PDA

View Full Version : NHC If you could change just one rule....



Twa Cairpets
17-09-2012, 03:11 PM
What would it be?

Following on from the thread on the Killie Goal kick, the one rule I'd change would be regarding subs.

Here's the plan:

Have an extra area marked off the pitch at the half way line. A player wanting to come on has to stand in this area holding a board with the player to be subbed-off's number. The player coming off has to enter this "sub-box" and take the board before the other player can come on. Maybe need to have a ten yeard area on the pitch which would mean a player couldnt come on if the ball was in it to avoid them running on direct to get the ball. If a player was injured and carried off a quick sub could be made while getting treatment.

Benefits: No need to stop play for a sub. No timewasting. Possibility of rolling subs.
Drawbacks: None that I can see.

wearethehibs
17-09-2012, 03:24 PM
Mines would be simpler than that. If an attacker hits a shot in the pealty area and after the ball has left his foot he is taken out by a defender or the keeper it should be a penalty.

The amount of times this happens is unbelivable. If it happend in the middle of the pitch after a pass is made, the ref would give a foul so why is it different in the box?

allezsauzee
17-09-2012, 03:45 PM
My change would be the 'Hearts must get a penalty when they are playing at Tynecastle' rule that seems to have come in this season.

Cropley10
17-09-2012, 03:52 PM
Mine would be this.

If a player is judged to have denied a clear goal- scoring opportunity in the box and a penalty kick is awarded the player will not be sent off IF the penalty is scored.

If the penalty is missed or saved, the player is sent off.

In other words the attacking team does NOT get double benefit.

This rule would not apply in the case of violent conduct

MartinfaePorty
17-09-2012, 04:10 PM
Mines would be simpler than that. If an attacker hits a shot in the pealty area and after the ball has left his foot he is taken out by a defender or the keeper it should be a penalty.

The amount of times this happens is unbelivable. If it happend in the middle of the pitch after a pass is made, the ref would give a foul so why is it different in the box?

Assume this should be enforced, but is not, as exactly that happened in my Sunday amateur game a few weeks ago. Their player got a shot in and our keeper made a good save, but the ref awarded the pen.

I would like to see that if a player is fouled and has to receive treatment the player who committed the foul has to leave the pitch for the same amount of time or, at least, a prescribed period of, say, 1 minute. Where's the advantage if your star striker is laid low, so that he can't take part in the free-kick, but the offending player is allowed to defend it?

One more, if I can be greedy, is to have a sin bin for things such as handling the ball on the line, diving and other offences that do not cause physical harm and perhaps do not warrant a sending-off, but deserve harsher punishment than a yellow card.

Teo10
17-09-2012, 04:15 PM
The stupid rule where its fine for a defender to stand inbetween the ball and the attacking player to "shadow" it out of play...

No matter what form, its obstruction:agree:

Jim44
17-09-2012, 04:17 PM
How about doing away with offside completely?

Diclonius
17-09-2012, 04:21 PM
Any club who fails to pay its players on time has all points won for that calendar month wiped.

Billy Whizz
17-09-2012, 04:28 PM
Sin bin instead of yellow/red cards

littleplum
17-09-2012, 05:09 PM
An alternative to penalty shoot-outs. Some interesting ideas here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_shoot-out_%28association_football%29#Alternatives

Franck Stanton
17-09-2012, 05:11 PM
The current off-side rule, is, in my opinion , a complete joke. I remember the experiment they had back in the early 70's when they extended the penalty box line to the entire width of the pitch and you couldn't be off-side until you crossed it and then the usual rules applied [ had to be two players between attacker and bye-line etc]. Made for exciting attacking football. Don't know why it was binned as most fans agreed it made for better games. As it stands just now, it depends far too much on the opinions of whichever ref is officiating at the game.

Eyrie
17-09-2012, 05:11 PM
First choice would be a crackdown on dissent shown towards officials. Take a leaf out of rugby's book and book players for mouthing off, regardless of whether the decision is right or wrong.

If I can have a second, then make a yellow card a ten minute sin bin offence.

And for a third, allow physios onto the pitch to attend to injured players whilst the game continues.

D7 Bohs
17-09-2012, 05:36 PM
The current off-side rule, is, in my opinion , a complete joke. I remember the experiment they had back in the early 70's when they extended the penalty box line to the entire width of the pitch and you couldn't be off-side until you crossed it and then the usual rules applied [ had to be two players between attacker and bye-line etc]. Made for exciting attacking football. Don't know why it was binned as most fans agreed it made for better games. As it stands just now, it depends far too much on the opinions of whichever ref is officiating at the game.

I'd like to see that one - at least as an experiment. Try it in the Europa league?

Peevemor
17-09-2012, 05:39 PM
The stupid rule where its fine for a defender to stand inbetween the ball and the attacking player to "shadow" it out of play...

No matter what form, its obstruction:agree:

Totally agree - a pet hate of mine no matter who does it.

IMO you should only be allowed to shield the ball after you've touched it.

Peevemor
17-09-2012, 05:41 PM
The current off-side rule, is, in my opinion , a complete joke. I remember the experiment they had back in the early 70's when they extended the penalty box line to the entire width of the pitch and you couldn't be off-side until you crossed it and then the usual rules applied [ had to be two players between attacker and bye-line etc]. Made for exciting attacking football. Don't know why it was binned as most fans agreed it made for better games. As it stands just now, it depends far too much on the opinions of whichever ref is officiating at the game.

Or a 22/25 yard line - a bit like the shooting zone on a subbuteo pitch. :greengrin

Makaveli
17-09-2012, 05:42 PM
Touching an opponent with your hand constitutes handball and is punished accordingly.

Football is a man's game/contact sport etc etc - yes, with legs and shoulders. No time for shirt-pulling and sly pushing.

The_Exile
17-09-2012, 06:06 PM
Rolling/unlimited subs, and if a player has been subbed off he can be brought back on if needed, it's ridiculous this hasn't been introduced before now, let the manager make full use of his squad at all times.

theonlywayisup
17-09-2012, 06:10 PM
I really hate it when a player goes down as if dead, play is stopped until the 'injured' player hobbles to the sideline, at which point he makes a miracle recovery and immediately signals to be let back into play. The net result is that play is disrupted.

My solution would be that if you go down and the trainer has to come on then that player is off for (say) three minutes recovery time. That will teach them!:cb

The_Exile
17-09-2012, 06:12 PM
First choice would be a crackdown on dissent shown towards officials. Take a leaf out of rugby's book and book players for mouthing off, regardless of whether the decision is right or wrong.

If I can have a second, then make a yellow card a ten minute sin bin offence.

Agree with this, should be zero tolerance on verbal from players towards officials, however rank the officials are!

Secondly, the sin bin I would love to see brought in...BUT....it only works if the officials are competent, and competent officials are few and far between up here. I fear although the idea is sound, it would ruin rather than enhance any game of football officiated by clowns such as Craig Thompson.

Scouse Hibee
17-09-2012, 06:16 PM
Mine would be you can only use your sub keeper if your starting keeper is injured, if your keeper is red carded then you have to put an oufield player in goal.

NAE NOOKIE
17-09-2012, 06:28 PM
Not a rule change .... but I would like to see a booking every time a shirt gets pulled, most bloody annoying thing in the game.

SMAXXA
17-09-2012, 06:35 PM
I would like to see that if a player is fouled and has to receive treatment the player who committed the foul has to leave the pitch for the same amount of time or, at least, a prescribed period of, say, 1 minute. Where's the advantage if your star striker is laid low, so that he can't take part in the free-kick, but the offending player is allowed to defend it?.[/QUOTE]

I like this out of all mentioned, its crazy as your getting penalised twice, injured player and a man disadvantage.

KingFranck
17-09-2012, 06:36 PM
Totally agree - a pet hate of mine no matter who does it.

IMO you should only be allowed to shield the ball after you've touched it.

Have to agree with this anywhere else on the pitch and its a free kick so what's so different when its 3 yards from your own bye line ?

HibsMax
17-09-2012, 06:49 PM
Lot of good suggestions here.

I like the idea of rolling subs. It really sucks if you have a player injured and you've used all three subs.

I like the idea of dumping the offside rule or at least altering it (make it similar to ice hockey for example).

I also like the sin bin idea. Sending a player off is permanent for that game. Perhaps a player can be sent to the sin bin for X minutes, that way bad refereeing decisions don't impact the game as much, only for a few minutes - the 4th official could also review the incidence while play continues and adjust the time in the sin bin as needed - maybe even resulting in a sending off if the incident is particularly flagrant.



The first one that came to my mind was getting rid of offside. If the rule could be enforced correctly all of the time then I think it makes sense but how many times have we seen mistakes made that have resulted in goals chopped off or allowed when the reverse should be true? It's not necessarily a bad rule but it's hard to enforce. In ice hockey you can't pass the blue line before the puck does, and I don't think the officials screw that up too much compared with offside. But the rink is smaller than a football pitch and they have 3 officials on the ice.

greenlex
17-09-2012, 06:53 PM
I really hate it when a player goes down as if dead, play is stopped until the 'injured' player hobbles to the sideline, at which point he makes a miracle recovery and immediately signals to be let back into play. The net result is that play is disrupted.

My solution would be that if you go down and the trainer has to come on then that player is off for (say) three minutes recovery time. That will teach them!:cb

Me too. Simple solution would be do what rugby does. Trainer/ physio comes on but he play is not stopped unless its a blood injury. Would stop all this girlie rolling around. If your not hurt and he game was raging on you wouldn't be down for long.

HibsMax
17-09-2012, 06:56 PM
Totally agree - a pet hate of mine no matter who does it.

IMO you should only be allowed to shield the ball after you've touched it.


Have to agree with this anywhere else on the pitch and its a free kick so what's so different when its 3 yards from your own bye line ?

YES! Hate this! Can you imagine if we had a circle of 6 players around 1 player who actually has the ball....these 6 players prevent the defence getting close to the guy with the ball....then they waltz up the pitch Monty Python style right into the net. ;)

NORTHERNHIBBY
17-09-2012, 07:50 PM
Blatant time wasting should be punished with a penalty kick.

J-C
17-09-2012, 08:18 PM
The stupid rule where a player is injured and after getting treatment on the pitch, he has to go off until the ref allows him back on, why not just let him get treatment then carry on with him on the pitch.

In rugby, the physio can come onto the pitch at any time to treat injuries, the player gets up then rejoins the game, no fuss, ho hassles, just common sense.

JoeTortolanoFanClub
17-09-2012, 08:19 PM
Or a 22/25 yard line - a bit like the shooting zone on a subbuteo pitch. :greengrin

Absolutely...would result in a much more attacking game.

Jonnyboy
17-09-2012, 10:52 PM
The stupid rule where a player is injured and after getting treatment on the pitch, he has to go off until the ref allows him back on, why not just let him get treatment then carry on with him on the pitch.

In rugby, the physio can come onto the pitch at any time to treat injuries, the player gets up then rejoins the game, no fuss, ho hassles, just common sense.

Mine is along these lines. If a player fouls an opponent and said opponent needs treatment then both the injured player AND his assailant should go off the pitch. The current rules disadvantage one side over the other IMO.

HibsMax
17-09-2012, 11:17 PM
Mine is along these lines. If a player fouls an opponent and said opponent needs treatment then both the injured player AND his assailant should go off the pitch. The current rules disadvantage one side over the other IMO.

I would agree with that only if the injury was as a result of a foul. If it was just bad luck then sod 'em. ;)

Jonnyboy
17-09-2012, 11:18 PM
I would agree with that only if the injury was as a result of a foul. If it was just bad luck then sod 'em. ;)

Yep, only where a foul has been committed :agree:

AJWisme
18-09-2012, 01:21 AM
Yellow cards for celebrations feel really unnecesary, so I'd change that. :agree:

edinburghhibee
18-09-2012, 01:55 AM
I think the game is too soft now, I don't understand why keepers get so much protection at corners or free kicks. Also I believe it lights up the supporters when you see a great tackle being put in, the defender gets the ball first and crunches through the opposite player. Your barely aloud to tackle anymore and it's pathetic and IMHO it's ruining both playing football and watching it.

Hibrandenburg
18-09-2012, 06:29 AM
Let the ref have the advantage of video footage before he makes a decision. We should try and get the rules as they are right before changing them.

StevieC
18-09-2012, 09:05 AM
Absolutely...would result in a much more attacking game.

I disagree, I reckon defences would drop much deeper and you would get a lot more punting up the park. The offside rule allows defences to pull the game further up the pitch and link up with the midfield, and even get the full backs involved with attacking.

heretoday
18-09-2012, 09:26 AM
Do away with penalties altogether - except as a means of deciding drawn cup ties.

Posh Swanny
18-09-2012, 09:32 AM
If a player is judged to have denied a clear goal- scoring opportunity in the box and a penalty kick is awarded the player will not be sent off IF the penalty is scored.

If the penalty is missed or saved, the player is sent off.


A problem there is the murky issue of a player deliberately missing the penalty. "If I miss this pen, Vidic is off for the remaining 80 minutes of this game."


Mine is along these lines. If a player fouls an opponent and said opponent needs treatment then both the injured player AND his assailant should go off the pitch. The current rules disadvantage one side over the other IMO.

Similar potential for murkyness as the above suggestion. "If I stay down for treatment, Vidic won't be on the box to defend the free-kick."


Me too. Simple solution would be do what rugby does. Trainer/ physio comes on but he play is not stopped unless its a blood injury. Would stop all this girlie rolling around. If your not hurt and he game was raging on you wouldn't be down for long.

This one gets my vote. It would also stop the incessant bleating from fans when one of their players is down injured - fair enough in many cases but it really annoys me when their own team have already declined the opportunity to kick the ball out of play. As long as players don't go down the Dean Richards "blood-gate" route, allowing play to continue should work OK.

superfurryhibby
18-09-2012, 12:06 PM
The current off-side rule, is, in my opinion , a complete joke. I remember the experiment they had back in the early 70's when they extended the penalty box line to the entire width of the pitch and you couldn't be off-side until you crossed it and then the usual rules applied [ had to be two players between attacker and bye-line etc]. Made for exciting attacking football. Don't know why it was binned as most fans agreed it made for better games. As it stands just now, it depends far too much on the opinions of whichever ref is officiating at the game.

This was an experiment used in the League Cup or the Dryburgh Cup in the early-mid 70's. Short lived and not sure that it made for any more attacking play.

I would likw to see sin bins attached to yellow cards for dissent. One of my pet hates is the infantile behaviour and hystrionics from players when a decision goes against them, 10 minute sin binning would cool their responses a bit!

JimBHibees
18-09-2012, 12:15 PM
My greatest bug bear is defenders being able to obstruct a forward by not playing the ball and letting it run over the bye line. I know it isnt a change in rule more a change in referee mindset.

Ross4356
18-09-2012, 12:17 PM
I would like to see the time done like in rugby, no 5 mins added on after the end of a game and everybody wondering where that came from

StevieC
18-09-2012, 02:49 PM
I know it isnt a change in rule more a change in referee mindset.

It would need a change in rule because you are deemed to be "in control" of the ball.
It's the same if a striker "holds up" a ball before laying it off (or running out the clock at the corner flag). Not necessarily touching the ball, but preventing an opposing player from reaching it using body strength.

Hibercelona
18-09-2012, 03:01 PM
Players who grab onto the ball when they go down under a challenge should not be awarded a freekick, as it pressures the referee into giving the foul, even if it was a complete dive.

snooky
18-09-2012, 10:55 PM
For shoot outs, I would like to see shots from anywhere inside the 'D' at the 18 yd line instead of penalties.
Currently the taker is expected to score thereby one team wins because of the misfortune of another player - too negative.
Penalties are a lottery as the goalie takes a chance and dives one way and becomes a hero or a dummy depending on where the ball goes.

Shirt pulling is a deliberate foul and should be a bookable offence.
Players get booked for mistimed bona fide challenges while shirtpullers get off scot free.

Heavier penalties for divers an injury feigners. No use in complaining about other teams doing it.
Each team has to clean up its own act - a la Rob Jones giving Zooma pelters for diving at ER.

Phil MaGlass
19-09-2012, 10:56 AM
If I could change one rule it would be

any club liquidated and coming back under a different name will absolutely not have any right to trophies,championships etc,etc..previously won by the previously liquidated club.
Any club coming back under a different name will be treated as a different entity thus having secured no trophies, championships etc, etc....

*****

Sweet Left Peg
19-09-2012, 05:36 PM
I hate it when play is stopped for an injury only for the injured party to make a miraculous recovery. I would take a leaf out of rugby's book. If a player is down, play on and allow the injured guy to receive treatment on the pitch. What player would disadvantage his own team by feigning injury?

Hibercelona
19-09-2012, 05:43 PM
I hate it when play is stopped for an injury only for the injured party to make a miraculous recovery. I would take a leaf out of rugby's book. If a player is down, play on and allow the injured guy to receive treatment on the pitch. What player would disadvantage his own team by feigning injury?

That would work well, until of course, a player really is seriously injured, in which case, play continuing could be quite dangerous if another player or the ball makes hard contact with the injured player while down.

Famous Fiver
19-09-2012, 05:46 PM
As soon as a club defaults on paying wages on time every match is conceded 0-3 until wages are paid.

Sweet Left Peg
19-09-2012, 06:02 PM
That would work well, until of course, a player really is seriously injured, in which case, play continuing could be quite dangerous if another player or the ball makes hard contact with the injured player while down.

If it really is a bad one then stop the game. Similarly if the ref thinks play is too close. Rugby is a far more physical game and they can manage to avoid an injured player getting treatment from the physio.
But I cannot stand seeing cheating fairies get an advantage just by pretending to be injured, stopping a potential attack. Lack of fluent football due to fake injuries is as frustrating as it is embarrassing and it can be easily stopped overnight. Retro punishing cheats for diving by using tv is another one I would have. Way before goal line technology. It happens in Oz and it works. TV shows that so and so dived to get a penalty. OK, five match ban.

Tricla
19-09-2012, 06:07 PM
I think the game is too soft now, I don't understand why keepers get so much protection at corners or free kicks. Also I believe it lights up the supporters when you see a great tackle being put in, the defender gets the ball first and crunches through the opposite player. Your barely aloud to tackle anymore and it's pathetic and IMHO it's ruining both playing football and watching it.

Yip. I'd allow tackling again. I think the poncyness of the game has risen in line with the decline o proper tackling.

Back in the day, if you went down as if you were shot it was normally because that was the case. Those were the days.

Hibercelona
19-09-2012, 06:07 PM
If it really is a bad one then stop the game. Similarly if the ref thinks play is too close. Rugby is a far more physical game and they can manage to avoid an injured player getting treatment from the physio.
But I cannot stand seeing cheating fairies get an advantage just by pretending to be injured, stopping a potential attack. Lack of fluent football due to fake injuries is as frustrating as it is embarrassing and it can be easily stopped overnight. Retro punishing cheats for diving by using tv is another one I would have. Way before goal line technology. It happens in Oz and it works. TV shows that so and so dived to get a penalty. OK, five match ban.

I understand that its frustrating to see players put on such a shameful act. But the issue with that rule is that a referee can't tell instantly whether an injury is serious or not. The referee needs the game to stop ASAP so he can assess the situation. Allowing play to continue on while a player is being treated on the pitch could lead to further possible injuries.

Sweet Left Peg
19-09-2012, 07:06 PM
[QUOTE=wee_hibee;3363535]I understand that its frustrating to see players put on such a shameful act. But the issue with that rule is that a referee can't tell instantly whether an injury is serious or not. The referee needs the game to stop ASAP so he can assess the situation. Allowing play to continue on while a player is being treated on the pitch could lead to further possible injuries.[/QUOTE

Which plays into the hands of cheats. The only way to stop this is to remove the opportunity to break the rules in this way.

Players push the boundaries cos they know they can get away with it. Don't give them the chance, is what I am saying. Keep the game flowing as far as possible. The ref could always stop play if he thought there was a danger to the player getting hit. But it would stop all this pissing about in an instant. Fans hate it, players hate it, managers hate it when the other team does it. But if it goes for you then it's clever play. Remove this option and the game will be better for it. Although last season I might have argued for as many stoppages as possible......

Eyrie
19-09-2012, 07:11 PM
allow physios onto the pitch to attend to injured players whilst the game continues.


Me too. Simple solution would be do what rugby does. Trainer/ physio comes on but he play is not stopped unless its a blood injury. Would stop all this girlie rolling around. If your not hurt and he game was raging on you wouldn't be down for long.


The stupid rule where a player is injured and after getting treatment on the pitch, he has to go off until the ref allows him back on, why not just let him get treatment then carry on with him on the pitch.

In rugby, the physio can come onto the pitch at any time to treat injuries, the player gets up then rejoins the game, no fuss, ho hassles, just common sense.


This one gets my vote. It would also stop the incessant bleating from fans when one of their players is down injured - fair enough in many cases but it really annoys me when their own team have already declined the opportunity to kick the ball out of play. As long as players don't go down the Dean Richards "blood-gate" route, allowing play to continue should work OK.


I hate it when play is stopped for an injury only for the injured party to make a miraculous recovery. I would take a leaf out of rugby's book. If a player is down, play on and allow the injured guy to receive treatment on the pitch. What player would disadvantage his own team by feigning injury?

I'm liking the thinking here, everyone .....


I understand that its frustrating to see players put on such a shameful act. But the issue with that rule is that a referee can't tell instantly whether an injury is serious or not. The referee needs the game to stop ASAP so he can assess the situation. Allowing play to continue on while a player is being treated on the pitch could lead to further possible injuries.
The ref isn't medically qualified to assess the situation. As SLP has said the ref can stop the game if play gets too close to the injured player (which happens in rugby).

Speedy
19-09-2012, 08:13 PM
Not quite what you mean but I'd quite like to get a pint at the games.

Bristolhibby
19-09-2012, 10:45 PM
Ball going out for a by kick, defender carries out outrageous obstruction to the point of IMO fouling the attacking player.

This always results in a by kick.

IMO this should be a free kick to the attacking team.

J

jdships
20-09-2012, 02:54 PM
Sin bin instead of yellow/red cards

:thumbsup::top marks
Would borrow another one from Rugby Union
In the event of a player leaving the pitch for lengthy treatment, a 'blood sub' ( as in RU ) should come on until the injured player is fit to return.
How maany times have we sen a player get ' crunched' in a tackle , foul given , and the side taking it is a man short for as long as it takes to get the injured party back on ?.
Seems a bit unfair as it stands .

IFONLY
20-09-2012, 03:31 PM
I would like to see that if a player is fouled and has to receive treatment the player who committed the foul has to leave the pitch for the same amount of time or, at least, a prescribed period of, say, 1 minute. Where's the advantage if your star striker is laid low, so that he can't take part in the free-kick, but the offending player is allowed to defend it?.

I like this out of all mentioned, its crazy as your getting penalised twice, injured player and a man disadvantage.[/QUOTE]

I have been saying the same thing for years, the injured player is being penalised with having to go off whilst the perpetrator stays on the park!!!!!!

scuttle
20-09-2012, 03:34 PM
The SFA or UEFA allow referees to speak to the media to explain controversial decisions

erin go bragh
21-09-2012, 05:56 PM
2 corners = a penalty :wink:


ggtth

Ultrabee1-0
22-09-2012, 02:20 AM
I would choose for it to be like the rugby, where the officials have a little mic and the hole stadium can hear the decision and it gets played back on a tv for say a 6th official to see then tell the ref the out come!

Onceinawhile
22-09-2012, 02:08 PM
I'd like to see the spraypaint introduced that they use in south American leagues so that the ref can mark the wall being 10 yards away.

Keith_M
22-09-2012, 03:14 PM
I know it goes against the current view of "it's a man's game" but I'd ban players from entering the six yard box at corners until the ball is in play. That way, teams wouldn't get to deliberatley obstruct the keeper, or at least it would be much harder to do so.


Aside from that, I'd change the offside rule to apply to a player simply being in an offside position, regardless of the view of the ref that he's 'interefering with play'. In the words of Bill Shankly, "if you're on the pitch, you're interfering with play". Maybe coupled with the idea some had of extending the 18 yrd line and making offside only between there and the bye-line