Rule changes which have been good, and bad, for the game

[Hibbyradge]

I think the jury is out on VAR and will be until it becomes more slick, but there have been loads of changes in the laws of game since I started watching Hibs in the early 70s.

Which changes do you remember and which do you think have been good, or bad, for the game?

I'll start with a recent improvement. The vanishing spray that refs use at free kicks has been a huge success.

Defending players used to refuse to retreat for the full 10 yards and they'd often rush forward before the kick had been taken.

Depending on the referee, this often went unpunished.

It's much better now.

[Billy Whizz]

Not being allowed to throw back to your goalie to pick up, major success in my opinion

[Hibernia&Alba]

I'd like to see the return of clarity in the offisde rule, so that any player in an offside position means offside, thus scrapping all this 'active/inactive' and 'phases' stuff.

Pass back law is certainly an improvement, same with increasing the number of subs.

[Smartie]

Not being allowed to throw back to your goalie to pick up, major success in my opinion

The backpass rule full stop has been a success. Remember what some games descended into during the late 80s/ early 90s?

[Hibbyradge]

I'd like to see the return of clarity in the offisde rule, so that any player in an offside position means offside, thus scrapping all this 'active/inactive' and 'phases' stuff.



It used to be ridiculous that a 30 yard shot from the centre of the pitch which went into the net would be ruled out because a player out on the touchline was half a yard offside.

I remember a goal being chalked off because an injured player, lying on the grass, was offside. Crazy.

I like the new rule about being active for those reasons. Mind you, Arsenal wouldn't have won the league in the late 80s/early 90s with the new system.

[delbert]

It used to be ridiculous that a 30 yard shot from the centre of the pitch which went into the net would be ruled out because a player out on the touchline was half a yard offside.

I remember a goal being chalked off because an injured player, lying on the grass, was offside. Crazy.

I like the new rule about being active for those reasons. Mind you, Arsenal wouldn't have won the league in the late 80s/early 90s with the new system.

Which is exactly why the alterations to the offside law in the last few years have been excellent, more goals being scored and less chopped off for simply standing in an offside position and not affecting anything.

[Hibbyradge]

Which is exactly why the alterations to the offside law in the last few years have been excellent, more goals being scored and less chopped off for simply standing in an offside position and not affecting anything.

I agree.

The fact that some fans, and some TV commentators and pundits, don't understand it doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

[Since452]

The pass back rule is the only one i think was needed. The others seem like they were made just for the sake of it. There's been so many variations of the offside rule in the last decade or so that I find i lose track of the rule myself at times.

[Baader]

Passback rule certainly improved the game. I remember Dundee Utd, when they were good, coming to Easter Road and scoring early once. The rest of the game consisted of big Hamish McAlpine rolling the ball out to Hegarty or Narey, it would go across the back four before being passed back to McAlpine only for same thing to happen over and over again. Worst I've ever seen. The passback rule finished Jim Leighton as a keeper though as he couldn't kick a ball that was on the turf. At least he was at the end of what was a great career.

3 points for a win was badly needed. Ridiculous to think for too long you only gained one more point for winning a game as opposed to drawing it.

[Hamish]

Passback rule certainly improved the game. I remember Dundee Utd, when they were good, coming to Easter Road and scoring early once. The rest of the game consisted of big Hamish McAlpine rolling the ball out to Hegarty or Narey, it would go across the back four before being passed back to McAlpine only for same thing to happen over and over again. Worst I've ever seen. The passback rule finished Jim Leighton as a keeper though as he couldn't kick a ball that was on the turf. At least he was at the end of what was a great career.

3 points for a win was badly needed. Ridiculous to think for too long you only gained one more point for winning a game as opposed to drawing it.

Correct. Maurice Backpass as we called him.

[Hibbyradge]

Correct. Maurice Passback as we called him.

Maurice Backpass to be accurate.

[Hamish]

Maurice Backpass to be accurate.

You are absolutely correct. Amended.

[Sylar]

Silver and Golden Goal rules - those were horrible, and I'm glad they were shortly ditched after their implementation.

[The 90+2]

I liked them both. Golden goal should be for the second half of extra time though. Germany and France I’m sure benefitted from them?

[J-C]

The most stupid rule introduced is the one were a player receiving treatment on the pitch has to go off then waved back on again when play starts, just so ridiculous, rugby has this one spot on.

[Hibs Class]

I liked the trial (in England, I think) where free kicks were moved forward 10 yards of the offending team showed dissent, similar to what happens in rugby. I've still no idea why that didn't become a permanent change.

[Stairway 2 7]

I liked the trial (in England, I think) where free kicks were moved forward 10 yards of the offending team showed dissent, similar to what happens in rugby. I've still no idea why that didn't become a permanent change.
Because because attackers love a free kick from ten yards outside the box or further but hate one on the edge of the box, so dedenders deliberately moaned so it was moved to edge of the box

[worcesterhibby]

One rule I would love to see introduced is the penalising of defenders who "shepherd" a ball out of play over the bye line, by obstructing the attacker. I would like to see a change where you are no longer allowed to "shield" the ball in an attempt to let it run out of play. Make defenders play the ball instead, would result in a lot less negative football and would encourage teams to play more forward passes into the box for attackers to run on to.

[SJNB Hibby]

One rule I would love to see introduced is the penalising of defenders who "shepherd" a ball out of play over the bye line, by obstructing the attacker. I would like to see a change where you are no longer allowed to "shield" the ball in an attempt to let it run out of play. Make defenders play the ball instead, would result in a lot less negative football and would encourage teams to play more forward passes into the box for attackers to run on to.

Back in "the day" this used to be called Obstruction and was penalised by an indirect free-kick. When was the last time we've seen an indirect free-kick for ANYTHING? And BTW, I think there were 2 in Celtics European Cup Final against Inter Milan INSIDE THE BOX!!

[dangermouse]

Back in "the day" this used to be called Obstruction and was penalised by an indirect free-kick. When was the last time we've seen an indirect free-kick for ANYTHING? And BTW, I think there were 2 in Celtics European Cup Final against Inter Milan INSIDE THE BOX!!

Offside re-starts the game with an indirect free kick :greengrin

[SJNB Hibby]

Offside re-starts the game with an indirect free kick :greengrin

Fair do's, although the off-side rule is kind of set in stone,(and who ever heard of anybody scoring direct from their own half) it's the subjective ones that dont get awarded

[Monts]

The 6 second rule

[SJNB Hibby]

The 6 second rule

And how often is that given? Oh yes, Canada v USA Womens Olympic semi-final, Old Trafford 2012, and the referee never reffed an International again. If you dont know what happened next...........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOayNYQPMlA
at the 6:30 mark

[Smartie]

I miss the "steps rule" that used to make goalkeepers have to glide about the box with bizarre long prancing strides in order to stay on the right side of it.

[worcesterhibby]

Back in "the day" this used to be called Obstruction and was penalised by an indirect free-kick. When was the last time we've seen an indirect free-kick for ANYTHING? And BTW, I think there were 2 in Celtics European Cup Final against Inter Milan INSIDE THE BOX!!

There is still an obstruction law in the game, but it only relates to players obstructing others when the ball is not within playing distance of either player, otherwise shielding the ball would be obstruction. So it relates to blocking players running towards the ball but not within playing distance of it..(to be fair this happens at every single corner taken in the modern game and it never results in a free kick!)

here is the rule:

IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.

[SJNB Hibby]

There is still an obstruction law in the game, but it only relates to players obstructing others when the ball is not within playing distance of either player, otherwise shielding the ball would be obstruction. So it relates to blocking players running towards the ball but not within playing distance of it..(to be fair this happens at every single corner taken in the modern game and it never results in a free kick!)

here is the rule:

IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.

But they ARE holding them off with their body---thats the issue---they are not playing the ball, and are creating a wall with their body to deny the opponent the ability to play it

[where'stheslope]

It used to be ridiculous that a 30 yard shot from the centre of the pitch which went into the net would be ruled out because a player out on the touchline was half a yard offside.

I remember a goal being chalked off because an injured player, lying on the grass, was offside. Crazy.

I like the new rule about being active for those reasons. Mind you, Arsenal wouldn't have won the league in the late 80s/early 90s with the new system.
Yet the new rule you like works in the opposite, if a defender is lying out on the touchline injured he plays attacker onside???
Weird rule!!!!

[where'stheslope]

There is still an obstruction law in the game, but it only relates to players obstructing others when the ball is not within playing distance of either player, otherwise shielding the ball would be obstruction. So it relates to blocking players running towards the ball but not within playing distance of it..(to be fair this happens at every single corner taken in the modern game and it never results in a free kick!)

here is the rule:

IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.
You see this all the time at pass backs to the keeper, to stop the attacker getting in the face of their keeper.
Yet I've never seen a free kick awarded for it????

[AFKA5814_Hibs]

Increased subs on bench. Incredible to think now but our only 2 subs in the 1991 League Cup Final were Neill Orr and Dave Beaumont.

[Hibbyradge]

Yet the new rule you like works in the opposite, if a defender is lying out on the touchline injured he plays attacker onside???
Weird rule!!!!

That's true and it also applies if a player has left the field without permission.

But that's how it should be.

If defenders knew that should they lie down injured or leave the field that they would be discarded for offside decisions, they'd start doing it deliberately.

Defenders on the line could just step back into the net rendering the closest forwards offside.

I'm going to regret typing that, amn't I. :greengrin

[Tomsk]

I agree.

The fact that some fans, and some TV commentators and pundits, don't understand it doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

The law wasn't changed. FIFA just tightened the directive on passive (not interfering with play) offsides.

One way or the other it was a positive development.

[where'stheslope]

That's true and it also applies if a player has left the field without permission.

But that's how it should be.

If defenders knew that should they lie down injured or leave the field that they would be discarded for offside decisions, they'd start doing it deliberately.

Defenders on the line could just step back into the net rendering the closest forwards offside.

I'm going to regret typing that, amn't I. :greengrin
The difference is if the attacker does the same he is not given offside????
And it is done at most free kicks, forwards stand offside then don't get flagged as not interfering with play???
If they are standing in the middle of the box, how are they not interfering with play?????

[Forza Fred]

I would do away with ANY indirect free kicks.

Currently the old meaning of ‘dangerous play’ is still penalised by an indirect free kick where contact has NOT been made.

I’d see ALL breaches of the rules punished equally by a direct free kick.

[Caversham Green]

What's the story with red and yellow cards for coaches/managers? I though it was another rule coming in next season, but Reading's manager and assistant manager both got shown a yellow on Saturday. Not sure what the assistant's one was for, but the manager got one for celebrating a 97th minute winner with the fans.