Simple rules for a simple game

grecianstew

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2006
Messages
991
Location
Taunton
Time wasting -
If ref decides that a team is time wasting:
1. He warns the offending team's captain
2. Any further offence, he books the player concerned AND the captain
3. Further offence, books the player concerned AND again books the captain. The captain is off for two yellows. New captain.
4. And repeat
Agree with lots of this. HOWEVER if possession was simply reversed for time wasting it would stop instantly. Eg, keeper wastes time taking goal kick = corner, delay free kick = free kick the other way etc.
Only captain approaching ref, and then only for clarification would be great, particularly if backed up with retrospective yellow cards for players seen haranguing refs on video evidence.
And still don’t understand why we need offside at all. It is an impossible law for a human being to police so as we saw Saturday, games are decided on a whim. Many years ago Hockey sacked their almost identical offside rule. It took a season for teams to adjust but after that not a soul would advocate bringing it back.
 

Devon Red

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
2,092
It didn't radically change the scoring in hockey.
Interesting. You'd imagine the game would be so stretched it would be goals left right and centre.

The pitch would have to be made smaller you'd think as there would be a lot of running involved.

Basically I think if you removed the offside rule you'd want it back quickly! 😂
 

Oldsmobile-88

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
23,232
Location
In RaWZ we trust....Amen.
The Watney Cup.A pre season tournament for 8 teams(2 from each division)in the early 1970s did one year scrap offside outside of the 18 yard box line.
It certainly stopped a lot of the congestion in midfield without affecting the amount of goals scored.

Iirc FIFA did not approve & it was dropped after one tournament.
 

grecianstew

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2006
Messages
991
Location
Taunton
Games would be unrecognisable and every fixture would end about 10-9.
Yep, that’s exactly what the Hockey naysayers said. They were wrong, it made very little difference.
it will be a Goalhangers license they said, nope teams quickly learned that there was no tactical advantage in leaving a player upfield and left the team short numbered in other areas. The main difference it made was to stretch the game more and so give players more space to play in, the game became much more attractive both to play and watch. And most important of all, removed probably 75% of the controversy and thus reason for dissent.
 

sidney

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
174
Yep, that’s exactly what the Hockey naysayers said. They were wrong, it made very little difference.
it will be a Goalhangers license they said, nope teams quickly learned that there was no tactical advantage in leaving a player upfield and left the team short numbered in other areas. The main difference it made was to stretch the game more and so give players more space to play in, the game became much more attractive both to play and watch. And most important of all, removed probably 75% of the controversy and thus reason for dissent.
As a former hockey player, I concur.
 

andrew p long

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
9,773
Location
Hagley, Stourbridge
Agree with lots of this. HOWEVER if possession was simply reversed for time wasting it would stop instantly. Eg, keeper wastes time taking goal kick = corner, delay free kick = free kick the other way etc.
Only captain approaching ref, and then only for clarification would be great, particularly if backed up with retrospective yellow cards for players seen haranguing refs on video evidence.
And still don’t understand why we need offside at all. It is an impossible law for a human being to police so as we saw Saturday, games are decided on a whim. Many years ago Hockey sacked their almost identical offside rule. It took a season for teams to adjust but after that not a soul would advocate bringing it back.
Excellent post. The punishment should fit the crime. Make the outcome the opposite of what the side breaking the rules is trying to achieve. Goalkeepers so comprehensively waste time - taking the Mickey even - but if a few corners were awarded for time wasting at goal kicks it would soon be reduced.

We also have a dreadful epidemic of standing over the ball after conceding a free kick. It has become accepted that players/teams will stand over the ball. This seems to go completely un-policed and unenforced Again we need a 'punishment that actually acts as an effective deterrent' rather than a booking. It is sad to have to accept that our egg chasing chums have this far more effectively sorted with the punishment of moving the kick ten yards further forward (just as rugby seems to get by without the routine chasing of referees)
 

robchave

Active member
Joined
May 21, 2004
Messages
1,554
Location
Central Brittany
Some years ago, there was an idea of extending the 18yd line to the edges of the pitch and having no offside until past that line. Don't remember it ever being tried.

A lot of other 'bad practice' has crept in through professionals taking advantage of a desire by officialdom to 'let the game flow' (for the TV audience?). The best way, in my opinion, to 'let the game flow' is to strictly apply the current rules, stamp out the bad practice (I.e shirt pulling, holding etc) and then have a review to see how the rules can be changed/modified to make the game more attractive - for fans and TV viewers.
 
Top