New FIFA proposals at meeting in March

[Diclonius]

Including goal line technology, a fourth substitute in extra time and not sending off a player if a penalty is given for denying a goal scoring opportunity in the box.

Interesting.

[frazeHFC]

Fourth sub? :wtf:

FMF

[Hibs7]

Would be better with 4 linesmen !!!!

[Stew the Hibee]

Would be better with 4 linesmen !!!!

Would never work mate.

[Green&White]

Fourth sub? :wtf:

FMF

its bad enough with teams making a sub in injury time to waste time and break up play as it is.

should never happen but its the kind of thing they would allow and dismiss the things we really need like goal line tech.:rolleyes:

[Peevemor]

its bad enough with teams making a sub in injury time to waste time and break up play as it is.

should never happen but its the kind of thing they would allow and dismiss the things we really need like goal line tech.:rolleyes:

Could it maybe be an extra sub for 30 minutes extra time (cup games)? Doesn't strike me as daft.

[Green&White]

Could it maybe be an extra sub for 30 minutes extra time (cup games)? Doesn't strike me as daft.

ahhh... its been a long day so far. took extra time as injury stupidly. whoopsie:brickwall

[Titch]

Including goal line technology, a fourth substitute in extra time and not sending off a player if a penalty is given for denying a goal scoring opportunity in the box.

Interesting.

if this was the case if someone goes through one on one i would expect him to be fouled EVERY TIME stupid not to send the player off

[CropleyWasGod]

if this was the case if someone goes through one on one i would expect him to be fouled EVERY TIME stupid not to send the player off

I think it's a reaction to the "double whammy" nature of the current situation. ie team loses a player and (normally) a goal as well.

[Hibbyradge]

if this was the case if someone goes through one on one i would expect him to be fouled EVERY TIME stupid not to send the player off

Agreed. I guess they would still be cautioned and could go off if it was their second.

[.Sean.]

The fouling/send off suggestion is ridiculous.

[Titch]

I think it's a reaction to the "double whammy" nature of the current situation. ie team loses a player and (normally) a goal as well.

yes but say a player rounds the keeper and only needs to slot into an empty net what would you EXPECT him to do if he was not to be sent off ???


where i have put expect i mean DEMAND he do

[CropleyWasGod]

yes but say a player rounds the keeper and only needs to slot into an empty net what would you EXPECT him to do if he was not to be sent off ???


where i have put expect i mean DEMAND he do

I am not saying it's right. Merely saying why it's been put up for debate. The double-whammy argument has been around for a few years now.

[Titch]

I am not saying it's right. Merely saying why it's been put up for debate. The double-whammy argument has been around for a few years now.

sorry if that came across as argumentative. Was just stating that this would ruin the game for me, as it would be exploited at every single game the world over. Maybe a slight change to the rule, where as if the ref deems it to be deliberate or not.

[Lucius Apuleius]

The double whammy they should be looking at is the one where a player gets fouled then has to go off the pitch until the referee decides to let him back on thereby weakening the team that has been fouled. Crazy IMO.

[hibee92]

Including goal line technology, a fourth substitute in extra time and not sending off a player if a penalty is given for denying a goal scoring opportunity in the box.

Interesting.

goal line technology - yes please
4th sub in extra time - unsure, might be something behind it
last man penalty - ridiculous

[Saorsa]

Including goal line technology, a fourth substitute in extra time and not sending off a player if a penalty is given for denying a goal scoring opportunity in the box.

Interesting.First two are worth consideration, dinnae agree with the last one at all. Players having tae leave the park after treatment is something they should get rid of, an absolute nonsense IMO.

[cocopops1875]

I always remember when mcgregor done deano outside the box late in a cup game, he got his red Alexander went in and we missed the free kick, that led to a replay which we lost I always felt that was worse than just a red as he won the tie as a result of a cynical action

[jonty]

First two are worth consideration, dinnae agree with the last one at all. Players having tae leave the park after treatment is something they should get rid of, an absolute nonsense IMO.
:agree:

Player receiving the card or making the foul should have to leave the park to get a detention slip from the 4th official. :cb

[Hibbyradge]

The double whammy they should be looking at is the one where a player gets fouled then has to go off the pitch until the referee decides to let him back on thereby weakening the team that has been fouled. Crazy IMO.

I agree it's frustrating.

Its tempting to think that the victim and culprit should go off for the same period of time.

However, if they did, you'd have players feigning injury for longer to jeep a big centre half from defending the free kick etc.

[H18sry]

I agree it's frustrating.

Its tempting to think that the victim and culprit should go off for the same period of time.

However, if they did, you'd have players feigning injury for longer to jeep a big centre half from defending the free kick etc.

Vroom Vroom :wink:

[SRHibs]

I can't imagine they're going to completely remove the 'last man' rule, really. I think it'll be left at the referee's own discretion, who will have to make the decision based on several factors - severity of the challenge, whether or not there was intent etc.

Any professional foul on the park earns a player a yellow card, so for the punishment to be exactly the same when the challenge is in the penalty box - and thwarting an almost certain goal - would be ludicrous.

[pentlando]

Goal line technology is such a waste of time or money. There are ridiculously few incidents that require replays to decide whether a ball crossed the line. The problem is that these incidents usually become high profile so people think they happen more than they actually do. For example, when was the last time there was a contentious incident at Easter Road? I'm struggling to remember one. The cost of this technology does not justify how often it would have to be used.

All for the extra sub in extra time. If the game is a 1/3rd longer, the subs available should increase by this too.

I can't see how the last one would work, because goalscoring opportunities can be anywhere. E.g. if a player is fouled after going clear through 40 yards out, all you would get is a freekick :confused: Maybe if the penalty was missed a red card could be handed out in retrospect to balance it out? Even then its still a problem.

For me, the thing that would solve all of this is video technology like American Football and Tennis. A manager can appeal 2 or 3 decisions per match. The 5th official (video referee) reviews the incident using tv footage and overturns the decision on the pitch only if he is 100% sure the original call was wrong. Because challenges are limited, the hold up in play would not be as long as it is in Rugby for instance.

[pentlando]

Also, should we not use some sort of Sin Bin system? For challenges or incidents that don't warrant a sending off but are definitely more than a booking?

[HibeeMG]

I wouldn't relax the 'last-man' rule. I would make it tighter!

If a player is fouled outside the box but the referee deemed it a clear goal scoring opportunity the culprit is sent off but the attacking team only get a free kick. I think that because a clear goal scoring opportunity was denied then the attacking team should be awarded a penalty no matter where the offence was committed. Whether the player who committed the foul should be sent off would be up to the ref.

[PPZPOL]

What about the defender being sent off if the penalty is missed and remains on (yellow card) if it scored? Therefore not a double whammy of losing a goal and a player? It's wrong not to be sent off if the attacking team misses the resulting penalty.

Hmmm.....this is taking it for granted that it was in the box.....not quite sure what would happen outside the box, better get the thinking cap on before I call Platini etc.

Also not sure what would happen if the "defender" is the goalkeeper, if the penalty is scored he stays on and if he saves it he gets sent off?

Jeez I've not really thought this through very well!!!! :cb

Back to the drawing board.

[Part/Time Supporter]

An alternative would be to bring in a "penalty goal" concept (ala rugby), where if the referee thinks the defending team is deliberately fouling to avoid conceding a try they just give a penalty try. That would cover both inside and outside the box.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Goal line technology is such a waste of time or money. There are ridiculously few incidents that require replays to decide whether a ball crossed the line. The problem is that these incidents usually become high profile so people think they happen more than they actually do. For example, when was the last time there was a contentious incident at Easter Road? I'm struggling to remember one. The cost of this technology does not justify how often it would have to be used.

All for the extra sub in extra time. If the game is a 1/3rd longer, the subs available should increase by this too.

I can't see how the last one would work, because goalscoring opportunities can be anywhere. E.g. if a player is fouled after going clear through 40 yards out, all you would get is a freekick :confused: Maybe if the penalty was missed a red card could be handed out in retrospect to balance it out? Even then its still a problem.

For me, the thing that would solve all of this is video technology like American Football and Tennis. A manager can appeal 2 or 3 decisions per match. The 5th official (video referee) reviews the incident using tv footage and overturns the decision on the pitch only if he is 100% sure the original call was wrong. Because challenges are limited, the hold up in play would not be as long as it is in Rugby for instance.

Probably Ross "pointer" Chisholm clearing one off the line against the Huns in the last few games of 08/09.

[Saorsa]

I wouldn't relax the 'last-man' rule. I would make it tighter!

If a player is fouled outside the box but the referee deemed it a clear goal scoring opportunity the culprit is sent off but the attacking team only get a free kick. I think that because a clear goal scoring opportunity was denied then the attacking team should be awarded a penalty no matter where the offence was committed. Whether the player who committed the foul should be sent off would be up to the ref.I wouldnae leave it up tae the refs here, can you imagine the inconsistency when applying it (particularly when it involves two certain teams), it would be awful just like it is with everything else. IMO the player should go off, a penalty is worth nothing unless it is actually scored. What if it's missed? nae benefit tae the team that lost the clear goal scoring opportunity and nae punishment tae the offending team as the score stays the same and they still have all their players. I think all it would do is encourage players tae commit a foul tae stop an almost certain goal scoring opportunity in the hope the penalty would be missed.

[IWasThere2016]

Including goal line technology, a fourth substitute in extra time and not sending off a player if a penalty is given for denying a goal scoring opportunity in the box.

Interesting.

goal line technology - needed IMHO

a fourth substitute in extra time - nae need :confused: IMHO

not sending off a player if a penalty is given for denying a goal scoring opportunity in the box - if it is deliberate the defender should go. If the pen is missed the player should go. If scored the defender should stay on the park - nae need for the double whammy.

[StevieC]

What about the defender being sent off if the penalty is missed and remains on (yellow card) if it scored? Therefore not a double whammy of losing a goal and a player? It's wrong not to be sent off if the attacking team misses the resulting penalty.

The problem with that could be a team deliberately missing a penalty, in order to play out the remainder of the game against 10 men.

[Dashing Bob S]

As this is Scotland and football is a freak show ran by bigots and cowards with sole purpose of maintaining OF sectarian-based domination, ANY technology by FIFA that undermines the influence of the referee is to be welcomed. I'm looking forward to the advent of robot refs, programmed possibly with David Beckham's snidey, abused Dalek-child voice.

[Eyrie]

Including goal line technology, a fourth substitute in extra time and not sending off a player if a penalty is given for denying a goal scoring opportunity in the box.
Don't mind the suggestion of a fourth substitute if a game goes to extra time or goal line technology if it doesn't interupt the game (so I'd be against the review system that Pentlando suggested). Strongly disagree with no red card for the reason DD gave.


I think all it would do is encourage players tae commit a foul tae stop an almost certain goal scoring opportunity in the hope the penalty would be missed.
Suarez in the World Cup comes to mind, and it worked out for him.


The double whammy they should be looking at is the one where a player gets fouled then has to go off the pitch until the referee decides to let him back on thereby weakening the team that has been fouled. Crazy IMO.
Simple solution is to let the physio on to treat the player whilst the game continues. Would soon cut down on play acting if it means being a man down. If a foul has been given and play stopped, allow 30 seconds for treatment and the free kick to be taken before insisting the game be restarted or the foul reversed for delay.


Also, should we not use some sort of Sin Bin system? For challenges or incidents that don't warrant a sending off but are definitely more than a booking?
I can see that encouraging play acting as the fouled player tries to gain a further advantage by making the incident look worse than it was.