owl-zat Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) You will be able to take a kick off backwards instead of playing the ball forward. An injured player will again receive treatment on the pitch. Some change to when a player is sent off for a 'last man's challenge as its seen as triple punishment Sith the sending off, a penalty if.in the area and then suspension. Also some video technology but doesn't state what this will be. http://www.90min.com/posts/3122412-ifab-confirm-series-of-changes-to-football-rules-ahead-of-next-season?utm_medium=share&utm_source=fotmob Edited April 18, 2016 by owl-zat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bahrain Owl Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 Isn't the video technology for all goals and red card tackles BUT only if the referee requests it. The referee can refer to the off field official ("it's goiing upstairs" in cricket terms) to run a number of videos sequences. The two of them call it after review. It is not sure if the re-runs are shown on the stadiums large screen TV!!!! For some reason this "sensitive" subject is still being handled very delicately, which, I, for one, cannot understand why. If the technology is now available to make the game fairer for all then use it to it's fullest extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogers Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 They should bring back the old offside rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevthelodgemoorowl Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 It's not about making the game fairer, it's about the referees saving face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan™ Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 The day video technology comes into force for decisions which require manual "interpretation" is the day I'll likely give up watching football. For decisions where there is a definite yes-or-no answer (for example, a ball crossing the goal-line or not) then fine, that's great if it can be handled in a matter of seconds like it now is in the Premier League. But using video technology to judge something which different people may still view differently regardless of how many times it is seen in slow motion is just asking for trouble. For a start, watching footage back in slow motion can give an incredibly skewed impression of the events. Players getting clipped at certain points in their running stride will fall over, as anyone who has played football will know, but slow motion often makes this look like a dive. Even just on the most recent Match of the Day there was an incident where one of the pundits claimed a player fell over their own legs after watching a replay, whereas from what I saw, he took a tiny clip off the other player which while running at full speed caused one leg to impact his other and make him trip over. Can we really trust the officials we have to make these judgements properly every week? And what is properly anyway? It's not like this would ever be an exact science, there will always be a debate on whether something was a foul or not, no matter how many times it is seen. I don't even think I need to go into the problem with seeing an incident from multiple angles either... We all know that you regularly see a tackle from 4 angles which looks like a certain foul, yet on the 5th angle you spot something new which shows it to be a clear dive (or the other way around). What happens when we only have the first of those 4 angles available to watch something back? There's no guarantee that we'd ever have the "true" version of events. Using video evidence for this kind of decision is a real backwards step in my opinion. I was always against introducing goal-line technology because I knew it would inevitably lead to this situation. Even though I don't have a problem with goal-line technology itself, it felt like the beginning of a very long slippery slope... Apologies for the rant, it's 3am and this topic always gets me raging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themaskedowl Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 It's not about making the game fairer, it's about the referees saving face. Which I think was, at least in part Bahrain's argument. Please correct me if mistaken Bahrain. FWIW, I think you're both right. It should happen. Whether it does is another matter entirely. Other sports (tennis, rugby league, cricket) don't seem to have dispensed with human referees/umpires or devalued them. Human error is always going to be a part of it, we should not expect them to be infallible but having the option to confirm when unsure makes complete sense, to me at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themaskedowl Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 The day video technology comes into force for decisions which require manual "interpretation" is the day I'll likely give up watching football. For decisions where there is a definite yes-or-no answer (for example, a ball crossing the goal-line or not) then fine, that's great if it can be handled in a matter of seconds like it now is in the Premier League. But using video technology to judge something which different people may still view differently regardless of how many times it is seen in slow motion is just asking for trouble. For a start, watching footage back in slow motion can give an incredibly skewed impression of the events. Players getting clipped at certain points in their running stride will fall over, as anyone who has played football will know, but slow motion often makes this look like a dive. Even just on the most recent Match of the Day there was an incident where one of the pundits claimed a player fell over their own legs after watching a replay, whereas from what I saw, he took a tiny clip off the other player which while running at full speed caused one leg to impact his other and make him trip over. Can we really trust the officials we have to make these judgements properly every week? And what is properly anyway? It's not like this would ever be an exact science, there will always be a debate on whether something was a foul or not, no matter how many times it is seen. I don't even think I need to go into the problem with seeing an incident from multiple angles either... We all know that you regularly see a tackle from 4 angles which looks like a certain foul, yet on the 5th angle you spot something new which shows it to be a clear dive (or the other way around). What happens when we only have the first of those 4 angles available to watch something back? There's no guarantee that we'd ever have the "true" version of events. Using video evidence for this kind of decision is a real backwards step in my opinion. I was always against introducing goal-line technology because I knew it would inevitably lead to this situation. Even though I don't have a problem with goal-line technology itself, it felt like the beginning of a very long slippery slope... Apologies for the rant, it's 3am and this topic always gets me raging. You could have a point here too. My post was mainly in reference to goals (ball over the line or in-and-out type goals), and possibly even off side decisions. The red card or penalty/free kick thing is far more subjective and the rules can't allow for all contingencies. It's a free flowing game, or should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo hippy Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 It won't be 100% and will still cause some arguments but at least it will help in some situations. It has to be fairer then just using one bloke who could be 30 yards away from the incident with a blocked view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joelswfc Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 (edited) The on pitch treatment is good. That always winds me up. Edited April 18, 2016 by joelswfc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B_SWFC Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 Damn. No multi-ball again. One day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ever the pessimist Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 Not so much a rule change as a new instruction for referees: Give free kicks / penalties if a player impeded but doesn't go to ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bahrain Owl Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 Which I think was, at least in part Bahrain's argument. Please correct me if mistaken Bahrain. FWIW, I think you're both right. It should happen. Whether it does is another matter entirely. Other sports (tennis, rugby league, cricket) don't seem to have dispensed with human referees/umpires or devalued them. Human error is always going to be a part of it, we should not expect them to be infallible but having the option to confirm when unsure makes complete sense, to me at least. This can easily become a huge debate but have we not already adapted new technology into the game in other ways - or are we still heading laced up leather footballs - no. The game, like everything these days, is changing rapidly, the speed of play these days is so much faster leading to more potential limb and possible career breaking tackles. Then we have the divers....there...in very few words - two topics that our own Forestieri has very recently commented openly about. Is it not correct for the authorities to protect against these and other possible game spoilers? By the way notice in my original post I said "to make the game fairer for all". I wonder how many true football supporters will cry "yeah - he was offside" if it was to cancel out the goal that secured a trophy or promotion for their own team - not many I will bet. The rule changes, as far as I have seen them in the news, are for two topics only (as i said), I could be wrong - I may be out of date. There will be no review for offsides, fouls, corners and the decision to refer to the review is at the discretion of the referee....so, yes themaskedowl, partly right. (By the way, for anyone against my comments, you could not meet anyone more than myself against the pace of some technological developments. A man first walked on the moon almost 50 years ago and yet we still haven't found a cure for cancer - that's gotta be wrong somewhere....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latemodelchild Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 Im all for technology to help. Get the decision right whenever possible. We have umpteen delays to the game right now anyway, a few more won't make any odds. Also, if video technology comes in then some sort of timekeeping rules will have to, time will have to be stopped. This means we will need to know when and for how long and how long is left. Could have the knock on effect of cutting down time-wasting and the problem at the end of the game where teams feel aggrieved that too much or too little was played. If this cuts out the ridiculous goalkeeper shenanigans we see week in week out then bring it on. I'll also point out I watch and follow a fair bit of American sports so video tech and stoppages aren't new to me, maybe I've seen the benefits over the drawbacks? For me, if it gets the decision right then it's good. If it gets 80-90% of queries that use it right then that'll be an improvement on what we have now. Instant example, we wouldn't have lost Forestieri after the hull match, plus we'd have had him on the pitch to take the free kick and they could have been down to 10 men. I know there will be situations where we are punished after the ref has missed it but this season alone I feel we have been hard done to. It would level it out, it really actually would even itself out rather than people just saying it and it blatantly not being even remotely true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southie_Owl Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 The on pitch treatment is good. That always winds me up. I'm confused by that rule change wasn't treatment on the sidelines brought in to prevent players faking injury to waste time getting treatment on the pitch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamese Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 I'm confused by that rule change wasn't treatment on the sidelines brought in to prevent players faking injury to waste time getting treatment on the pitch? My view is it should be changed so that players can receive treatment on the pitch, whilst the game is ongoing. Seems to work on in rugby and stop 'fake' injuries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southportdc Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 Always thought for most 'professional' fouls you should be sent off but not suspended. Anyway, proposal that from next season saying FA when you mean Football League, or vice versa, results in 5 day ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twolaptops Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 If a player has to go off for treatment after a bad tackle.....and await call back onto the pitch.......the offending player should be made to go off also............why give advantage to the team committing the offence.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheffieldGraduate Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 It works well in Rugby League The day video technology comes into force for decisions which require manual "interpretation" is the day I'll likely give up watching football. For decisions where there is a definite yes-or-no answer (for example, a ball crossing the goal-line or not) then fine, that's great if it can be handled in a matter of seconds like it now is in the Premier League. But using video technology to judge something which different people may still view differently regardless of how many times it is seen in slow motion is just asking for trouble. For a start, watching footage back in slow motion can give an incredibly skewed impression of the events. Players getting clipped at certain points in their running stride will fall over, as anyone who has played football will know, but slow motion often makes this look like a dive. Even just on the most recent Match of the Day there was an incident where one of the pundits claimed a player fell over their own legs after watching a replay, whereas from what I saw, he took a tiny clip off the other player which while running at full speed caused one leg to impact his other and make him trip over. Can we really trust the officials we have to make these judgements properly every week? And what is properly anyway? It's not like this would ever be an exact science, there will always be a debate on whether something was a foul or not, no matter how many times it is seen. I don't even think I need to go into the problem with seeing an incident from multiple angles either... We all know that you regularly see a tackle from 4 angles which looks like a certain foul, yet on the 5th angle you spot something new which shows it to be a clear dive (or the other way around). What happens when we only have the first of those 4 angles available to watch something back? There's no guarantee that we'd ever have the "true" version of events. Using video evidence for this kind of decision is a real backwards step in my opinion. I was always against introducing goal-line technology because I knew it would inevitably lead to this situation. Even though I don't have a problem with goal-line technology itself, it felt like the beginning of a very long slippery slope... Apologies for the rant, it's 3am and this topic always gets me raging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shez owl Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 They should bring back the old offside rule Couldn't agree more, since it changed the number of disputed calls has gone up. Level and your on is much harder to get right than being behind the defender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bahrain Owl Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 Couldn't agree more, since it changed the number of disputed calls has gone up. Level and your on is much harder to get right than being behind the defender It's when the flag goes up that is wrong....the flag should go up when the ball is played not when the player (offside) receives the ball. The German rule say that if the player who was offside doesn't receive the ball and touch it, it means he wasn't offside after all and play can continue. And the Germans are supposed to be well known for their logic?? (I do not mean any disrespect to the German nationality or persons of German origins or relationships) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now