Which of these rugby features would be interesting to test in football?

[Marla_Singer]

During the rugby world cup, I've discovered several refering customs that don't exist in football but could be easily applied also to this game. In the poll above are listed some of them. Tell me those you would be interested to see being tested in football.

[malicious bloke]

I liked the one rugby rule they did trial in football. Dissent against the referee and he can move the play back 10 yards.

[Catharsis]

a yellow card takes the player out for 10 minutes

There's a lot of variability as to what yellow cards are given out for, so this would just add to the whinging by the managers, IMO. (They already whinge when their striker gets booked for celebrating a goal while the other team's defender makes a two-footed tackle and gets off scot-free; this would only aggravate the situation.) Also, in rugby you don't have to deal with, say, your goalkeeper getting sin-binned.

4th referee has access to video screens in order to advise the field referee

Wouldn't mind this.

Field referee is able to stop the clock if he judges necessary (injury, streaker, video check, ...)

I thought this was how referees decided extra time already. If so, this would be redundant.

Extra-times end when the ball gets out of the pitch.

I can see players abusing this.

[tcjsavannah]

I voted for the first because I love the idea of the penalty box. I think it should be applied to all sports. Basketball flagrant foul? 5 on 4 for two minutes. Football personal foul? Try defending with only 10 for two minutes. Doubles tennis? Try a little Australian doubles for a game.

[Dell19]

Surely the whole point of injury time is that it makes up for stoppages?

I'm not keen on the yellow card rule as I agree with Catharsis that there is too much variability and I don't really see the need for video referring although I would like to see the automatic ball crossing the line technology.

[Marla_Singer]

Originally Posted by Dell19

Surely the whole point of injury time is that it makes up for stoppages?

Of course, and that's not really a bad thing this way. I'm totally against stopping the chronometer each time the ball is out as it's done in Basket-ball, Hockey or NFL. The issue of such a thing is that it breaks the game, something which generally turns out to divide it in disconnected sequences. This is something totally at the opposite of the spirit of a game such as football, which is meant to be played as a single continuum, with no breaks.

Now this being said, in watching the rugby world cup, I did find interesting the idea that the referee could stop the chronometer if uncontrolled events would lead to a long stop of the play. For instance, I'm sick of players pretending to be injured at the 80th minute with the sole purpose of stealing few minutes to avoid the opponents scoring back. Another thing which I do find annoying are the coaches who replace players at the 89th minute or even during the extra-time for the same reason of saving time. I believe it would be more honnest to stop the clock during substitutions. Of course, substitutions would still break the opponents rythm but at least the issue would be partially solved.

I never thought about this in-between solution before watching rugby, and I really believe this is a great feature as it preserves the single continuum principle of the sport while avoiding taking advantage of it to not play it fair.

I'm not keen on the yellow card rule as I agree with Catharsis that there is too much variability...

Well, if the rule would change, it's obvious that yellow cards wouldn't be distributed as randomly as it is currently. And it's exactly that random distribution which I believe show how limited is the current rule. The problem of the yellow card is that it's essentially a warning... as in "next time beware". It fails to be a deterring sanction. Let's take few examples.

Too many strikers are tempted to dive when they realized their opportunity to score is gone. This could lead sometimes to a yellow card when the referee feels enough sure that there was no foul. However, you'll never see the referee giving a second yellow card (meaning a red card) if the striker is caught diving again during the game. The problem is that most referee would judge this to be exagerated. As a result, a diver knows he doesn't risk being sent off because of diving, and he tends to abuse of this, especially during tense games. A 10-minute penalty would actually be a good balance to avoid such a bias. It would be a real deterrent for strikers, without being felt as being an exagerated sanction.

Another example would be players yelling at the referee. They generally know they risk a yellow card but they don't really care, as it's well-known a second yellow card is never attributed as easily as the first one anyway. If arguing to the referee, even once and mildly, could lead to 10 minutes out of the pitch, players would think it twice before endlessly arguing with him.

Anyway, all this to say that if a yellow card would lead to an immediate sanction, then it's obvious it would become more meaningful and thus distributed less randomly. Cause let's try to be honnest, the fact yellow cards are distributed so randomly proves in the first place that it's not something really considered as serious by anyone (neither the referee, nor the player).

and I don't really see the need for video referring although I would like to see the automatic ball crossing the line technology.

How does anyone can say that the video is not necessary? Without video, Zidane would have never been sent off during the 2006 World Cup final... would you consider this as fair?

How to judge if there's penalty or if there's no penalty? How to judge if a scored goal wasn't on an off-side position in case of doubt. Of course, video shouldn't be used excessively, but in rugby it's not the case as it is. Now, what seems obvious to me is that the video rule should be applied only if the referee is able to stop the chronometer (as in rugby).

Anyway, the thing is that the football field referee is the most powerful referee in all sports. Even juries in ice skating are less powerful (because they are more than one). The sanctions he can use are determined by an "all or nothing" state of mind. Either you're sent off permanently or you're not sent off at all. Either there's a penalty or there's no foul. Either the goal is valid or it's not. I don't believe this is necessarily bad, I just say that considering how important are the referee's decision for the game, it seems natural to me that he should benefit of video to double check if he took the right decision.

Frankly, what's the point of a game where a German goal can send a French forward to the hospital with no foul being even whistled... and all this to qualify his team to the WC final in all impunity? We ask to referees to be Gods, why don't we accept that they are just Humans?

[azzaman333]

4th referee should have video access.

[warpus]

I like the video idea.

Also, the entire game should be watched by officials on video screens, and any players caught "simulating" should be banned for the next game or two.

[Dell19]

Generally time wasting doesn't actually work as players can get boooked and generally the extra extra time will be added on.

You could make yellow cards more balanced however that would mean that minor offences would be less likely to punished so for instance a dive probably would no longer get a yellow card unless it was very blatant. Yellow cards do matter in most competitions as for instance after you get 6 yellow cards in the Premiership you miss the next match.

I thought you were talking about video referees being used to rule on whether or not someone was onside or not and situations like this where it would unnecessarily stop the game and if the referee has stopped play then even if the player was the ruled to be onside they will have lost the advantage. Video evidence should be applied after the match and as far as I'm aware the FA do have powers to do this as long as the referee hasn't already acted on the incident.

[Catharsis]

Originally Posted by Marla_Singer

Well, if the rule would change, it's obvious that yellow cards wouldn't be distributed as randomly as it is currently. And it's exactly that random distribution which I believe show how limited is the current rule. The problem of the yellow card is that it's essentially a warning... as in "next time beware". It fails to be a deterring sanction. Let's take few examples.

Too many strikers are tempted to dive when they realized their opportunity to score is gone. This could lead sometimes to a yellow card when the referee feels enough sure that there was no foul. However, you'll never see the referee giving a second yellow card (meaning a red card) if the striker is caught diving again during the game. The problem is that most referee would judge this to be exagerated. As a result, a diver knows he doesn't risk being sent off because of diving, and he tends to abuse of this, especially during tense games. A 10-minute penalty would actually be a good balance to avoid such a bias. It would be a real deterrent for strikers, without being felt as being an exagerated sanction.

Another example would be players yelling at the referee. They generally know they risk a yellow card but they don't really care, as it's well-known a second yellow card is never attributed as easily as the first one anyway. If arguing to the referee, even once and mildly, could lead to 10 minutes out of the pitch, players would think it twice before endlessly arguing with him.

Anyway, all this to say that if a yellow card would lead to an immediate sanction, then it's obvious it would become more meaningful and thus distributed less randomly. Cause let's try to be honnest, the fact yellow cards are distributed so randomly proves in the first place that it's not something really considered as serious by anyone (neither the referee, nor the player).

Hmm. I'd agree with Dell19 actually - referees and linesmen are not infallible, and a lot of the time the direction the game goes in is almost solely their responsibility. A defender slips and accidentally handles in the penalty area - does the ref give a penalty or not? The results of these decisions, correct or otherwise, inevitably leads to a lot of whinging by managers and players. This proposed amendment to yellow cards, I fear, would exacerbate the situation; even worse, it would make it more common. Whether the ref has more power or not, we are going to see clumsy tackles and accidental handballs, because the players make mistakes. Does the ref card them, under the letter of the law, and reduce the team to 10 men? Giving the referee more power would, in my opinion, reduce the amount of trust in his decision by players, managers and fans.

Also, you have to remember that football is a game designed not only to be played, but to be watched - in fact, the majority of people connected with football are watching it, whether they be in the stands or in their armchairs. You hear football pundits raging about red cards 'ruining a game' every week, and I would agree: 11 vs. 10 often disrupts the flow of a game that was pootling along quite nicely beforehand. Now, granted, sometimes the red card is unavoidable and the ref has no choice; but adding this harsh penalty for yellow-card offences would cause a lot more disruption and thus a lot less excitement and (horrible phrase, this) 'pure football'. It would ruin the game for the watchers, and that way madness lies.

[steviejay]

I voted-

4th referee has access to video screens in order to advise the field referee

Video MUST be used, so much of the bickering which is done can be avoided with this. Now, I'm not silly enough to say it's a cureall but it'll certainly help and of course, diving would be a trickier past time if someone can check to see afterwards.

Field referee is able to stop the clock if he judges necessary (injury, streaker, video check, ...)

I'd like to see this but I wouldn't be too fussed if it wasn't put in. I'd prefer they cracked down on diving more (see above)

Something else

I voted this because I like the idea of only the team captains being able to talk to the ref. I heard they the FA have actually started to work this in but at 'grass root' levels, where it will make absolutely no difference whatso ever. If they wanted to make an impact they should put it in just at the premiership level, let everyone see how the beautiful game should be played in a civilized way.

[Berrie]

Video can be used like in tennis. For example, each coach gets 1 opportunity per half to contest something. This to avoid abuse.

[GinandTonic]

Give the broadcasters limited access to the refs mic. Get the players to show some respect as in rugby.

The video issue is more complex. I would like to see more use of the ability the authorities have to issue penalties for diving on the basis of post match examination of footage. The inability of the authorities to address any issue the ref has delbt with as a foul or yellow card is abserd. The use of video during play is more complex. While I like the idea of limited challenges from the managers the principal that the game has the same laws at every level is a key one, and many (hell the vast majority) of matches are not televised.

[Catharsis]

Originally Posted by GinandTonic

Give the broadcasters limited access to the refs mic. Get the players to show some respect as in rugby.

I like that idea, although it also would depend on which matches were televised.

[GinandTonic]

Originally Posted by Catharsis

I like that idea, although it also would depend on which matches were televised.

Well it would not result in different rules at different levels. What it would do is put the squeze on the top levels and force them to put their house in order, which one would hope would filter down to th lower legues.

[Scratcher]

l'd like to see the referee and linemen respected by the players, decisions accepted, and only the captain can make a polite enquiry regarding a refereeing decision. It really bugs me when the officials are intimidated or subjected to verbal abuse.

But I really do not see this aspect of ruby crossing over to football

[ulsterman88]

1. Only captains can talk to referees
2. Blood-sub system so injured player may be subbed off, if all other subs are used.
3. Clock is stopped when ball goes out of play, and after 90mins when ball goes out match is over.
4. Yellow card equals 10mins in sinbin. Only a straight red means sent off
5. Goalline tech introduced
6. 4th official has video and linked to ref, to make quick decisions on offsides?

[Dell19]

Originally Posted by ulsterman88

2. Blood-sub system so injured player may be subbed off, if all other subs are used.

I imagine a lot more players would get 'injured' during matches.

[Lambert Simnel]

I think they all have merit as suggestions and are worth trying. The one I'm least keen on is the "game continues until the ball goes out of play" rule - it fits well with rugby, but I'm not sure it wouldn't seem just very strange with football.

Most needed ? Some sort of video refereeing. As Marla says, it may only be possible when the ref is able to stop the game (& the watch), but it's got to be an improvement over the current situation.

One concern with the yellow card / 10 minute sin-bin rule is that it effectively lessens the penalty being applied when a player commits a bad tackle within the last 10 minutes - hell, if there's a minute to go then there's almost no trouble in doing a bad tackle. You could, I suppose, say that this issue applies currently to a red card as well, but at least the player is forced to miss several matches as a result of a red.

[LAnkou]

i voted for the yellow card -> out for 10 min rule and for referee can stop the clock if it judge necessary (partially existing when the referee stop the match temporarily)

The out for 10 min thing is good. I know of two sports doing it, rugby and handball, and it really have some effect on the game. less big fault, more play, much better!!! And about the last 10 minutes fault, let's do it like in handball: there is a very important penalty against the team and the palyer doing it (generally,it means match lost)

another thing i would like is the "only captain can talk to referee". I would associated that to big punishment in case of contestation. However, in rugby, the referee can talk to players during played period, especially in the scrum things where most of faults are done.

Considering video, every football fan will think about off-sides, but it won't happend, because if the referee whistle and off-side and there isn't it. What can the referee do? Place every people in the same position than on video and restart the game?
Video would be good for penalties (if the game stops - goalkeeper gets the ball in hands, the ball gets of the field, etc, etc...)