Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Kerrydale Street. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use.

If you decide to register, please be aware that we don't accept email addresses from free web accounts like gmail, Hotmail, live.co.uk etc. Sorry, but almost all of the abuse and spam that we get is from free web accounts. The software on the forum will automatically block any requests using a free email account.

Upon Registration, you will be given access to all our varied Forums, and you will be expected to comply with our fairly stringent Rules and Regulations. Meantime, enjoy your visit

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Unfair/Stupid Rules in Football; Time for a change?
Topic Started: 3 Jul 2018, 09:18 PM (6,036 Views)
hazy
Member Avatar
Getting on a bit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
El Toro
3 Jul 2018, 10:09 PM
hazy
3 Jul 2018, 10:06 PM
El Toro
3 Jul 2018, 09:18 PM
Mentioned a few of these in the England match thread.

Why are penalties given for slight fouls in some random area of the penalty box? (I understand that it's called the 'penalty' box.) How does that deserve a free shot on goal? It skews so many results where teams don't deserve anything from the game. Would indirect free-kicks not be a better idea?

Bookings leading to bans in big tournaments. Why are players missing out on the biggest matches of their careers for picking up bookings? Many of which are underserved and can't be appealed. A red card, fair enough, but two minor infractions mean you miss the biggest game of your life?

There must be a few more..
You’re going to have to first come up with a sensible way to decide what is and is not a ‘“clear goal scoring opportunity”.

It would largely ruin the game i’m afraid
I'm not saying the idea is perfect.

It'd pretty much be up to the ref. Bit like the 'denying a goalscoring opportunity' we have now.

Will get more right than wrong and will be slightly more fair if nothing else.
It’s too much interpretation for the ref.

Alftredo Morales could be one on one with Craig Gordon, I wouldn’t consider it a clear goal scoring opportunity.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
El Toro
Member Avatar
First name on the team-sheet
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
corsica1968
3 Jul 2018, 10:11 PM
El Toro
3 Jul 2018, 10:03 PM
barrybhoy
3 Jul 2018, 09:53 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Ok.

Let's say we get Rosenborg in the next round. We pummel them with, I don't know, 40 shots, 20 on target over the two legs. They manage a few shots over the course of the tie. We have 70/30% possession.

They get a corner, Boyata accidentally clips someone's foot at the very edge of the box, right at the by-line when there's absolutely no danger at all.

They get a penalty - a free shot on goal for absolutely nothing that they have created - score and go through. Is that a fair reflection of who the better team was and who deserved to go through?




Yes. Read the rules.
I understand the rules, thank you. It's the rules that I'm taking issue with.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
El Toro
Member Avatar
First name on the team-sheet
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
hazy
3 Jul 2018, 10:12 PM
El Toro
3 Jul 2018, 10:09 PM
hazy
3 Jul 2018, 10:06 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I'm not saying the idea is perfect.

It'd pretty much be up to the ref. Bit like the 'denying a goalscoring opportunity' we have now.

Will get more right than wrong and will be slightly more fair if nothing else.
It’s too much interpretation for the ref.

Alftredo Morales could be one on one with Craig Gordon, I wouldn’t consider it a clear goal scoring opportunity.
Ok but my original point stands. Why is some minor infingement in the corner of the box equal to a free shot on goal?

The punishment does not fit the crime, if you will.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MhattyBhoy
Member Avatar
Getting on a bit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It's a daft wee one but I wouldn't let keepers collect the ball outside the box and bring it inside to pick it up. It's a bit too 'pass-backy' for me. Make them kick it, encourage attackers to close them down and chase 'lost causes'. It'll lead to a few more goals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ghost of Fitzpas
Member Avatar
Administrator in name only. Don't read PMs. Please PM a proper mod with any problems. Ta

Dr_Optimist
3 Jul 2018, 10:04 PM
El Toro
3 Jul 2018, 10:04 PM
Dr_Optimist
3 Jul 2018, 10:01 PM
Take away any ambiguity about the handball rule. Hits your hand(s) = foul.
Nah. It's got to be intentional.

Do away with the 'hand in an unnatural position'? Yes.
How do you prove/judge intent?
The ref already does.

I've always wanted an indirect FK for those accidental 'ball to hand' handballs that gives the defender an advantage, or breaks up a move.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KrnyBhoy
Member Avatar
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Bookings for celebrating a goal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vinnie Bhoy
Member Avatar
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Shielding the ball out. Should be obstruction.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ghost of Fitzpas
Member Avatar
Administrator in name only. Don't read PMs. Please PM a proper mod with any problems. Ta

El Toro
3 Jul 2018, 09:29 PM
Meant to add, I'm not anti-penalty, just think they should only be given for the obstruction of clear goalscoring opportunities.
Posted Image

Seen this on Twitter earlier.

I'm not a huge fan of xG, but the Spain and Nigeria outliers only had a "<20% chance" of being a goal. They got a pen, and a pen is an 80% chance.

I'd like to see some test games with a hockey-style penalty area.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hellas67
Member Avatar
Club Captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Vinnie Bhoy
3 Jul 2018, 10:31 PM
Shielding the ball out. Should be obstruction.
This one has always ripped ma knittin, if in the middle of the park you made no attempt to play the ball and were pushing someone away with your arse for 10mtrs a foul would be given...but it is allowed when "shepherding" the ball out for a bye kick!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheGloryYears
Member Avatar
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hellas67
3 Jul 2018, 10:41 PM
Vinnie Bhoy
3 Jul 2018, 10:31 PM
Shielding the ball out. Should be obstruction.
This one has always ripped ma knittin, if in the middle of the park you made no attempt to play the ball and were pushing someone away with your arse for 10mtrs a foul would be given...but it is allowed when "shepherding" the ball out for a bye kick!
Ajer would need to retire already !
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tothecore
First team training
[ *  *  * ]
Red card for this " he's taken one for the team" pish, it normally blatantly stops a counter attack ,spoiling the game.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Milton
Member Avatar
Considering retirement
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tothecore
3 Jul 2018, 10:53 PM
Red card for this " he's taken one for the team" pish, it normally blatantly stops a counter attack ,spoiling the game.
Definitely. And pulling a Suarez/Cuellar on the line should be an instant goal and red card too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
EstebanCelt
Member Avatar
Club Captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Not so much rules, but I think my biggest bugbear with football is the amount of time wasted and the amount of time actually spent "playing". There have been small "samples" done on this by someone on Twitter, I can't remember who by, basically suggesting we're missing out on up to 30 minutes in a 90-minute game, and "time added" at the end is a joke.

Small example being five minutes added on in the England game tonight, which to most fans would appear reasonable. Three subs, the 3+minute penalty fiasco, two goals, the number of fouls, free-kicks, injuries, yellows, time-wasting and breaks in play equates to more than 10 minutes, IMO.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KrnyBhoy
Member Avatar
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Giving random fouls when a centreback and striker are battling for space to win a header when the ball has kicked up from a goalkick. Just let them get on with it
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ronny_is_not_da_man
Member Avatar
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hellas67
3 Jul 2018, 10:41 PM
Vinnie Bhoy
3 Jul 2018, 10:31 PM
Shielding the ball out. Should be obstruction.
This one has always ripped ma knittin, if in the middle of the park you made no attempt to play the ball and were pushing someone away with your arse for 10mtrs a foul would be given...but it is allowed when "shepherding" the ball out for a bye kick!
This. One of my biggest bug bears. It's obstruction. Nothing else.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vinnie Bhoy
Member Avatar
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
EstebanCelt
3 Jul 2018, 11:07 PM
Not so much rules, but I think my biggest bugbear with football is the amount of time wasted and the amount of time actually spent "playing". There have been small "samples" done on this by someone on Twitter, I can't remember who by, basically suggesting we're missing out on up to 30 minutes in a 90-minute game, and "time added" at the end is a joke.

Small example being five minutes added on in the England game tonight, which to most fans would appear reasonable. Three subs, the 3+minute penalty fiasco, two goals, the number of fouls, free-kicks, injuries, yellows, time-wasting and breaks in play equates to more than 10 minutes, IMO.
What can really be done though? If you stop the clock each time the game would last for ages and be similar to NFL games. I'm sure advertisers would love that though.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
25Nakamura
Member Avatar
Occasional Substitute
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stop clock last ten mins. Would lead to more entertaining ends to games. Absolutely hate it when you see a ref add on four minutes, and the ball is only in play for one and he blows.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
barrybhoy
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
El Toro
3 Jul 2018, 10:03 PM
barrybhoy
3 Jul 2018, 09:53 PM
El Toro
3 Jul 2018, 09:29 PM
Meant to add, I'm not anti-penalty, just think they should only be given for the obstruction of clear goalscoring opportunities.
I think that makes it too vague, imo.

I would do away with shoot outs to end matches/ties. Make teams win trying to win, not trying to draw a match and win a shoot out. Play the first 30 minutes of extra time as now, then after wards make it golden goal and let teams use all unused subs. Would be so much better than seeing teams just hold out and hope they can win something unrelated to the actual match.

Other than that I don't have too much beef about football's rules.
Ok.

Let's say we get Rosenborg in the next round. We pummel them with, I don't know, 40 shots, 20 on target over the two legs. They manage a few shots over the course of the tie. We have 70/30% possession.

They get a corner, Boyata accidentally clips someone's foot at the very edge of the box, right at the by-line when there's absolutely no danger at all.

They get a penalty - a free shot on goal for absolutely nothing that they have created - score and go through. Is that a fair reflection of who the better team was and who deserved to go through?




In terms of goals scored yes. If you take 40 shots and and can't score but another team managed a goal, whether by penalty or open play, the team that scored deserves their victory. Now if the question is does a team that doesn't try to score and holds out for a shoot out deserve to go through, then I'd say no.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hank Scorpio
Member Avatar
Globex Corporation CEO
[ *  *  * ]
Added time multi-ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
EstebanCelt
Member Avatar
Club Captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Vinnie Bhoy
3 Jul 2018, 11:46 PM
EstebanCelt
3 Jul 2018, 11:07 PM
Not so much rules, but I think my biggest bugbear with football is the amount of time wasted and the amount of time actually spent "playing". There have been small "samples" done on this by someone on Twitter, I can't remember who by, basically suggesting we're missing out on up to 30 minutes in a 90-minute game, and "time added" at the end is a joke.

Small example being five minutes added on in the England game tonight, which to most fans would appear reasonable. Three subs, the 3+minute penalty fiasco, two goals, the number of fouls, free-kicks, injuries, yellows, time-wasting and breaks in play equates to more than 10 minutes, IMO.
What can really be done though? If you stop the clock each time the game would last for ages and be similar to NFL games. I'm sure advertisers would love that though.
Maybe stop the clock at free-kicks, penalties, goals, cards, injuries and substitutions. Throw-ins and corners, perhaps leave them as it make it too stop-start, give time-wasters a yellow. Even reducing the game to two 40-minute halves could improve what can become tedious and annoying 'processes' in the modern game.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Celtic Football Club Discussion Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply