Rule changes up for discussion

[yorkie1999]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

All change is good don't you know.  Standing still is not an option in the modern world.

There's standing still and there's just plain dumb

[Kitchandro]

Let's have 9 points for a win as well, really shake things up.

[davieG]

Spurs could have extra points for finishing games earlier.

[potter3]

34 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

So we'd still end up with 45 minutes for each half,  so what's the actual point of doing it

 

The intention is to stop the time wasting that occurs when the ball is out of play.

[WigstonWanderer]

32 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

Let's have 9 points for a win as well, really shake things up.

Actually I have idly considered prioritising a score draw over a 0 0. Maybe 4 for a win, 2 for a score draw and 1 for a 0 0 or something like.

[rgc1967]

60 minutes I'd want at least a third of my season ticket what a load of bollox 

[Soar Fox]

Another proposal would see players not being allowed to follow up and score if a penalty is saved - if the spot-kick "is not successful", play would stop and a goal-kick awarded.

 

Imagine if this had been implemented 5 years ago. Watford fans wouldn't have #DeeneyDay

[Tuna]

What a load of absolute rubbish.

[tom27111]

45 minutes ago, rgc1967 said:

60 minutes I'd want at least a third of my season ticket what a load of bollox 

 

Why? You'd actually see the ball in play more.

 

I'm not saying I'm supporting the idea, but it would pretty much eliminate time wasting.

 

It would also stop the arguments like where has all this stoppage time come from? And, the 96th minute winner when there were only 4 minutes added on.

 

It's worth a discussion.

 

I'm sure it would be trialled extensively before becoming a law.

 

Most of the other ideas are ridiculous. 

 

[ozleicester]

6 hours ago, davieG said:

The time thing might be for good intentions to ensure the paying customer gets value for money but would be difficult to filter down to local football level plus I'm not sure the TV companies would be so keen on such an open ended option, true they have to cater for extra time in cup games but not for your every day league game.

 

 

Besides they could still do something about time wasting instead of booking players which is no real deterrent why not just indicate that they're adding 30secs onto the game time. Like wise with subs have specific time added on and add an extra 30 secs if they go over the time.

 

With injuries they need to be stricter especially when you see an injured player come back onto the pitch before collapsing.

The time on thing is part of the game in Aussie Rules and the TV companies dont seem to have any trouble with it, in fact they exploit it by going to adverts during longer breaks (im not advocating this)

 

For example, when a goal is scored, they go to an ad break... and the umpire CANNOT restart the game until they receive approval, by way of a light flashed in the stand, to say the TV is back and ready.

[davieG]

5 hours ago, ozleicester said:

The time on thing is part of the game in Aussie Rules and the TV companies dont seem to have any trouble with it, in fact they exploit it by going to adverts during longer breaks (im not advocating this)

 

For example, when a goal is scored, they go to an ad break... and the umpire CANNOT restart the game until they receive approval, by way of a light flashed in the stand, to say the TV is back and ready.

urgh!

[justfoxes]

Far too much messing with the game they'll have it like American football adverts whenever a player is injured or a goal is scored !

 

The next thing will be advertising all over the refs shirt too!!??

 

As said before " if it's not broke don't fix it !! "

[Nalis]

10 hours ago, Steve_Walsh5 said:

Another proposal would see players not being allowed to follow up and score if a penalty is saved - if the spot-kick "is not successful", play would stop and a goal-kick awarded.

 

Imagine if this had been implemented 5 years ago. Watford fans wouldn't have #DeeneyDay

 

Thats why this suggested rule is a bit silly. As cruel as that day felt for us, it was the mixture of emotions for both teams in such a short period of time that makes football what it is. 

[Vacamion]

 

I know City did it a lot during our Premier winning season, but I would change the rules to make taking the ball into the corner and shielding it to waste time an offence of "ungentlemanly conduct".

 

I hate it, even when we benefit from it.

 

 

[rgc1967]

10 hours ago, tom27111 said:

 

Why? You'd actually see the ball in play more.

 

I'm not saying I'm supporting the idea, but it would pretty much eliminate time wasting.

 

It would also stop the arguments like where has all this stoppage time come from? And, the 96th minute winner when there were only 4 minutes added on.

 

It's worth a discussion.

 

I'm sure it would be trialled extensively before becoming a law.

 

Most of the other ideas are ridiculous. 

 

1877 (wiki) 90 mins per game 140 years which I've prob been going near on 40 years, point being how many of us have sat during a game with a stopwatch starting and stopping it to see how much time is actually played I ain't and it's not really bothered me as I'm sure it ain't many others. Most games flow nicely during 90 mins your always going to have issues with time wasting etc that's for the officials to deal with at the time. And also gives all of us something to have a good old moan about . As already stated on here if it ain't broke ? . To many cocks trying to change our beautiful game . 

Video tech defo .

[TheUltimateWinner]

The rules are already there to stop time wasting, it's just refs rarely punish it.

 

Instead of trying to change the game, why don't you train the refs correctly so they actually do punish it?

[Max Wall]

15 hours ago, norwichfox said:

I sense this is the foundation for "American Football" style broadcasts coming with time-outs etc. with breaks for Adverts throughout the game, and if that happens, I'll not watch another game, some of the discussions will make sense if rules are slightly modified...but we all know hat the ref will still get surrounded by "the big clubs" whatever the outcome.

Nailed it.

[lildave3]

Haha. Football fans in 'I refuse to go if I actually have to watch more football instead of dead time' claim. 

[tom27111]

Given some of the horrendous ideas on this list, I'm surprised a sin bin didn't at least make it to a discussion. 

 

The penalty idea is stupid, as is taking a set piece to yourself.

[justfoxes]

39 minutes ago, TheUltimateWinner said:

The rules are already there to stop time wasting, it's just refs rarely punish it.

 

Instead of trying to change the game, why don't you train the refs correctly so they actually do punish it?

Exactly !!?

[foxy boxing]

Remember years ago where there was an experiment with kick ins instead of throw ins! Ridiculous they shouldn't try changing things that will inherently change the game of football as we know it! Some changes have been good like the back pass rule and the tackle from behind but they shouldn't try changing the length of games or mess with other stuff. We don't want to go down the road of having toppages every few seconds like they do in American Football just for commercial reasons!

[Nalis]

1 hour ago, tom27111 said:

Given some of the horrendous ideas on this list, I'm surprised a sin bin didn't at least make it to a discussion. 

 

The penalty idea is stupid, as is taking a set piece to yourself.

 

Sin bins are being trialled next season at the lower end of the football pyramid (if the info in the link below is correct).

 

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39790484

 

[Bernieboots76]

The proposal on time makes no sense to me for example 30 minutes each way with the ref stopping his watch for every corner, free kick,  substitution etc would surely mean that there would be almost 45 minutes between the whistle for the start of the hall and the end so why not keep it as it is.

 

What do they want to achieve with the rule change on time is it to cut down on time wasting because I can't see this change making any difference.

 

 

[norwichfox]

6 hours ago, lildave3 said:

Haha. Football fans in 'I refuse to go if I actually have to watch more football instead of dead time' claim. 

That's not at all what has been said, it is with reference to football being interrupted with "commercial breaks" during the course what up to now has been  normal playing time, and .as said above, waiting for some 3rd party to signal that the "telly" is ready for play to resume, geez, they'll even be suggesting we should pay footballers next.....

[Great Boos Up]

I wouldn't be opposed to 2 points for a score draw as these are some of the most exiting games and showed that both teams tried to put the ball in the net.