Proposed Rule Changes In Association Football

Intercontinental news and information

Proposed Rule Changes In Association Football

Joined: August 4th, 2012, 4:06 pm

June 6th, 2016, 6:32 pm #1

  • new penalty system: penalty box/sin bin, penalties for minor infractions like in basketball (including when advantage is played), harsher retroactive punishments for diving and violent behavior
  • clock must be stopped when play stops (game clock can be reduced to compensate)
  • substitutions must be made fluid and unlimited
  • offside rule must be less strict
  • goalkeeper must not be able to catch the ball
  • kicks from the penalty mark must be redone (penalty shootouts will be less common anyway with these rule changes because higher scoring games cause a less amount of draws)
  • signalling injured players must sit out for a minimum time or be treated on the field during play
The main reason most of these rule changes (or something similar) are needed is because there is not enough scoring opportunities in football for the scoreline to represent the true performance on the field to a satisfactory degree.
Last edited by abramjones on July 3rd, 2017, 4:02 am, edited 4 times in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

June 6th, 2016, 6:54 pm #2

All these sound like great proposals.  Perhaps we could also replace the goal posts with a small circular metal hoop, and then maybe the players should be able to use their hands to throw and bounce the ball.  Then we should replace the grass, maybe with some wooden gymnasium flooring.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 4th, 2012, 4:06 pm

June 6th, 2016, 9:19 pm #3

nfm24 wrote:
All these sound like great proposals.  Perhaps we could also replace the goal posts with a small circular metal hoop, and then maybe the players should be able to use their hands to throw and bounce the ball.  Then we should replace the grass, maybe with some wooden gymnasium flooring.
Sorry, but I don't think your ideas will fix the mathematical problem caused by lack of scoring opportunities in football (:
Sarcasm aside, you're clearly stating that if my rules were to be used it would be a completely different sport. But no, compared to the current game of football it would be considered a different variation at most. Often when things start out they gradually change over time, usually for the sake of improvement. Some things move very slowly, some things a bit faster. Unfortunately, football and many other sports evolve very slowly... not because they are perfect as is, just because people don't like change. Since football is pretty much the oldest sport largely played it has many primitive features that have not been fixed yet, though it should be said that most sports (and games in general) suffer from some type of lack of foresight. One of the main reasons for such retardation in the world of gaming and sports is the lack of need for improvement, therefore such progressive thinkers that could influence such traits usually do not take part in the realm of games and sports. In the world of science and technology improvement is extremely important, so things tend to change fast there relatively quickly, even in the face of religious fundamentalism.

Honestly though, the changes i suggest are not even that extreme with the exception of 1 or 2 things. Mostly it is common sense fixes, but if you're so accustomed to something that seemingly works for you it is natural human behavior not to want change, and even bitterly fight against improvement.
Last edited by abramjones on June 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 31st, 2006, 5:16 pm

June 7th, 2016, 5:35 am #4

Football is relatively simple. That is why it has become the most popular game in the world by far.

The rules you posit smack of "Americanisation" - Europeans don't like the Americanisation of sports in general. All these sin bins and timeouts and nonsense - we don't like it. It disrupts the game. Also, these types of things are more likely to work in indoor sports. If you watch a game of American football, it is punctuated far too often. It's all about individual "plays" rather than a single flowing entity.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 26th, 2008, 11:44 am

June 7th, 2016, 6:03 am #5

I can live with harsher punishments for diving and violent behavior as well as clock must be stopped when play stops. For the rest your proposlas are a farçe and asking for a reaction Neil (nfm24) gave.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 31st, 2006, 5:16 pm

June 7th, 2016, 6:50 am #6

Yes, these 2 seemed the most reasonable. Stopping the clock is difficult though - for example, in futsal, a match of 40 minutes playing time can take almost double that time to complete in real time. Clock is stopped when ball is not in play, and for free kicks, etc. Obviously, in football, this could result in matches lasting something like 2 hours 15 minutes instead of 1 hour 30.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 9th, 2011, 2:58 pm

June 8th, 2016, 5:30 am #7

I'm more and more convinced that penalty kicks must be abolished during a
match. Fouls committed inside the box should be punished with a normal
free kick. Penalties are too decisive and can cause a lot of polemics.Penalty
shoot-outs must be kept only to settle draws in official tournaments
and knockout stages, exactly like it happens now, but during the 90 or
180 minutes they mustn't be used anymore.This would be a first step to evade a lot of polemics and tensions.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 31st, 2006, 5:16 pm

June 8th, 2016, 5:41 am #8

Free kicks inside the box already happen, but they are quite rare. Usually they are given for non-contact fouls (dangerous play) or some goalkeeper errors, like taking too many steps with the ball.

If they are introduced for all fouls, it could result in more dangerous tackles being attempted in the box (and also, ultra-defensive teams would no longer have the fear of fouling their opponents and this type of "10 defenders in the box" play might become more successful). Of course, a very dangerous foul (or deliberate handball) could still attract a red card, so we would probably see a rise in "slightly aggressive" fouling only.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 9th, 2011, 2:58 pm

June 8th, 2016, 10:44 am #9

The solution is simple: zero tolerance towards violent fouls, both inside and outside the box. I can't stand for those referees who book those players who take their shirt off while celebrating, and then tolerate killer tackles.
Remember how many decisive games have been decided by fake penalties and how many polemics have been generated. It's time to change this rule. Moreover, referees can referee more serenely without such a huge responsability.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

June 8th, 2016, 7:11 pm #10

[quotes from video]> Scoring should more strongly correlate to "who played best on the field"..> make the "final score of a football match a more accurate depiction of the performance on the field"
Let's momentarily ignore the fundamental tautological flaw in this, and the vague and unquantifiable terminology, and just suppose that your premise makes sense.
You haven't demonstrated any correlation between your intended outcome and your suggested rule changes.  Why have you chosen these *particular* adjustments?  Your suggestions are arbitrary tweaks that could easily be replaced by another set of tweaks, and we wouldn't know which set was "better".  
Some of your rule changes may garner "face-value" approval or disapproval among fans, but these views are normally based on simple entertainment aspects or instant gratification of seeing somebody punished etc. They are adjustments to affect things that annoyed you, which is fair enough - there are some merits on that front alone.  But there is no evidence that they increase the scoring opportunities, or reduce upsets.  The best you could hope for is to appeal to "common sense", unjustified and unquantifiable, that some of the tweaks could possibly, maybe, result in a few more scoring opportunities. Maybe.   Though there would obviously be more effective ways to achieve that.
Furthermore, you haven't explained why it matters.  Why is higher "chance of upset" a bad thing?  Are you having gambling problems?  A need to see "justice" done?  Why is "more scoring opportunities" a good thing?  Attention deficit of fans?  Lack of perseverance and tactical nuance?  Childlike need to be continually rewarded for modicum of effort?
What is the point of sport?  To demonstrate superiority, and to have superiority confirmed?  "Scientific outcome"?  Not for me.  If those are important to you, then that is your view, but do not assume that they are axiomatic truths.  You are imposing the wrong filters upon what you see on the field.
There is no problem to be solved.  There is no need for a strong reliable correlation between "ability" and result.  Sport is not about who is "best".  It's about who wins on the day.  It's the same thing you failed to grasp on the other thread.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 4th, 2012, 4:06 pm

June 17th, 2016, 5:34 pm #11

TheRoonBa wrote:
Football is relatively simple. That is why it has become the most popular game in the world by far.

The rules you posit smack of "Americanisation" - Europeans don't like the Americanisation of sports in general. All these sin bins and timeouts and nonsense - we don't like it. It disrupts the game. Also, these types of things are more likely to work in indoor sports. If you watch a game of American football, it is punctuated far too often. It's all about individual "plays" rather than a single flowing entity.
You are completely incorrect here, these rules will make the game much more fluid (single flowing as you call it). Not sure if you even listened to what I was saying, but I mentioned that several times. And yes, my video about American Football is coming too, you are absolutely right, it is broken up and becomes complete nonsense (yes, timeouts are nonsense, but should not be compared to sin bins). As far as the Americanization, I don't think so. It's a blanket comment, but what is "American" about my proposal?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 4th, 2012, 4:06 pm

June 17th, 2016, 5:38 pm #12

TheRoonBa wrote:
Yes, these 2 seemed the most reasonable. Stopping the clock is difficult though - for example, in futsal, a match of 40 minutes playing time can take almost double that time to complete in real time. Clock is stopped when ball is not in play, and for free kicks, etc. Obviously, in football, this could result in matches lasting something like 2 hours 15 minutes instead of 1 hour 30.
Simply reduce the total time on the clock, this way we are watching a "single flowing" game as you call it instead of unnecessary time wasting. example, in association football each half could be 30 minutes instead of 45 minutes. I heard that in an average football game there is about 30 minutes of time wasting.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 4th, 2012, 4:06 pm

June 17th, 2016, 5:43 pm #13

Luca wrote:
I'm more and more convinced that penalty kicks must be abolished during a
match. Fouls committed inside the box should be punished with a normal
free kick. Penalties are too decisive and can cause a lot of polemics.Penalty
shoot-outs must be kept only to settle draws in official tournaments
and knockout stages, exactly like it happens now, but during the 90 or
180 minutes they mustn't be used anymore.This would be a first step to evade a lot of polemics and tensions.
Yes, they cause a lot of problems mathematically speaking also. This is why their effect but at least be minimized. In my video I am talking about minimizing their effect, making the game mechanic of penalty kicks more realistic in terms of score to performance on the field ratio. but i'm sure they could be done away with proper rules also.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 4th, 2012, 4:06 pm

June 17th, 2016, 5:51 pm #14

nfm24 wrote:
[quotes from video]> Scoring should more strongly correlate to "who played best on the field"..> make the "final score of a football match a more accurate depiction of the performance on the field"
Let's momentarily ignore the fundamental tautological flaw in this, and the vague and unquantifiable terminology, and just suppose that your premise makes sense.
You haven't demonstrated any correlation between your intended outcome and your suggested rule changes.  Why have you chosen these *particular* adjustments?  Your suggestions are arbitrary tweaks that could easily be replaced by another set of tweaks, and we wouldn't know which set was "better".  
Some of your rule changes may garner "face-value" approval or disapproval among fans, but these views are normally based on simple entertainment aspects or instant gratification of seeing somebody punished etc. They are adjustments to affect things that annoyed you, which is fair enough - there are some merits on that front alone.  But there is no evidence that they increase the scoring opportunities, or reduce upsets.  The best you could hope for is to appeal to "common sense", unjustified and unquantifiable, that some of the tweaks could possibly, maybe, result in a few more scoring opportunities. Maybe.   Though there would obviously be more effective ways to achieve that.
Furthermore, you haven't explained why it matters.  Why is higher "chance of upset" a bad thing?  Are you having gambling problems?  A need to see "justice" done?  Why is "more scoring opportunities" a good thing?  Attention deficit of fans?  Lack of perseverance and tactical nuance?  Childlike need to be continually rewarded for modicum of effort?
What is the point of sport?  To demonstrate superiority, and to have superiority confirmed?  "Scientific outcome"?  Not for me.  If those are important to you, then that is your view, but do not assume that they are axiomatic truths.  You are imposing the wrong filters upon what you see on the field.
There is no problem to be solved.  There is no need for a strong reliable correlation between "ability" and result.  Sport is not about who is "best".  It's about who wins on the day.  It's the same thing you failed to grasp on the other thread.
Firstly, the only reason there is a lack of evidence for the results of my suggestions is because there is no experiments done. But anyone that has played football (or pretty much any other ball sport) could tell you that if the goalkeeper can't catch the ball and the offside rule is liberalized that there are going to be more scoring opportunities. Why argue this fact? It's not something that needs scientific research.
Your last argument is ridiculous, why? Because then why even have scoring in sports then? The point of the score is to represent the performance on the field. Are you telling me otherwise? The team who wins on the day should be the team who performed better on the field.

And no, you're taking me out of context. I'm not saying upsets are bad. There are 2 types of wins, deserved and undeserved. deserved: one team outplays the other team and the scoreline represents this fact. undeserved win: the winning team did not out perform the losing team, the score was a result of a fluke or a lack of chances (this is the equivalent to running an experiment too few times and trusting those results).
Last edited by abramjones on June 17th, 2016, 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:46 am

January 27th, 2017, 12:16 pm #15

So that less offside idea... looks like a legendary striker might be onside with that (pun intended).
Not sure what to make of these, I'm presuming hoping that they're merely suggestions being floated about in comment as they have to go through several stages (including approval by IFAB) before they pass into the rulebook. Trial them in leagues till the cows come home, but be sure to have substantial evidence before coming back.
Ignoring all the on-pitch alterations for a second (frozen clock), the 55/60 game-per-year limit seems especially prone to abuse, especially with the increasing blame placed towards international matches (rather than the club tours which at least Van Basten is acknowledging the hypocrisy on), you can see a big club making sure their player hits the limit before the end-of-season to disqualify him playing for his country, or treating certain cup games with even less respect because they want to save adding to appearance totals, or a club over-achieving on all fronts and being forced into a weaker team for the business end of those competitions.
Plus if they define friendlies as counting to the total, do you count games in training as well where the reserves are invited as the easy-going opponents?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

January 27th, 2017, 1:09 pm #16

> “That's all for money but we have to think about football and not money,” said Van Basten, who was hired by Fifa

!!?? Oh Marco, Marco Marco Marco...

It is a bit worrying that MVB is talking in the same terms as some clown on a forum, passing these ideas in idle chit-chat form instead of well-researched evidence-based proposals. Maybe they come later.

> be sure to have substantial evidence

Yes and furthermore, have some clear parameters of what "success" means in the trials. How to measure the level of improvement of [whatever aspect it is that is being picked on]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:46 am

January 29th, 2017, 5:55 am #17

nfm24 wrote:
Yes and furthermore, have some clear parameters of what "success" means in the trials. How to measure the level of improvement of [whatever aspect it is that is being picked on]
That's why I said extensive testing in leagues before even thinking of cementing something like he proposes. The '4th sub in extra time' is aimed at scenarios that happen quite rarely in the big picture, so can be just trialled in a few cups (less games) to the same effect. 'Orange cards' are something which would have a huge impact on the game, would need hundreds or thousands of games to test it on so a couple of seasons in a number of leagues would be needed just to get some basic results on how it works in practice. In the meantime would at least give those leagues a unique quirk to draw viewers. And if in the end it doesn't work, all that is lost is a couple of seasons of the league being under 100% 'proper' rules.
I just feel wary about letting any serious changes go straight to the international rulebook, obviously it can be taken out at any time, but as the pinnacle of the sport internationals should be held under what are widely agreed to be the 'perfect' rulebook of the time, no alterations unless absoloutly certain the change will stick. Of course with a natural fear of new and innovative ideas that's what the Home Nations are there for in IFAB...
Not sure what the testing process was, but something like the backpass rule seems a comparitively easy decision, fixing a clear flaw with the sport. These Van Basten rules on the other hand seem to be fixing 'problems' that are more subjective, in particular the '4 quarters' idea which is fixing a problem that probably only appears in the eyes of TV executives...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

January 29th, 2017, 8:00 pm #18

Stuff like "4th sub in extra time" doesn't need a trial really, it is just a tweak that doesn't greatly affect general game play.

Something like changing the offside rule, or even sin bins, is far more drastic and the effect on the game play needs to be investigated properly. What is the collateral impact on tactical aspects etc? Does it just lead to other problems?

It also isn't always clear what it is that is supposed to be being improved by the changes. Or what is so wrong now that needs drastic steps to fix. Why mess around...

E.g. here are some proposals to increase the number of scoring opportunities (which is obviously the only valid aim of sport). I have no evidence but obviously these are still great ideas anyway.

1. no free-kicks - only penalty kicks for every offence
2. teams must have seven players in opponent's half at all times
3. no goalkeepers
4. the team without the ball is not allowed to run (walking only)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

January 29th, 2017, 8:01 pm #19

NB: actually I do have a lot of evidence because these rules are more or less equal to the unwritten code of conduct which govern the sort of games I play in myself.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:46 am

January 30th, 2017, 3:07 am #20

nfm24 wrote:
It also isn't always clear what it is that is supposed to be being improved by the changes. Or what is so wrong now that needs drastic steps to fix. Why mess around...
Because some people somewhere (usually a TV pundit) say there's a problem (such as players crowding a referee), and if you repeat a narrative enough then the general public start to believe it's the worst thing ever. Never understood why in the joyous moment of an FA Cup pitch invasion the commentators always qualify it with a "we don't like to see it but it's understandable here" (if they say that every single time, does that mean they do enjoy it?).
I'm still on the fence about goal-line technology, it undoubtedly works, but it comes down to how much of that human element you want involved in making the important decisions. Plus there's that 'international standard' I mentioned before, obviously each match is played to the home team's technological capabilities but until each country has a system in place it can't be uniformly applied.
And funnily enough, the games I play only have one major rule - you kicked the ball over the fence, you go get it...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

January 30th, 2017, 5:16 am #21

mattsanger92 wrote:
 you kicked the ball over the fence, you go get it...
 1-May-1958 Katanga 5-3 Brazzaville  (abandoned*) * shortly before full time the Brazzaville players, in protest at the award of a penalty  to Katanga, kicked the ball out of the stadium; the ball could not be found and there was  apparently no replacement, so the referee abandoned the match.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

March 28th, 2017, 9:41 pm #22

Just reflecting on video referee goals (e.g. France vs Spain last night) - this will likely lead to errors in the reported minutes of goals. A goal is not scored when the ball crosses the line, but when the referee decides to award the goal - the latter instant should be used as the goal time (just as with red/yellow cards - the moment the card is shown by the ref, not when the foul was committed by the player). Normally these events are almost simultaneous of course, but with video ref delay we will see plenty of cases with up to a minute or so between the ball going in the net and the eventual awarding of the goal.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 26th, 2008, 11:44 am

March 29th, 2017, 4:29 am #23

How do you want to deal with goals which have been awarded after the match? In Holland this happenend until 1962 occasionally.Team A objects a goal against Team B was not awarded i.e. in minute 37. They officially protested at KNVB. A committee investigated the case and award the goal. So the match did not end in 3-3 but in 3-4. The afterwards awarded goal would have been the 1-1.....
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

April 10th, 2017, 7:52 pm #24

Hmm. Such goals are certainly in 90+N' :-)

Goals awarded by a committee long after the match has ended are not really part of the match itself but more part of the overall competition (league or cup). Such goals were not awarded by the referee. The phantom "goal" has a similar purpose as punishing a team by removing points in the table. Just like a player being suspended by a committee after the match is not the same as having a red card in the match (e.g. Luis Suárez biting Chiellini).
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:46 am

May 17th, 2017, 1:39 pm #25

So anyone who's been following the UEFA U-17 tournaments this month (men's and women's) know that they've become the world's first-ever testing ground for a new format of penalty shoot-out. Apparently inspired by something in tennis, the order of penalties being taken in these trials is now 'ABBA' as opposed to the usual 'ABAB'.
Use up all your obvious puns below to get them out your system, and here is what happened with the format in action for the first time...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 5th, 2012, 10:54 am

May 17th, 2017, 2:37 pm #26

"Football is a simple game. Twenty-two (wo)men chase a ball for 90 minutes and at the end, the Germans always win."
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

May 18th, 2017, 2:34 pm #27

Making kids take penalties against each other is quite mean, whatever order they use.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:46 am

May 19th, 2017, 4:09 am #28

I wouldn't use the term 'mean' as such, it's part of the game and the players know this going in. Most other proposed tie-breaking formats (usually a variation of 'next goal wins') would cause similar kinds of stress for the losers, where there obviously has to be one. Taking matches to replays in the middle of a tournament isn't too fair stamina-wise on whoever gets through, and I think on an organisational level most people involved want it settled on the night.
As with most things in youth football, the important thing is how the event is treated, rather than the event itself. If the losing team's built up a supportive environment like they should have done, then the guilty player will be able to brush off their miss a lot quicker.
If England's final with Spain tonight goes to a shoot-out, they'll have all the stereotypes thrown around in commentary but it's not as though there's as much pressure as in a senior tournament, so in that sense it could be a healthy chance to break the stigma early if they win one (I realise that England also won the 2014 tournament on penalties, but the more the merrier when it comes to players tasting success in this area).
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

May 20th, 2017, 6:08 am #29

In youth football, tossing a coin would be better than a penalty shootout.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 3rd, 2006, 11:49 am

May 20th, 2017, 6:10 am #30

or most corners (when I was young it was used in youth competitions in Belgium), or most fair play.....
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:46 am

May 22nd, 2017, 7:26 am #31

nfm24 wrote:
In youth football, tossing a coin would be better than a penalty shootout.
I'm just not convinced. Mainly because if a group of kids were having a kickabout that ended in a draw, other than 'next goal wins', they'd probably choose to settle it on penalties because that's what they've seen the professionals do, and the guilty player in that situation would get ripped on more mercilessly than in any organised game.
Penalties are still a skill, and I'd rather a knockout game was decided that way rather than a coin toss. Again I think it's down to the environment more than anything else, I'm sure that the England squad who lost that Final will have been told not to dwell on it and have access to the best psychological support should they need it, but all that's really 'needed' in general is for the team and the parents to behave in a sensible manner, which unfortunately some don't.
As for corners/fair play, interesting variants but I can't help but feel it would change the mindset of players (not nessecarily for the worse), so for keepers not to palm a ball round the post like they would usually do, or someone shooting from distance just to try and get a corner, or a player not going for a tackle, admittedly minor things but it wouldn't be the way they normally play the game.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 7th, 2007, 8:58 am

May 22nd, 2017, 8:18 am #32

Another fun idea would be to use smaller size goals for the shootout, so that it would take quite a bit more skill to score. It was pretty fun to watch the Canada-Sweden shootout at hockey worlds yesterday, with only two goals scored out of seven or eight attempts.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

May 24th, 2017, 1:27 pm #33

mattsanger92 wrote:
it would change the mindset of players ... so for keepers not to palm a ball round the post like they would usually do, or someone shooting from distance just to try and get a corner, or a player not going for a tackle
Giving the opponent a corner is generally worth avoiding, regardless of a tie-breaker tally.  Likewise playing to gain a corner is already a common tactic, either for its own sake (i.e. to cross the ball into the box for a scoring chance), or to kill time at the end of a game.  These are already parts of football strategy.
However your point is correct, and teams could play just to boost the corner tally, for example, if a team gets a first corner, it could just repeatedly take short-corners and hold the ball in the corner area to attempt to gain a succession of corners, rather than make any attempt to work the ball towards the goal-mouth.   With good practice, this could be the football equivalent of nursery cannons in billiards, a tactic which made an already extremly dull game infinitely duller.
Anyway, the influence of the impending tie-breaker upon the preceding
play is already common, e.g. teams playing very defensively in
extra-time and/or timewasting to get to the shootout is currently a
popular strategy.
I am not exactly in favour of using corners, but it is better than something like "shots on target" or "possession" which would more strongly influence the preceding playing style.  If the objective is just to separate the two teams, tossing a coin is fine with me.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

June 19th, 2017, 5:39 pm #34

nfm24 wrote:
Just reflecting on video referee goals ... this will likely lead to errors in the reported minutes of goals. A goal is not scored when the ball crosses the line, but when the referee decides to award the goal - the latter instant should be used as the goal time (just as with red/yellow cards - the moment the card is shown by the ref, not when the foul was committed by the player). Normally these events are almost simultaneous of course, but with video ref delay we will see plenty of cases with up to a minute or so between the ball going in the net and the eventual awarding of the goal.
Well, the anticipated scenario has now arrived.  Goal minutes are being noted (in the official FIFA report say) as the instant the ball crosses the line, instead of the instant when the referee eventually awards the goal post-VAR.  But surely only the latter defines the goal.   Even if the referee initially awarded a goal, and then the VAR consulation just validates the referee's first decision, the goal is not ultimately confirmed until after this process has finished.
Example today, Jurić's goal vs Germany.  The ball goes in at 56'.  The referee appears to award the goal, but checks the VAR.  Eventually the VAR decision comes and the referee finally awards the goal at 57', and Germany kick-off.  Official sources are using 56', but I would use 57'.
Interested to hear others' opinions on this.
Quote
Like
Share

SDb
Joined: January 24th, 2013, 5:10 am

June 20th, 2017, 1:15 pm #35

I always considered match events being given in the timing they occured. A goal is scored when a goal is scored. The referee may award or disallow the goal afterwards but this doesn't change the fact that if the goal was scored at 56' then that is the actual timing.

I would agree if we had access to referee match reports and could be consistent but that is not the case.

Back to topic; one of the proposals is to cut the game time to 60 minutes. Cynical me (as I am) assume it's just a way to play more games with more time given to advertising?
www.soccer-db.info - football internationals
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 3rd, 2006, 11:49 am

June 20th, 2017, 2:02 pm #36

agree: goals scored in the minutes on the field, if the ref or VAR take 3 minutes to validate a goal, that does not make 3 minutes of playing time....

and is it important that a goal is scored in the 56 of 57th minute?  I do not care....
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

June 20th, 2017, 7:16 pm #37

> I always considered match events being given in the timing they occured.  A goal is scored when a goal is scored
Well, "scored" literally means to be marked on the scoreboard, i.e. "counted" or "tallied" or "chalked" etc.  I assume you meant the moment when the ball crossed the line.  I don't mean to play word games though, only to say my point is still the same.  What is a goal?  A goal doesn't exist until the referee awards it.  Regardless of when the ball crossed the line, or whether it did so at all.  
The ball crossing the line is neither sufficient nor necessary to constitute a goal.  The referee's final decision is.
For example, there are many familiar scenarios where a goal was awarded (by the referee) and counted in the result, but replays show the ball never crossed the line at all.  In that case the "match event" never occurred.  Only the referee's decision did.
> I would agree if we had access to referee match reports and could be consistent but that is not the case.
We have videos for most matches nowadays. We can at least be consistent within a given tournament, say.  
> if the ref or VAR take 3 minutes to validate a goal, that does not make 3 minutes of playing time
Fair, but it is the same situation as when a spectator runs on the pitch or throws a flare, or a floodlight fails etc.  There can be 3 minutes or more of lost playing time while we wait for the game to resume, but typically the clock is not stopped.  Or, it is stopped by the TV company but not the referee, or vice versa... 
> is it important that a goal is scored in the 56 of 57th minute?  I do not care....
Right, why are we spending time collecting all this useless data!  Is it important if Belgium won or lost vs Netherlands in 1922*?  Who cares!
* of course, I have deliberately chosen a year in which Belgium won, to avoid further enraging Piet :-)
It is quite arbitrary to use minutes, it just comes from the old days of long-winded chronological match reports; a journalist and his stopwatch.  Nowadays we could use minutes and seconds.  Or we could changed to an ordinal system, and just number the match events as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc regardless of the times they occur.
> Back to topic; one of the proposals is to cut the game time to 60 minutes. Cynical me (as I am) assume it's just a way to play more games with more time given to advertising?
I'm sure you're right.  Although stopping the clock when the ball is out of play is not necessarily conducive to ad-breaks, as there would be short and variable length interruptions.  They could fix that by enforcing a minimum interval before restarts of say 20 seconds, to fit adverts.  
And at least the stopped clock rule would solve the goal timing problem being discussed here.
They say it's about cutting down time wasting, but time wasting comes in many forms and for many reasons.  It is not always done just to bring the final whistle closer and help a team preserve a 1-0 lead.  It can be done to break the opponent's momentum, preserve energy, regain tactical position, drink water, coaching instructions etc.  Also it is perfectly possible to waste time while the ball is in play, e.g. holding the ball in the corner as mentioned above, or goalkeeper dithering.  
And how about free-kicks?  Nowadays these are the most boring events in football, waiting for the referee to mark out 10 yards, spray a line, explain to the wall that they shouldn't use their hands (as if these players are complete beginners at football), reprimanding jostlers, going back to his vantage point, gesturing authoritatively, etc, this is the biggest waste of all and I don't see how this rule will affect it.  It just means that all the tedium is taking place with the clock stopped, which if anything will encourage more tedium.
Anyway we know what will happen.  This new rule will be suddenly enforced, with no previous trials, in a major competition.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 9th, 2011, 2:58 pm

June 22nd, 2017, 4:58 am #38

I'd say the goal is valid when the ball crosses the line.After all, when the result of a match is awarded by a Jury decision, the date corresponds to the day the game is played and not to the day the Jury decide to change the result.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

June 23rd, 2017, 5:44 am #39

How about yellow cards then? In Mexico vs NZ, the referee gave three yellow cards about 4 minutes after the fouls which earned them. All reports of the match use the minutes that the cards were shown, not when the fouls were made.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 3rd, 2006, 11:49 am

June 23rd, 2017, 6:44 am #40

a yellow card is not the same as the foul commited; it is logical to give the time of the card given
in the other case: a goal is made when the ball crosses the line, it is not the referee or the VAR that scores the goal..I agree with Luca
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 9th, 2011, 2:58 pm

June 23rd, 2017, 2:00 pm #41

Otherwise, use the good old notes. Example: goal scored at 56', but validated by the VAR system at 57'.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

June 23rd, 2017, 2:57 pm #42

pieter wrote:
in the other case: a goal is made when the ball crosses the line, it is not the referee or the VAR that scores the goal..I agree with Luca
In this case, how do you account for goals in cases when the ball never crossed the line at all?
The referee controls everything.  He says when a ball crossing a line is a goal, or when it is not a goal.  He says when to accept the VAR and make adjustments. OK, he doesn't "create" the goal, but he defines it.
Until the referee decides, the goal does not exist.  All that can happen beforehand is that a player can "claim" a goal  - indeed this is the origin of the raised-hand goal celebration, from the ancient era where goals had to be formally claimed to the referee before being awarded.
I will add footnotes, but it is tedious to keep doing this if 20% or more of goals are affected this way. 
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

June 23rd, 2017, 2:59 pm #43

Example footnote:

Australia's second goal was confirmed at 57' after video review; the ball crossed the line at 56'.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 3rd, 2006, 11:49 am

June 23rd, 2017, 3:34 pm #44

so it was scored in 56', no doubt....

we must not forget that in 99% of the football matches there was, is and will not be a VAR....
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

June 23rd, 2017, 7:07 pm #45

VAR or not, there can be a delay while the referee talks to the linesman.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 5th, 2012, 10:54 am

June 24th, 2017, 3:01 pm #46

Statler: The question is, what did the referee write on his report? (or what are they instructed to do in such scenarios)
Waldorf: The question is, who cares?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

June 27th, 2017, 7:06 pm #47

It isn't only VAR-type scenarios which lead to pedantic goal-minute anomalies.

Anybody who saw Australia vs Chile may have noticed the TV clock displayed in the top-left corner of the screen (provided by the FIFA TV feed) go haywire a couple of times in the first half.

To be precise, at 34.32 the clock suddenly reset to 0.00 and started counting up again until it reached 0.54, when it morphed to 35.20. You don't need a mathematician to tell you that six seconds were "lost". The clock then continued as normal until it reached 43.54 when it jumped suddenly to 44.00... the six seconds re-appeared, presumably somebody fudging it back to synchronicity.

All very pedantic, but the point is that the goal by Troisi was scored during the erroneous interim, when the TV clock read 40.58 (suggesting 41'), instead of the correct time 41.04 (i.e. 42').
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

June 29th, 2017, 12:53 pm #48

BTW I prefer Waldorf. His companion's name is too similar to a former football administrator.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:46 am

November 13th, 2017, 3:18 pm #49

More an informal end-of-match thing, but Gareth Southgate proposing that England play one of their upcoming friendly opponents in a penalty shoot-out, regardless of final score. Before anyone mocks Southgate's personal connection to the subject or the idea in general, I remember seeing a few England youth teams doing something similar after friendlies over the last couple of years and look at how that turned out...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

November 13th, 2017, 8:02 pm #50

A bit presumptuous of Southgate to assume that England will make the knockout stages.
Quote
Like
Share