Quote from: "Holtemeister"If a player is injured following a foul against him by an opposition player needing player to leave the field of play for treatment, then the player committing the foul should also be required to leave the field of play until the injured player returns. If the injured player, who had been fouled against, receives treatment from the physio but is able to continue without leaving the field of play then he should be allowed to continue the game without doing so from the touchline.It is an anomoly that a fouled against team can be at a numerical disadvantage following a foul against them and has needed ammending for a number of years .....This would be the most abused rule in the history of any game. Think about it, players could go down easily when an important player on the other team makes the slightest contact. Players would then fake injuries even more and take longer to come back into the game so the other player can't come in. Terrible idea
If a player is injured following a foul against him by an opposition player needing player to leave the field of play for treatment, then the player committing the foul should also be required to leave the field of play until the injured player returns. If the injured player, who had been fouled against, receives treatment from the physio but is able to continue without leaving the field of play then he should be allowed to continue the game without doing so from the touchline.It is an anomoly that a fouled against team can be at a numerical disadvantage following a foul against them and has needed ammending for a number of years .....
Quote from: "davevillan"Quote from: "E I Adio"All of these suggestions seem eminently sensible, which will probably be the reason they will never be adopted by FIFA.FIFA dont change the Laws, all changes are done by the International board, 4 are from the Uk nations, and 4 from other nations.To be fair, when they do make the changes, they always explain why, and they generally tend to be for the better.Thanks for the correction Dave, I have to say I didn't know that. However, although I wouldn't necessarily disagree that all the changes to the laws are generally for the better, my point really was that the lawmakers are slothful in the extreme. For instance, I haven't heard a single credible argument against introducing video evidence, at the very least for goal line decisions, when the technology has been widely available and used in other sports for years. I happened to think that pretty much all of the suggestions in cdvillafan's original post had some merit and were worthy of consideration, but I wouldn't be holding my breath.
Quote from: "E I Adio"All of these suggestions seem eminently sensible, which will probably be the reason they will never be adopted by FIFA.FIFA dont change the Laws, all changes are done by the International board, 4 are from the Uk nations, and 4 from other nations.To be fair, when they do make the changes, they always explain why, and they generally tend to be for the better.
All of these suggestions seem eminently sensible, which will probably be the reason they will never be adopted by FIFA.
Quote from: "E I Adio"Quote from: "davevillan"Quote from: "E I Adio"All of these suggestions seem eminently sensible, which will probably be the reason they will never be adopted by FIFA.FIFA dont change the Laws, all changes are done by the International board, 4 are from the Uk nations, and 4 from other nations.To be fair, when they do make the changes, they always explain why, and they generally tend to be for the better.Thanks for the correction Dave, I have to say I didn't know that. However, although I wouldn't necessarily disagree that all the changes to the laws are generally for the better, my point really was that the lawmakers are slothful in the extreme. For instance, I haven't heard a single credible argument against introducing video evidence, at the very least for goal line decisions, when the technology has been widely available and used in other sports for years. I happened to think that pretty much all of the suggestions in cdvillafan's original post had some merit and were worthy of consideration, but I wouldn't be holding my breath.Id have no problem with goal-line technology, if it was only used for goal-line decisions, but tbh, there are very few decisions in a season when it would be used.The media go on about it, but for the whole ball to be behind the line, the base of the ball needs to be a fair way behind the line. On most occasions they claim it is, most of the ball is, but not the whole ball.I would be against using technology for decisions as those have to be with the discretion of the ref, and id hate to see a situation develope when the game becomes stop/start while a decision is debated by a tv monitor.i know they use it in super league, but i believe thats only in games shown live on sky, i dont believe that is a fair system.
Quote from: "davevillan"Quote from: "E I Adio"Quote from: "davevillan"Quote from: "E I Adio"All of these suggestions seem eminently sensible, which will probably be the reason they will never be adopted by FIFA.FIFA dont change the Laws, all changes are done by the International board, 4 are from the Uk nations, and 4 from other nations.To be fair, when they do make the changes, they always explain why, and they generally tend to be for the better.Thanks for the correction Dave, I have to say I didn't know that. However, although I wouldn't necessarily disagree that all the changes to the laws are generally for the better, my point really was that the lawmakers are slothful in the extreme. For instance, I haven't heard a single credible argument against introducing video evidence, at the very least for goal line decisions, when the technology has been widely available and used in other sports for years. I happened to think that pretty much all of the suggestions in cdvillafan's original post had some merit and were worthy of consideration, but I wouldn't be holding my breath.Id have no problem with goal-line technology, if it was only used for goal-line decisions, but tbh, there are very few decisions in a season when it would be used.The media go on about it, but for the whole ball to be behind the line, the base of the ball needs to be a fair way behind the line. On most occasions they claim it is, most of the ball is, but not the whole ball.I would be against using technology for decisions as those have to be with the discretion of the ref, and id hate to see a situation develope when the game becomes stop/start while a decision is debated by a tv monitor.i know they use it in super league, but i believe thats only in games shown live on sky, i dont believe that is a fair system.Sorry, but I can't agree with your arguments against using goal line technology, but you raise an interesting point concerning the criteria for a ball to be out of play, or indeed to count as a goal by virtue of the whole of the ball having to cross the line.I am certain that referees do not interpret this rule correctly anyway. I believe that most referees and assistants will call a ball to be out of play, or a goal awarded if the centreline of the ball is just a few centimetres over the centreline of the line. Given that a size 5 ball can be up to 70 centimetres in circumference, the centreline of the ball must be at least 27.5 centimetres beyond the centreline of the line (that's almost a foot in old money) and I don't believe that this is hardly ever the case in disputed calls.Another archaic rule that needs to be changed to fall in with actual practice.