So here is my blueprint:
 - green/blue card - 2 minute sin bin - minor indiscretions (replaces a 'talking to' type indiscretion and keeps game going (i.e. game continues and time penalty starts from when sin bin is reached)
 - yellow card - 10 minute sin bin - (probably similar indiscretion as current yellow - no totting up - penalty served in game)
 - red card - as it currently is.
 - timing on the same basis as UAE suggests
 - rolling substitutes from a match squad of 18 players (at least one being a sub-goalie)
 - and wait for it....
 - no offside
 

Last edited by Finn Seemann (09/2/2024 5:17 pm)

Stop the clock when ball is not in play - totally agree

Sin bin for dissent or a tactical foul - its good that they are trying to tackle these two problems. I am not sure a sin bin is the right solution, teams will just sit deep and or keep possession if they know it's only for a few minutes

No offsides - disagree, would completely change the game


Rolling subs from 18 man squad - disagree, would give the bigger clubs like the two from glasgow,even more of an advantage. I think 5 subs from a bench of 9 is already too many.

kiwiarab wrote:

Stop the clock when ball is not in play - totally agree

Sin bin for dissent or a tactical foul - its good that they are trying to tackle these two problems. I am not sure a sin bin is the right solution, teams will just sit deep and or keep possession if they know it's only for a few minutes

No offsides - disagree, would completely change the game


Rolling subs from 18 man squad - disagree, would give the bigger clubs like the two from glasgow,even more of an advantage. I think 5 subs from a bench of 9 is already too many.

No, offside would change the game, and make it more exciting to watch.  I played hockey when the offside rule was dropped.  Made it a much better game.  Not sure you wouldn't need to make other changes to accommodate, but it's not nearly as crazy as it sounds.  You'd end up with games that are not bogged down in midfield back and forward and tippy tappy build up football.  Totally changes the dynamic, I think, for the better.

I did think about how many in the rolling subs numbers as I am aware that it could help the bigger clubs, but in some ways it puts less emphasis on the strength of the starting XI and more emphasis on having a stronger squad.  But in the end I don't think you ever get away from the bigger teams having an advantage and the current 5 subs from 9 already means that the bigger teams have that advantage.

On the sin bin, true that teams might initially try to sit in, but in truth losing one player for 5 minutes doesn't make that much difference and sitting in is probably the wrong thing to do.  2 players off would however make the difference.  The point isn't really the punishment.  It is the deterrent.  

Football and other sports rules have always evolved and they need to.  I intentionally mentioned offside knowing that the 'purists' would do a flippy.  

People seem to have got over the novel idea of having substitutes and ruling out the pass back to the keeper.  Things will change because they need to.  The concept of VAR is fine - it's just that it is implemented incorrectly.  Give the referee the ability to ask for VAR if they really aren't sure on a key event and give each team one or two chances to ask for a review which they lose if they are wrong and we can get back to the game not being dominated by it.  

Also people need to remember the rules don't just apply to the top leagues.  They'll soon have no referees if there isn't some level of respect won back for refs at the grass roots levels.  Having witnessed the level of intimidation of refs at youth level (watching my son play) there is no way I'd give up my time for football reffing and I umpired at hockey for years and the difference is massive.  Not to say I think blue cards are the solution, but there is a massive problem that definitely needs to be resolved.  Sorting out player behaviour in the top leagues has to be a start...

Morphman wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

Also people need to remember the rules don't just apply to the top leagues.  They'll soon have no referees if there isn't some level of respect won back for refs at the grass roots levels.  Having witnessed the level of intimidation of refs at youth level (watching my son play) there is no way I'd give up my time for football reffing and I umpired at hockey for years and the difference is massive.  Not to say I think blue cards are the solution, but there is a massive problem that definitely needs to be resolved.  Sorting out player behaviour in the top leagues has to be a start...

 
I agree with this but the solution needs to be an agreement from those in charge of the game, in this country and globally, to back refs who deal out straight red cards for abuse of officials.

Sin bin is nonsense for me, you'll learn your lesson from a sending off and a 3 match ban using the laws as they exist currently. Telling referees to explicity use these laws and then backing them when they do so is a better solution than continued alterations to the game.

Not convinced to be honest.  People don't learn their lesson - I've seen some youngsters treat their bans like  badges of honour and coaches put them straight back in the teams without any suggestion that they need to change their ways.  A new way is needed and we should be looking at other sports that appear to get it right.  The way professionals behave drips down to the grass roots.  If the current laws were correctly enforced we'd see games abandoned as there wouldn't be enough players on the park to satisfy the minimum player rules.  We need to see something in the televised game change to get a grip of things.  As a Man U fan, our captain would be sent off in pretty much every game if the rules were correctly applied.

Morphman wrote:

None of the above for me:

Back to 16 man squads.

3 subs a match.

Get rid of VAR: If it needs kept then only for fouls that occur two players, or two touches, before the ball ends up in the net.

Put it on a manifesto and i'll vote for you.

Keep goal line technology.


Finally, ban cunts that keep trying to add new laws to the game. This is not the NFL.

I'd love someone to explain how football is going to work without an offside rule?

Finn Seemann wrote:

Arabdownsouth wrote:

I'd love someone to explain how football is going to work without an offside rule?

What's to explain?  No player can be offside - will that do...?

As I have said I have played during the same change in another sport that is very similar in movement to football.  It was a revelation.  Granted it would mean a lot of tactical changes, but as Shakey says, all of a sudden the whole of the pitch is in play all the time.  Don't get me wrong it would change the art of defending (it did for me as a defender in hockey).  You've got to have a 360 degree field of vision rather than a 180-240 degree field of vision which just makes it a lot more interesting to watch.

 
Teams would just sit back the whole time as otherwise strikers would just camp in the penalty area waiting for a long ball, no need to be snappy either, it'll never happen cos it'll never work.

Probably work with table footy though

Last edited by Arabdownsouth (13/2/2024 12:42 pm)

Finn Seemann wrote:

Arabdownsouth wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

What's to explain?  No player can be offside - will that do...?

As I have said I have played during the same change in another sport that is very similar in movement to football.  It was a revelation.  Granted it would mean a lot of tactical changes, but as Shakey says, all of a sudden the whole of the pitch is in play all the time.  Don't get me wrong it would change the art of defending (it did for me as a defender in hockey).  You've got to have a 360 degree field of vision rather than a 180-240 degree field of vision which just makes it a lot more interesting to watch.

 
Teams would just sit back the whole time as otherwise strikers would just camp in the penalty area waiting for a long ball, no need to be snappy either, it'll never happen cos it'll never work.

Probably work with table footy though

Suspect it will happen at some point, but possibly not in my lifetime.  The long ball would be a tactic, but it just wouldn't be as simple as that.  It would work.

It's all a moot point anyway so no point in prolonging the offside discussion.

 
No point in prolonging a discussion that you're wrong about you mean? Might work in some shitey sport that nobody really watches but a multi billion pound sport with massive tv coverage and huge fan bases the world over is never going to make a drastic decision like that which would, in my opinion, wreck the game altogether.

Finn Seemann wrote:

Arabdownsouth wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

Suspect it will happen at some point, but possibly not in my lifetime.  The long ball would be a tactic, but it just wouldn't be as simple as that.  It would work.

It's all a moot point anyway so no point in prolonging the offside discussion.

 
No point in prolonging a discussion that you're wrong about you mean? Might work in some shitey sport that nobody really watches but a multi billion pound sport with massive tv coverage and huge fan bases the world over is never going to make a drastic decision like that which would, in my opinion, wreck the game altogether.

^^ Just to prove I'm right to step away.  Gift that keeps giving 

 
Is that what you do every time you're wrong then? Try to deride the other person? You haven't even attempted to explain your theory at all but of course you have to keep up your cleverer than everyone else image I suppose.

Here's to the next 160 years then 👍

Arabdownsouth wrote:

I'd love someone to explain how football is going to work without an offside rule?

Ok, way I see it: 1/ At the moment under VAR offsides go down to micrometers and take an interminable time for boofheads to make up their minds. 2/ Defensively you set up a line across the back and marshall the line, with defensive understanding and listening to calls. It's very technical, disciplined and very satisfying when you get a clean sheet. When defending I hated it as you're reliant on all those along the line + boofhead linesman.
Anyhow given a sound defensive line it allows defence to constrict the play - thus it favours defence.

You do away with offsides, immediately you advantage attack by virtue of more space and less of the technicality of beating offside traps.

Those against getting rid of offsides would say getting rid will just create open slather (at least I think that's what you're saying lads cos I've never heard anything other than that'll no work). Anyway at it's most simplistic no offsides allows forwards space in behind leaving more room for accurate through balls and more advantage for faster forwards to get past lumps of defenders who previously relied on an albeit very skilful offside traps.   It would force man to man all the way to defensive teams goal line. Defenders would have to be faster, fitter and work their bollox off, inevitably leaving more gaps. I see no offsides as adding a whole new dimension to the game.

Bottom line- and it speaks for itself  - we describe teams that come to Tannadice as aiming to "SIT" in.     I'd rather see fast open football than sitting.  Oh aye and goals rather than whistle and VAR

Last edited by Shakey Isles Arab (13/2/2024 10:30 pm)

Finn Seemann wrote:

Arabdownsouth wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

^^ Just to prove I'm right to step away.  Gift that keeps giving 

 
Is that what you do every time you're wrong then? Try to deride the other person? You haven't even attempted to explain your theory at all but of course you have to keep up your cleverer than everyone else image I suppose.

Here's to the next 160 years then 👍

Have more respect for yourself.  It's a debate on what rules might be changed.  Nobody is wrong, nobody is right.  You've always struggled with this concept across many United boards.  How do you want me to explain there is no offside rule?  Imagine a Bradburyesque world where the death of a butterfly results in the guy who invented offside never being born.  Does that work for you?

 
Here we go with the "you've got history of this" shite again. So I'm not allowed a different opinion? You started with the snarky response so maybe you could show others a little more respect yourself. I asked for an explanation of how it would work and you answered like a ten year old boy. Whilst I don't agree with Shakey, at least he explained his reasoning, unlike yourself 👍