal could be awarded.
Getting rid of such a harsh punishment, and this goes for professional
fouls by defenders as well, would solve the problem of referees being
wary of giving penalties that they know will also require an automatic
red card. Time and again we see officials shy away from giving a foul
that will also mean sending off a player, which is hardly surprising
when the consequences of getting the decision wrong are so severe.
Charlie Eccleshare
Dissent
Footballers get away with absolute murder when it comes to dissent. Why
not take a leaf out of rugby's book and take a no tolerance stand to
back-chat?
"A player who is guilty of dissent by protesting (verbally or non-verbally) against a referee’s decision must be cautioned."
So when Diego Costa squares up to a linesman or Joe Hart pushes his
head into Michael Oliver's face, it should be (at least) a yellow card.
Footballers might become nicer people and it could encourage others to
become referees.
Alistair Tweedale
The unwanted advantage
There are few things more infuriating than when your team sees a player
fouled while defending a lead and are grateful to have the free-kick,
but the ball rolls to a team-mate, who is surrounded by opposition
players, and the ref screams "play on, advantage".
This is not
an advantage. Clearly what the defending team wants is a free-kick,
especially when they then find themselves in danger of being instantly
dispossessed. It would be one thing if the player could hack the ball
away, and effectively accept the free-kick for his team, but if he tried
this tactic invariably the ref would say he had the ball and therefore
an advantage that he had has now passed. It's also not an advantage to
not be awarded a free-kick plum in front of goal but instead have a
player quickly hustled off the ball on the edge of the box.
We often see refs refuse to play advantages when they should, but this reverse advantage is equally as damaging.
While on the topic, it would be worth experimenting with a longer
advantage rule, like in rugby. This would encourage referees to play
more advantages, without being worried that the team he's given the
advantage to is about to lose possession.
Charlie Eccleshare
Encroachment on penalties
The rules state: "the referee must check that the players other than
the [penalty] kicker are located: Inside the field of play [and] Outside
the penalty area."
If it's a rule, enforce it. It's not hard to
police as it only happens at penalties which start with everyone
standing still, and yet often players are not punished for entering the
area before a penalty is taken.
The solution? If an attacker enters the box before the penalty is
struck and it is scored or he gains an advantage at a rebound, retake
it. If a defender enters the box before the penalty is struck and it is
missed, retake it.
Alistair Tweedale
Foul throws
Anyone who has played Sunday League football is unlikely to have ever
completed 90 minutes without a member of the opposition piping up 50
yards away from the action with a strangled cry of: "Foul throw ref!"
You see, the rules in amateur football are simple: A player is allowed
only to launch a throw-in long down the line. Any attempt to go short,
throw the ball to feet or in any way promote anything other than lumped,
long-ball football is to be immediately pulled up for a foul throw
under the rule that "It didn't really look right".
Oddly, the
professional game appears to adhere to a completely different
interpretation of the rule, namely that anything goes. And by anything I
mean ANYTHING. At which point it seems right to bring in Patrice Evra:
Really this is all a load of unnecessary nonsense isn't it? The benefit
to be gained from one angle of release compared to another is
negligible at best and there is a simple solution: Everyone should just
chill out. Of course that isn't a rule that can be formally implemented
so instead let's propose a new simplified regulation that states: "The
thrower must deliver the ball with two hands from behind their head". As
long as the two hands start from behind the head it should make no
difference at what point the ball is released. It can be released behind
the head, over the head or in front of the head.
IT DOESN'T MATTER.
Just let the ball re-enter the field and allow play to continue.
As long as you don't do what Evra did. That should literally never be allowed.
Ben Bloom
Goalkeepers coming off their line at penalties
It's less the act itself that is so frustrating and more the seeming
total inability of linesmen to pick goalkeepers up for it. At the point
the penalty taker's boot connects with the ball, regulations state that
the keeper must be on his line. If he has encroached in any way then the
penalty will be retaken (unless it has been scored, in which case the
goal stands). In reality the goalkeeper will come off his line
approximately 99 per cent of the time and be penalised for the offence
approximately two per cent of the time (those statistics may or may not
be totally accurate).
The assistant referee positions himself on the goal line with the sole
purpose of watching the keeper. Where goal-time technology is in use, he
literally has nothing else to do aside from watching the keeper. Just
watch the keeper. Watch him step off his line and raise your flag. It's
simple. Stop allowing goalkeepers to cheat.
Ben Bloom
Players getting booked for taking their shirt off
Tempting as it is to sigh at a goalscorer for removing their shirt when
an automatic yellow card (and shrug of the referee's shoulders)
inevitably follows, it's hard to fathom exactly what this clause of Law
12 is trying to achieve. Even less understandable is the mandatory
caution for any goalscorer whose celebration takes them into the crowd -
as if any visible blurring of the boundaries between star players and
humble supporters could possibly be tolerated in the modern game.
Law 12 does allow for referees to apply "common sense" to goal
celebrations but, with the dreaded assessor sat in the stands looking
for cold-blooded consistency, there seems little opportunity for
football to throw caution to the wind when it comes to unbridled
goalscoring joy.
Adam Hurrey
Defender holding off forward as ball trickles out
Back passes, tackling from behind - these have been addressed down the
years by law-makers as they encourage attacking football. But there is
one ugly, glaring exception. How many times do we see a defender
blocking a forward while making no attempt to play the ball as it
trickles out of touch for a goal-kick or throw-in?
An exciting, attacking possibility fizzles out in a moment of undiluted
negativity. It could be described as an art, of sorts, but in reality
has nothing to do with the skill of football. The remedy?
Revive and
enforce the old obstruction law. Any player who refuses to play the ball
while impeding an opponent should have a free-kick awarded against him.
And make it a yellow card for a second offence.
Ben Findon
Players wasting time
This is an offence that gets me irrationally angry, partly because
there seems to be such an easy deterrent. If a goalkeeper or defender
continues to waste time, book them. A referee can then say to the
offender, “keep doing that and I’ll send you off.” Instead what happens
is referees allow players to time waste until the very last minute, and
then decide to book them, by which point the yellow card is entirely
useless.
Referees should also crack down on players taking an age to leave the
pitch when being substituted. Again, all it would take is a quiet word
with the player telling him to hurry up or be booked. The deterrent to
time wasting exists, please can referees start using it.
Charlie Eccleshare
Time for substitutions not being added on
Injury time is always stated as "a minimum", yet
it is hardly ever
extended beyond the minimum; it is almost always exactly that amount. A
favoured time-wasting tactic for managers is to wait until stoppage time
to make a pointless substitution because it isn't seen as time wasting
and usually doesn't result in more time added on. Such a substitution
can waste as much as a minute of crucial late play.
The clock should be stopped when the ball is out of play during injury
time - like in rugby. Play the exact number of allotted minutes, to the
second, unless a team is on the attack.
Once that attack ends, blow the
final whistle.
Alistair Tweedale
Who decided technical areas were a good idea?
All they do is provide a job for the fourth official, obliging him to
tell managers earning up to £7m a year to stand inside a white dotted
box.
It also lessens the chance of
a Jose Mourinho/Arsene Wenger style incident, and who doesn't want to see more of that?
Get rid of them. Or, if they are to stay, make managers share one during the last 10 minutes of games.
Julian Bennetts
Six second rule
Often the gripe of Sunday League footballers the country over, the six second rule is rarely enforced as we know it.
Interestingly, however, the six seconds only starts once the goalkeeper
is in control of the ball and able to start looking to release it back
into play, which is up to the referee's interpretation.
The six seconds should be enforced more stringently but given the
ruling it is rare for keepers to hold onto the ball that long.
The answer to this one is to stop letting it wind us up so much.
Alistair Tweedale
75 Comments
Posts
