What I'd Like to See

The problem with most new rules that referees have to enforce is that they enforce them over zealously for a few months and then forget all about them. Goalkeepers leaving the box before punting the ball out of their hands for example.
 
cherrybeetle said:
Why does the reason for injury matter ? Also, doesn't stop players feigning injury.
Click to expand...
So, we're winning 1-0 with 3 minutes to go.
Mepham (or choose any of our players) is fouled with a relatively bad tackle by their forward and needs treatment.
Their forward may or may not get booked.
This hypothetical rule then means Mepham needs to wait 5 minutes before coming back on, so effectively we're down to 10 men for the last 3 minutes.
Opposition wins a corner a minute later, you don't think Mepham should be allowed on to help defend the corner, just because he was fouled and needed treatment?
If there was no foul, then yea, this rule could be good, otherwise the losing team will just keep kicking the winning teams players until they're playing against 8 or 9 players!
 
Coobster said:
So, we're winning 1-0 with 3 minutes to go.
Mepham (or choose any of our players) is fouled with a relatively bad tackle by their forward and needs treatment.
Their forward may or may not get booked.
This hypothetical rule then means Mepham needs to wait 5 minutes before coming back on, so effectively we're down to 10 men for the last 3 minutes.
Opposition wins a corner a minute later, you don't think Mepham should be allowed on to help defend the corner, just because he was fouled and needed treatment?
If there was no foul, then yea, this rule could be good, otherwise the losing team will just keep kicking the winning teams players until they're playing against 8 or 9 players!
Click to expand...

Yeah, obviously not disagreeing on that point. but that was not what I was getting at.

How do you know the player was 'fouled'? Players dropping like flies most games, so how do you separate the wheat from the chaff? Refs are easily conned, as we all know. This rule, therefore, makes no sense. Hence my comment. Why should any player have to wait 5 mins before coming back on? Just seems bizarre to me. Fouled or not.
 
What I'd like to see is proper football. Unadulterated by the powers that be. Football as God himself intended. Proper Seventies football. When men were men and there weren't 10 penalty shouts per game. When you could get kicked all game and not go down once. And if you did pull a shifty foul, like Mitro did, you knew you would be getting stick for the rest of the game and your shinpads would get a proper workout. No VAR in sight. Just two sides proper going at it and not giving an inch. Like Redknapp said in 1984 'everytime they get the ball kick them up in the air'. If VAR can't be done right, why would any more tinkering work? Let's just scrap it all and go back to basics. Just a thought !!
 
kirsikka said:
So an opposition player scythes down an AFCB player and he needs treatment to, say, his leg. AFCB get a free kick but the AFCB player has to leave the pitch for five minutes, meaning because our player got badly hacked we play with ten men for five minutes?

I take your point in one sense but if the player who did the scything was at least yellow carded, he would be sent to the sin bin for ten minutes, so the opposing team would have 10 players for 5 minutes. It could even be adjusted so that the player could be sent to the sin bin but the time in the sin bin be started from the time the injured player came back on the pitch.
Click to expand...
 
cherrybeetle said:
The problem with time saving is that games, at present, last about 1 hour. If you make players play for the full 90 mins they are effectively playing an extra 19 games a season. This will cause more injuries and player burnout. It also helps big clubs with better subs and more resources for rotation. This will, indirectly, ban small clubs, like ours, from competing at the highest level and prevent all but the richest clubs from ever winning the title or qualifying for Europe. Field is already not level, this proposal makes it near vertical, imho. Throw-in rule is a good idea.
Click to expand...
I understand the gist of your argument but now, with five subs per team, and if each team takes a minute to make a sub, that means ten minutes off the game. That’s with no other time wasting. I’ve watched games where the opposing team subbed player has gone to wave at supporters, shook hands with the ref, hugged a team mate, dragged himself to the pitch side and shook hands with his replacement, rediculous.
 
Redpost said:
I understand the gist of your argument but now, with five subs per team, and if each team takes a minute to make a sub, that means ten minutes off the game. That’s with no other time wasting. I’ve watched games where the opposing team subbed player has gone to wave at supporters, shook hands with the ref, hugged a team mate, dragged himself to the pitch side and shook hands with his replacement, rediculous.
Click to expand...

The ref should be adding time on. If football enforced the rules already in place, there is no need for any of this.
 
Have they done away with the rule that a player should leave the pitch at the shortest point to the sideline. Scumpton seem to sub players that were furthest away from the bench.
 
retro red said:
Have they done away with the rule that a player should leave the pitch at the shortest point to the sideline. Scumpton seem to sub players that were furthest away from the bench.
Click to expand...
I noticed that. Our players were questioning it as well. The ref just blanked them.
We really are just an unnecessary distraction to the PL and the sooner we are relegated the happier the brand men will be.
 
When Dom was subbed at Fulham last week the ref made a point of him leaving the pitch by the goal......all we ask is a bit of consistency....I know regarding the PL and us it's never going to happen
 
retro red said:
Have they done away with the rule that a player should leave the pitch at the shortest point to the sideline. Scumpton seem to sub players that were furthest away from the bench.
Click to expand...

Its a daft law. If you’re the away side and you are forced to walk in front of the home fans, then you got straight to the half way line as normal.

Home players, leave anywhere.
 
stanthevan said:
In kids football they have a sin bin as alternative to a yellow card. I think it actually might lie between yellow and a red. My grandson was sin binned the other week for telling the ref he was shît. I positively glowed with pride.
Click to expand...

Why were you proud? Many new refs at entry level leave the game due to the abuse (mainly from parents) that they receive.
If they were treated better more people would be willing to give it a try and the pool of potential top level referees would be much larger. We don’t help ourselves sometimes.
 
Chopper said:
Why were you proud? Many new refs at entry level leave the game due to the abuse (mainly from parents) that they receive.
If they were treated better more people would be willing to give it a try and the pool of potential top level referees would be much larger. We don’t help ourselves sometimes.
Click to expand...
I knew there would be one. Get a sense of humour.
 
stanthevan said:
In kids football they have a sin bin as alternative to a yellow card. I think it actually might lie between yellow and a red. My grandson was sin binned the other week for telling the ref he was shît. I positively glowed with pride.
Click to expand...
Funny, I received a yellow as a kid for exactly the same thing. Had to pay the £8 fine from my pocket money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;