BS: A football [soccer] inequity

Subject: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 06:30 AM

It's quite a while since we had a football [soccer] thread. But there is one rule (or, rather, usage) which seems to me to need consideration:-

When a foul occurs, a free kick follows; but the referee has the option, if he thinks the advantage currently lies with the team against whom the offence was committed, of letting play continue so that they will not be the losers from the game being stopped.

At present, though, if the 'advantage' is not taken, the referee can then bring play back and award the free kick after all. I think this is wrong, and that either the free kick should be awarded, or 'advantage' played, but not both, rather than allowing the referee thus to go back on a decision he has made. It is surely not equitable that the referee should have a two-way option in this way?

What do others think?

~M~

And if you are one of those who hate the game but have nevertheless perversely opened this thread for the express purpose of telling us how boring it all is, please don't bother! We know what you think.

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 06:58 AM

Referees have too much power anyway, given the loads o' money involved nowadays. Right now technology is beginning to take over - that is a fact, not a prediction. The following rule would then be adequate: if the software (possibly assisted by a human referee - not vice versa!) diagnoses a foul, the coach of the fouled team has, say, three seconds time to press a button, for the game to continue. Similar rules can be introduced to other team games.

The discussion of how to design a ball game for spectators' best satisfaction is by no means finished, and should not be seen as a matter of religious faith. New ideas keep emerging, fueled by new technology. May the best ones (plural!) win.

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: GUEST,Musket again
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 10:16 AM

Rules are arbitrary so should reflect level playing field and carry on the entertainment wherever possible.

One of the rules says the referee has final say so attempts to override that as we increasingly see with technology in cricket and tennis merely serve to change the rules themselves.

To return to Michael' s point, an advantage has to be seen to be such a thing so the countdown the referee plays in his head is to see if the advantage was as advantageous as a free kick, hence my view is that the rule works fine.

There is a lot of money at stake in 2% of all football matches played under FA, FIFA etc rules. There is the matter of the vast majority of the rest of football. Technology? They can't afford a groundsman let alone a camera or two.

Where business interests clash with the rule that puts the referee in charge, it is business that needs to think on, not the rule book.

My tuppence anyroad.

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: catspaw49
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 10:27 AM

This is what happens when ANY rule passes the "cut and dried" stage. Why the fuck have a rule if you need to interpret the damn thing? Rules in games need to be black and white without discretionary powers being given to a referee. Sometimes the Ref makes a bad call in every sport. Live with it.

PLUS.....Making rules to create some dumbass concept of fairness just tends to destroy the sport over time. The worry of keeping fans overrides good judgment and the hardcore fans drift away. The new fans leave too as the next fashionable game comes along.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: Stu
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 10:56 AM

I'm not a big fan of the rule as I think it can interrupt the flow of the game.

However, like the current version of the offside rule it's wide open to interpretation as spaw says, although that might not be such a bad thing as that is what our refs and liners are there for; to interpret and apply the rules of the game.

As for technology, f it stops cheating I'm fine with that, but it isn't ever going to be a substitute for a good ref and their linesmen.

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: michaelr
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 11:34 AM

Stu, what about the offside rule is open to interpretation?

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: Stu
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 11:51 AM

The influence (or lack of) on play of players that are not directly involved in the action. This is really open to interpretation, and I saw an incident the other day (in the Scotland-England game I think) where I was sure the liner was confused by a player standing a yard offside, closer to him than the knot of players directly involved in the play and flagged the goal-bound player as being offside, when he wasn't and had timed his run to perfection.

Had he flagged the offside player I could have understood that, as I would have thought his presence was influencing play and the full backs would have to take his position into account in case the attacking player laid the ball off to him.

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 11:55 AM

Offside is another question ~~ way back I OPd a thread that ran & ran, calling for the offside rule to go; which I would still love to see. But I can't altogether see its relevance to the point I am addressing here.

So no drifting, please*!

~M~

Fat chance, LoL!

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 12:36 PM

The direct answer to "why can the referee revoke a decision?" has been given by Musket. The question "what exactly is 'advantage'?" is much more fundamental; any formal definition (such as "ball possession for more than x seconds") will not be sufficient. My above solution avoids the need for such a definition altogether.

As with all other sports, technology will be the more sophisticated and influential the more money is involved in the event. For amateurs, a powerful referee is normally no problem (although some have been killed). Most technology currently discussed, including my above suggestion, will be very affordable in the very near future.

All rules have to be reconsidered for professional leagues. We may even want totally new ball games. For example, playing with a medicine ball on a much smaller field has many advantages for spectators and TV ...

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 01:11 PM

Yes ~~ but if the ref has judged that there is 'advantage', it is not the other team's fault if it is not then taken 'advantage' of; any more than a second chance at a free kick should be given if it is not a good one and is repelled. Once the ref has decided, surely that decision should stand. 'Free kick or advantage' should be a one-off decision, because they are alternatives; & stuck to once made whatever the outcome. Technology shouldn't even come into this particular situation IMO.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 01:20 PM

...because it is not a question of fact ['did the ball cross the line or not?'], which technology can answer without any doubt remaining; but a matter of the interpretation of a situation, which it can't.

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 01:49 PM

it is very good and should not be altered ,fouling has to be eradicated , so let the people who have not fouled have as much advantage as possible. another alternative is send any player off for 10 minutes for any foul, that would stop fouls

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 08:19 PM

The rule about allowing play to go on that MtheGM complained about makes sense. Changing it the way he suggests could well in effect penalise the team which was fouled. It could encourage "professional fouls".

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 05:08 AM

I didn't so 'complain', Kevin. I think it an excellent alternative to the award of a free kick: BUT an alternative, not to be invoked but then added to by having-it-both-ways subsequent reversion to a free kick if all doesn't turn out as the ref anticipated it might. If, as Dick makes the point above and you seem to imply, additional penalisation is needed, then a card can always be shown in addition, leading to risk of loss of a player later if a yellow; or, in serious cases, immediate loss by a red.

And, re your second & 3rd sentences, HOW, precisely, could it have the FX you suggest?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 01:32 PM

michael, in my opinion fouling needs to be discouraged, you seem more concerned about one side having an advantage, if fouling was eradicated the situation would not arise, another alternative is to hit the players where it hurts, in their pockets, fine them large amounts when they commit a foul the money is then distributed to football organisations who are encouraging community groups in disadvanteged areas to give children an opportunity to play football, the very wealthy will then be helping the poor.

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 02:16 PM

i like the idea that rule changes evolve very slowly if at all. i like the idea that referees have some discretion and as long as not deliberately favouring one side can make mistakes. (however, online 'hawkeye' technology does some a good idea when the yes/no decision is not open to any interpretation) i'm sure the overwhelming majority of fans when not in the heat of the moment would accept that referees are mostly competent and well-intentioned and any dodgy decisions (like luck) even themselves out in the course of a season. decisions cant be changed, games are never replayed as a result of refeeeing errors - controversies are all just part of the game we love. which by the way is always football - never soccer.
(ignore all of the above mr reasonable nonsense in the case of my team - celtic - who have always been the victims of a rangers/refereeing conspiracy. the fact that rangers are still allowed to trade as a professional football club is just the latest manifestation of this injustice and blue-nosed bias in the scottish establishment - yours chips on shoulders and tongue in cheek - pete)

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 02:17 PM

Don't disagree, Dick, tho think such recourses would be difficult to bring about; but your points seem to me tangential to mine, rather than any sort of real response to them.

I mean, 'if fouling was eradicated' ~~ Yah, right. And let's get rid of Original Sin & 3rd World Poverty while we're about it, shall we?!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 02:20 PM

achmel ~~ I put '[soccer]' in the thread title for the benefit of the trans-pond cousins...

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: MikeL2
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 02:57 PM

Hi Michael

Interesting point.

I played rugby for many years and during those years I played this was a law ( yes they were called laws then) was often tampered with without really improving the status quo situations.

Since Rugby Union went professional the law/rule was changed so that the ref could signal that he had spotted an infringement but was allowing advantage but to return to the point of that infringement if no advantage was gained. A moot point is for how long does a referee run play on until he decides that no advantage was gained and to return to the point of the incident and award a penalty.

IMHO this works well and the football/soccer rule is very similar but has not been in use as long as the rugby one. The reason for implementing this rule is a good one, that is to try to let the game run.

Having played and watched the rugby interpretations work quite well perhaps I am biased.

Regards

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 05:25 PM

How could it encourage professional fouls if the change MtheGM suggested were brought in?

If an attacker were in facing a final opponent, with a clear run to a shot at goal, tripping him up so that there was a free kick could be worthwhile - and if play were allowed to go on the run would be upset in such a way that another defender might be able to get involved, and prevent a scoring shot. Having it both ways minimises, though it does not exclude, the possibility that the defending side would profit from the foul.

One complicating factor is the situation implied when commentators talk about a player "winning" a foul, which should mean that both players were guilty, and should both be penalised. Two yellow cards, or a yellow and a red would seem appropriate, depemding on the seriousness of the foul.

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 12:02 PM

I like the idea of foulers being fined and the fine being donated to youth football charities,perhaps the message might get through to younger players too

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: GUEST,grumpy
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 01:14 PM

Have any of you actually played football?

Subject: RE: BS: A football [soccer] inequity
From: Long Firm Freddie
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 01:18 PM

Here's a link to the Law 5 pertaining to the referee. It explains the advantage rule (page 6 onwards) and what the referee should take into consideration. It's a password protected pdf file, so I can't cut and paste, I'm afraid.

Advantage

LFF

PS Just for comparison, I had a look at the NFL Rulebook - I've nothing but admiration for American Football Officials if they carry all that in their heads!