Adjusted rules in the MLS

[Kilworthfox]

Off-Field Treatment Rule

The Off-Field Treatment Rule allows medical professionals with time to assess and treat players off the field of play in a less pressurized environment.

If a player with a suspected injury remains on the ground for more than 15 seconds, the referee will stop play and wave the medical crew onto the field to evaluate the player. When safe, the player will be removed from the field and remain off the field for a minimum of two minutes for further assessment and treatment.

First implemented in MLS NEXT Pro midway through the 2022 season and continued through the entirety of the 2023 season, the Off-Field Treatment Rule has allowed medical staffs time to treat players, while also allowing match play to resume quickly.

Exceptions to the Off-Field Treatment Rule include instances of potential head injury, goalkeeper injuries, serious medical events, and fouls resulting in yellow or red cards.

Timed Substitution Rule

Maximizing effective match time, the Timed Substitution Rule requires that a substituted player exit the field within 10 seconds. Failure to exit from any point on the field within the 10 seconds will cause the incoming player to wait for a 60-second holding period, before entering the game at the next stoppage. During the holding period and prior to the substitute entering, the team will play down a player. Exceptions to the rule include injury and goalkeeper substitutions.

Enacted in MLS NEXT Pro during the 2023 season, 99.7% of the more than 3,200 substitutions were completed in 10 seconds or less.

In-Stadium VAR Announcements

VAR decisions will be explained and announced by the referee to fans in stadium and broadcast viewers at home.

[foxile5]

Not sure if this isn’t a retrograde step. Refs in the UK are directed to stop play only for head injuries because of the amount of time wasted with players rolling around like they’ve been shot. I’m not really sold on the fifteen seconds, thing.

 

The VAR one is an excellent development.

 

 

[StanSP]

17 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

Not sure if this isn’t a retrograde step. Refs in the UK are directed to stop play only for head injuries because of the amount of time wasted with players rolling around like they’ve been shot. I’m not really sold on the fifteen seconds, thing.

15 seconds would stop the fake injuries though, surely? A player knowing they have to be off longer and put their team to a detriment would deter players faking it? 

 

If it's a legit injury you'd think a player stays down, head injury or not... 

[filbertway]

As nice an idea it is in principle. It's very clear that there refs are struggling to correctly implement existing rules. Layering on extra things to be looking out for just won't realistically work as it just won't be implemented consistently.

[Super_horns]

16 minutes ago, filbertway said:

As nice an idea it is in principle. It's very clear that there refs are struggling to correctly implement existing rules. Layering on extra things to be looking out for just won't realistically work as it just won't be implemented consistently.

Or last a few months then be dropped or forgotten about.

[Kilworthfox]

It was implemented before last weekends games, I don't watch the MLS, but I would be interested to see the effects over time. 

 

I think it is at the very least an acknowledgement that the current laws need adjusting. I am also pleased that a "lesser traditional" league in comparison to European football is able to make these adjustments, as the more traditional league hopefully can follow suit if they are an overall success.

[Stadt]

The sub rule makes a lot of sense.

[ajthefox]

All sound like potential improvements but it's all about implementation isn't it.

I think the subs rule would be fairly easy to implement, but the injury rule would be a bit more difficult.

VAR being explained is exactly what is needed - the biggest issue here I think is transparency and accountability and that has led to even worse decisions.

[Super_horns]

33 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

All sound like potential improvements but it's all about implementation isn't it.

I think the subs rule would be fairly easy to implement, but the injury rule would be a bit more difficult.

VAR being explained is exactly what is needed - the biggest issue here I think is transparency and accountability and that has led to even worse decisions.

Would it make any difference to subjective decisions though ?

 

That seems to be the main issue - each ref and VAR having their own view on something - was never going to be perfection.

 

Unless maybe officials learn from each other if they are aware of what is said and understand why they made that and someone else thought differently?

Edited 25 April by Super_horns

[ajthefox]

1 minute ago, Super_horns said:

Would it make any difference to subjective decisions though ?

 

That seems to be the main issue - each ref and VAR having their own view on something - was never going to be perfection.

 

Unless maybe officials learn from each other if they are aware of what is said and understand why they made that and someone else thought differently?

I think there is a lot to be said people hearing how rules are being applied and what the ref has seen will make a notable difference, even if you disagree

 

Football is in such a bad way with refs because of attitudes towards refs, some of that is because of certain fans but I do also think a decent part of it is the fact that there is often no explanation, no reference to how rules are applied and no admitting to mistakes made in the heat of the moment. I think fans would be more accepting of things if there was more of this, it doesn't eradicate disagreement as you say nothing is perfect, but it needs to be part of the process.

 

Fans have no sympathy at the moment because nothing is ever explained to us and there is 0 accountability for mistakes.

[filbertway]

16 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Would it make any difference to subjective decisions though ?

 

That seems to be the main issue - each ref and VAR having their own view on something - was never going to be perfection.

 

Unless maybe officials learn from each other if they are aware of what is said and understand why they made that and someone else thought differently?

Yep that's the main problem, explaining the decision ultimately won't help at all because one man's "He's milked that, it's clearly a dive" is another man's "enough contact for him to go down"

 

Just look at how differently me and @StanSP seem to view 99% of penalty decisions  

 

It's why a time limit is about as perfect a solution as you will get. If you can't tell if a decision is correct or not within 30 seconds of looking at about 8 different replays then it falls into the category of uncertainty.

 

Adding extra subjectivity to refs jobs will only weaken their performance

[cruzFOX]

Any action is better than doing nothing 

[davieG]

I think a set of sign language signals for the various types of fouls wouldn't hurt either. The number of times I've sat there thinking  what was that for?

[StanSP]

19 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Just look at how differently me and @StanSP seem to view 99% of penalty decisions  

 

It's why a time limit is about as perfect a solution as you will get. If you can't tell if a decision is correct or not within 30 seconds of looking at about 8 different replays then it falls into the category of uncertainty.

 

Adding extra subjectivity to refs jobs will only weaken their performance

I see it as healthy debate

 

Our differences are in the point you make - some things are so subjective but bringing in more rules have just greyed the area even further to be fair. The handball rule and offside rules have worsened. Not just because of VAR but because they've added so many different parameters it leads to the inconsistency. Maybe there'll never be a flat or fixed rule of what is and isn't handball/offside but I feel like if the rules were clearer they could actually get on with their jobs, have less ambiguity and it'd mean they can explain things to fans and players with much more ease. 

 

Thankfully the introduction of semi-automated offside tech from next season will clear up a lot of debate and hopefully avoid such controversies of those god forsaken lines they drawn on on top of unclear still frames. 

[davieG]

6 minutes ago, StanSP said:

I see it as healthy debate

 

Our differences are in the point you make - some things are so subjective but bringing in more rules have just greyed the area even further to be fair. The handball rule and offside rules have worsened. Not just because of VAR but because they've added so many different parameters it leads to the inconsistency. Maybe there'll never be a flat or fixed rule of what is and isn't handball/offside but I feel like if the rules were clearer they could actually get on with their jobs, have less ambiguity and it'd mean they can explain things to fans and players with much more ease. 

 

Thankfully the introduction of semi-automated offside tech from next season will clear up a lot of debate and hopefully avoid such controversies of those god forsaken lines they drawn on on top of unclear still frames. 

I seem to remember when I first started watching you were offside if you were in an offside position when you received the ball which to me fits nicely with why it was first introduced, to stop goal hanging.

[AKCJ]

That sub rule is great but I think fans miss out for situations like Monday where youbget the chance to show your appreciation for a great performance. Fatawu deserved his standing ovation.