New rules for 16/17 season

[Riviman]

http://www.northampton.vitalfootball.co ... p?a=454190" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I must admit I was a bit non plussed when we kicked off on Tuesday night with one man who passed the ball backwards. Good to see minor injuries can be treated on field and the player doesn't have to go off to come back on.

[BWFC_Insane]

http://www.northampton.vitalfootball.co ... p?a=454190

I must admit I was a bit non plussed when we kicked off on Tuesday night with one man who passed the ball backwards. Good to see minor injuries can be treated on field and the player doesn't have to go off to come back on.

Not the best article for this, given a lot is tongue in cheek....

However, I like the "double jeopardy" change. Having a player sent off for a mistimed tackle in the box and a penalty always seemed incredibly harsh and had the potential to ruin games.

My only issue is are refs good enough to distinguish between a last gasp effort and a malicious, cynical takeout?

FWIW in a real game, could anyone have complained had Wheater been red carded for the foul on Gray?

[LeverEnd]

It would never be a red card. The guy was going nowhere and had no chance of scoring from there. A gift.
Unless you start giving red cards for sheer stupidity, in which case it's a clear sending off!

[BWFC_Insane]

It would never be a red card. The guy was going nowhere and had no chance of scoring from there. A gift.
Unless you start giving red cards for sheer stupidity, in which case it's a clear sending off!

Red card for recklessness was what I meant. Not for denying a goalscoring opportunity.

[boltonboris]

However, I like the "double jeopardy" change. Having a player sent off for a mistimed tackle in the box and a penalty always seemed incredibly harsh and had the potential to ruin games.

I think it's bollocks. Keeper gets rounded, knows he's conceding, so drags down a player.

You then go from a guaranteed goal, to a 50/50 with the same keeper able to save the penalty

Ridiculous rule

[boltonboris]

It would never be a red card. The guy was going nowhere and had no chance of scoring from there. A gift.
Unless you start giving red cards for sheer stupidity, in which case it's a clear sending off!

Red card for recklessness was what I meant. Not for denying a goalscoring opportunity.

Not in a million years, no.

Recklessness is disregard for a players safety and a dangerous tackle. Wheater was just an embarrassing attempt at getting the ball off a superior player. Not even in a shooting area.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

However, I like the "double jeopardy" change. Having a player sent off for a mistimed tackle in the box and a penalty always seemed incredibly harsh and had the potential to ruin games.

I think it's bollocks. Keeper gets rounded, knows he's conceding, so drags down a player.

You then go from a guaranteed goal, to a 50/50 with the same keeper able to save the penalty

Ridiculous rule

I think you forgot the Madine Factor there

[BWFC_Insane]

However, I like the "double jeopardy" change. Having a player sent off for a mistimed tackle in the box and a penalty always seemed incredibly harsh and had the potential to ruin games.

I think it's bollocks. Keeper gets rounded, knows he's conceding, so drags down a player.

You then go from a guaranteed goal, to a 50/50 with the same keeper able to save the penalty

Ridiculous rule

I think the new rule allows for some discretion for referees. Where there is a genuine attempt to play the ball. It is as I say, potentially going to make decisions tricky.

But there were plenty of cases whereby it wasn't that clear cut and players got red cards, hopefully this stops games being ruined, giving refs some discretion.

[boltonboris]

However, I like the "double jeopardy" change. Having a player sent off for a mistimed tackle in the box and a penalty always seemed incredibly harsh and had the potential to ruin games.

I think it's bollocks. Keeper gets rounded, knows he's conceding, so drags down a player.

You then go from a guaranteed goal, to a 50/50 with the same keeper able to save the penalty

Ridiculous rule

I think the new rule allows for some discretion for referees. Where there is a genuine attempt to play the ball. It is as I say, potentially going to make decisions tricky.

But there were plenty of cases whereby it wasn't that clear cut and players got red cards, hopefully this stops games being ruined, giving refs some discretion.

It'll give the referee an excuse to show cowardice and keep his red cards in his pockets, when he should really be issuing them.

[LeverEnd]

No doubt players will take cynically take advantage. And I agree with Boris about refs, most don't need a 2nd invitation to bottle a decision.
It can seem harsh at times but probably should be left as it is. You'll get players being given the benefit of the doubt early in games so as 'not to spoil the spectacle'. Having said that, a pull back should still be a clear red fkr example.

[BWFC_Insane]

The problem is, making rules to facilitate poor refs, isn't the way to go. Improving refs and their understanding of the game is. In my view.

I think the trouble with a blanket "red card for denying a goalscoring opportunity" is that it penalises a cynical drag back or trip in the same way it would a genuine but mistimed attempt to get the ball. That blanket approach is presumably to protect referees from having to actually understand the game and make a decision. I realise that the grey area this leaves is not ideal.

But remember the rule is an attempt to stop a situation whereby a minor misjudgement leads to a penalty and a red and in many cases effectively kills the game dead. A referee should be able to tell the difference between deliberate cynicism and a genuine but mistimed tackle. I appreciate that they won't, but IMO you shouldn't have a blanket rule to protect refs.

It is like the ball to hand thing, where some people say, any contact with the hand should be an infringement. But again that just protects refs from having to interpret a situation and make a competent decision.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

There'll never be consensus till people decide whether they want "consistency" or "common sense"

Often the same people

[Worthy4England]

Surely both. In favour of our chaps.

[LeverEnd]

Surely both. In favour of our chaps.

Cool. Bring back uriah rennie.

[BWFC_Insane]

There'll never be consensus till people decide whether they want "consistency" or "common sense"

Often the same people

We don't have either now, so.....

[bobo the clown]

Apologies if it's already posted, but have I read that for a "professional foul" which results in a penalty the penalty will be deemed to be penalty enough (far too many penalties in that). So an automatic sending off would no longer be the case ?

[norm the jedi]

The problem is, making rules to facilitate poor refs, isn't the way to go. Improving refs and their understanding of the game is. In my view.

I think the trouble with a blanket "red card for denying a goalscoring opportunity" is that it penalises a cynical drag back or trip in the same way it would a genuine but mistimed attempt to get the ball. That blanket approach is presumably to protect referees from having to actually understand the game and make a decision. I realise that the grey area this leaves is not ideal.

But remember the rule is an attempt to stop a situation whereby a minor misjudgement leads to a penalty and a red and in many cases effectively kills the game dead. A referee should be able to tell the difference between deliberate cynicism and a genuine but mistimed tackle. I appreciate that they won't, but IMO you shouldn't have a blanket rule to protect refs.

It is like the ball to hand thing, where some people say, any contact with the hand should be an infringement. But again that just protects refs from having to interpret a situation and make a competent decision.

The trouble with that theory is that all your chosen options introduce the element of subjectivity. The more subjectivity you have the more variance of opinion there will be. You interpret this as giving wriggle room to bad refs and also gives you the opportunity to disagree at length on the internet. I would suggest it makes it even more difficult to give decisions in good faith because everything is open to interpretation and that interpretation will always be likely to be coloured by personal prejudice, allegiance etc. If you introduce absolute offences they are just that absolute, no opinion no grey area on or off? It either is or it isn't but then Martin Samuels and Henry winter would be out of a job and footie fans would have nowt to moan about on forums.. If football gave a shit about helping the ref we'd already have technology yadda yadda yadda. Introducing 'in the opinion of the official' is just a recipe for another season of Mourinho style bollocks.. and endless Jamie Redknapp analysis...