H2 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Based on his comments yesterday Brendan Rogers obviously doesn't understand the existing Laws of football so I doubt he'll be bothered by the changes being brought in on the 1st of July this year. https://www.theifab.com/news/the-ifab-approves-permanent-concussion-substitutes-among-several-changes-to-the-l . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indianajones Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 I'd be all up for allowing one nonpunishable roundhouse kick to the head per game to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David McCaig Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 There is nothing funnier than people arguing against a penalty by saying "under the laws its a penalty"!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1953 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 How about another change to the rules where the OF can only field 10 players. It would make things much fairer and give non OF teams a chance of winning the league. Can't see Brenda or Phillipe going for it though. 😉 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 43 minutes ago, David McCaig said: There is nothing funnier than people arguing against a penalty by saying "under the laws its a penalty"!!! Or when a former player thinks they've become some kind of genius by explaining that referees know the rules but do not know the game. What is that? A belief that the rules can only ever play a secondary part behind the knowledge of the game possessed by self-appointed people who happen to have played professionally? How come you get such a wide variety of opinions from former pros on the same incidents then? How can pro players know better than the rules when they can have opposite views? They can't. That's why you go by rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john thomas Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 2 hours ago, indianajones said: I'd be all up for allowing one nonpunishable roundhouse kick to the head per game to be honest. Fair , sensible suggestion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bindy Badgy Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 30 minutes ago, Victorian said: Or when a former player thinks they've become some kind of genius by explaining that referees know the rules but do not know the game. What is that? A belief that the rules can only ever play a secondary part behind the knowledge of the game possessed by self-appointed people who happen to have played professionally? How come you get such a wide variety of opinions from former pros on the same incidents then? How can pro players know better than the rules when they can have opposite views? They can't. That's why you go by rules. A player who was completely and utterly shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim_Duncan Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 2 hours ago, H2 said: Based on his comments yesterday Brendan Rogers obviously doesn't understand the existing Laws of football so I doubt he'll be bothered by the changes being brought in on the 1st of July this year. https://www.theifab.com/news/the-ifab-approves-permanent-concussion-substitutes-among-several-changes-to-the-l . Based on his team’s performance yesterday, he doesn’t seem to know much about football full stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTT Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 The rules seem to be constantly being tinkered with. Its not good enough, and creates far too much confusion for fans, players, referees and managers. TBH I'd not be against a black and white approach with handballs. Like offside. Benefit would be more goals per game. I don't like the subjective nature of the application of rules by referees. On another day, they ignore the handball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey J J Jr Shabadoo Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 3 minutes ago, OTT said: The rules seem to be constantly being tinkered with. Its not good enough, and creates far too much confusion for fans, players, referees and managers. TBH I'd not be against a black and white approach with handballs. Like offside. Benefit would be more goals per game. I don't like the subjective nature of the application of rules by referees. On another day, they ignore the handball. The SFA run a course, at the beginning of each season, explaining rule changes, etc. None of the players or managers turn up. A referee I know told me this. Hearts did send someone a few seasons ago, after our poor disciplinary record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
132goals1958 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 For accidental handball I would give an indirect free kick instead of a penalty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTT Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 13 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said: The SFA run a course, at the beginning of each season, explaining rule changes, etc. None of the players or managers turn up. A referee I know told me this. Hearts did send someone a few seasons ago, after our poor disciplinary record. Thats extremely poor, it should be mandatory for all. Would even go so far as to say that Sportscene should get a ref on like Bobby Madden (or someone with a bit of media training) to explain in simple terms any changes so fans are at least a bit more aware. Nothing worse than being raging at something and finding out the bloody rules have changed. That said, refs 100% make it up as they go along during games too. So I wonder if the apathy from players/managers in attending is down to this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Idle Talk Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 If the rules say that our penalty yesterday is a penalty then the rules need changed. It was a ridiculous decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTT Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 11 minutes ago, 132goals1958 said: For accidental handball I would give an indirect free kick instead of a penalty Oh thats a curveball! Most handballs are accidental, so that could be an interesting change, I could get behind that!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxondale Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 16 minutes ago, 132goals1958 said: For accidental handball I would give an indirect free kick instead of a penalty Good shout, but 95% of handballs are accidental and players could quite easily disguise a deliberate handball as accidental. How about any handball in the box where the ball is is going to lead to a scoring opportunity should be a penalty, and anything else (eg the celtic penalty) is an indirect free kick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
132goals1958 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 minute ago, saxondale said: Good shout, but 95% of handballs are accidental and players could quite easily disguise a deliberate handball as accidental. How about any handball in the box where the ball is is going to lead to a scoring opportunity should be a penalty, and anything else (eg the celtic penalty) is an indirect free kick. It would be a matter of interpretation but with VAR it should be easier to distinguish. I feel a penalty kick is far to harsh in most circumstances now. Remember Berra getting penalised against Celtic in a cup final when the ball hit him on the arm from behind. He didn't even know where the ball was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boof Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 36 minutes ago, OTT said: The rules seem to be constantly being tinkered with. Its not good enough, and creates far too much confusion for fans, players, referees and managers. TBH I'd not be against a black and white approach with handballs. Like offside. Benefit would be more goals per game. I don't like the subjective nature of the application of rules by referees. On another day, they ignore the handball. Handball is the perfect example where (I believe) hockey has it right. If the ball hits the foot, whatever the circumstances, it's penalised. Football could easily do the same where the ball hitting the hand is a direct free-kick. Takes any opinion or subjectivity out of it. Then we'd just need to get our academy players trained to aim a wee flick at opponents' hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 But there's common opposition to the need for defenders to go around with their arms tucked in behind their backs. Having direct or indirect freekicks is fine but it can become extremely problematic when they're within about 7-8 yards from goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2 Posted March 4 Author Share Posted March 4 Make it easy, every hand ball in the box is a penalty, make the game more exciting, more goals. If you have the skill to play the ball against a players hand, good on you. How do you know it's really accidental? The ball is going towards the goal, it's a certain goal a player "accidentally" handles it to stop it - no penalty? Hand (or arm) ball is a penalty - job done easy for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick_3892 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Having checked shankland’s offside goal, had they drawn the lines based on the septic defender’s shoulder, as the rules state, then it’s onside. Lines were a joke. We won in the end anyway. 👍👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 3 hours ago, saxondale said: Good shout, but 95% of handballs are accidental and players could quite easily disguise a deliberate handball as accidental. How about any handball in the box where the ball is is going to lead to a scoring opportunity should be a penalty, and anything else (eg the celtic penalty) is an indirect free kick. But an indirect kick in the box is no walk in the park for the defence. I think you have a rubric of intent, advantage, and above the shoulder. Any of those three in effect, it's a penalty, otherwise it's a indirect kick. While we're at it, I'm ready to ban headers except in the penalty box. I was originally against it but once someone pointed out how many headers are outside the box, how those are the actually damaging ones, and how they basically add nothing to the game, I've noticed how much head tennis it would get rid of and I'm on board. Similar to the handball, whistle only if there's either intent or advantage gained, otherwise incidental contact with the head doesn't stop play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxondale Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 23 minutes ago, Watt-Zeefuik said: But an indirect kick in the box is no walk in the park for the defence. I think you have a rubric of intent, advantage, and above the shoulder. Any of those three in effect, it's a penalty, otherwise it's a indirect kick. While we're at it, I'm ready to ban headers except in the penalty box. I was originally against it but once someone pointed out how many headers are outside the box, how those are the actually damaging ones, and how they basically add nothing to the game, I've noticed how much head tennis it would get rid of and I'm on board. Similar to the handball, whistle only if there's either intent or advantage gained, otherwise incidental contact with the head doesn't stop play. Indirect free kicks are not straightforward to defend or even take advantage of as an attacker, but that's exactly why it would be a fair thing to award a team when the alternative is a penalty...when a ball, for example, inadvertently hits an arm when it's dropping from sky with the defender not knowing where it really is. I agree re headers, it will make a much better spectacle someone bringing the ball down with their feet rather than hoofing it with their head from one half of the pitch to the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Rob Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 4 hours ago, OTT said: Oh thats a curveball! Most handballs are accidental, so that could be an interesting change, I could get behind that!! The issue with this is that all handballs committed by an OF player will automatically be judged to be accidental handballs. That’s just how this works in Scotland. It’s just like clear red cards are bookings for an OF player - as was shown yesterday. One of the advantages of VAR is that now these are sometimes upgraded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 13 minutes ago, saxondale said: Indirect free kicks are not straightforward to defend or even take advantage of as an attacker, but that's exactly why it would be a fair thing to award a team when the alternative is a penalty...when a ball, for example, inadvertently hits an arm when it's dropping from sky with the defender not knowing where it really is. I agree re headers, it will make a much better spectacle someone bringing the ball down with their feet rather than hoofing it with their head from one half of the pitch to the other. Right, and the headers that we actually want to keep in the game—the scoring nods or the heroic defensive ones—would still be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jr ewing Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 6 hours ago, 1953 said: How about another change to the rules where the OF can only field 10 players. It would make things much fairer and give non OF teams a chance of winning the league. Can't see Brenda or Phillipe going for it though. 😉 Handicap system where the more you spend the less number of players you will play seems fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 6 hours ago, 132goals1958 said: For accidental handball I would give an indirect free kick instead of a penalty That allows far too much subjectivity and you could bet your bottom dollar any handball by an Old Firm player would be “accidental”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canscot Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 6 hours ago, Boof said: Handball is the perfect example where (I believe) hockey has it right. If the ball hits the foot, whatever the circumstances, it's penalised. Football could easily do the same where the ball hitting the hand is a direct free-kick. Takes any opinion or subjectivity out of it. Then we'd just need to get our academy players trained to aim a wee flick at opponents' hands. Huh? Are you saying in hockey you cannot play the puck with your foot?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malinga the Swinga Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 6 hours ago, Boof said: Handball is the perfect example where (I believe) hockey has it right. If the ball hits the foot, whatever the circumstances, it's penalised. Football could easily do the same where the ball hitting the hand is a direct free-kick. Takes any opinion or subjectivity out of it. Then we'd just need to get our academy players trained to aim a wee flick at opponents' hands. Do you mean ice hockey? In field hockey, ball can hit foot provided it's accidental and the player in loads of space. Certainly penalised if foot used deliberately or it stops attack on goal/creates a goal scoring chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boof Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 13 minutes ago, Canscot said: Huh? Are you saying in hockey you cannot play the puck with your foot?? Well I did mention 'ball' so clearly not ice hockey. 10 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said: Do you mean ice hockey? In field hockey, ball can hit foot provided it's accidental and the player in loads of space. Certainly penalised if foot used deliberately or it stops attack on goal/creates a goal scoring chance. No, I meant field hockey but, if you're correct, then my belief gleaned from watching Olympic hockey highlights a couple of times every 4 years is wrong. I stand corrected, but would still argue that making any meeting of ball and hand a penalisable offence would make things much clearer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canscot Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 13 minutes ago, Boof said: Well I did mention 'ball' so clearly not ice hockey. No, I meant field hockey but, if you're correct, then my belief gleaned from watching Olympic hockey highlights a couple of times every 4 years is wrong. I stand corrected, but would still argue that making any meeting of ball and hand a penalisable offence would make things much clearer. 😂😂My bad. When hockey is mentioned , field hockey never comes to my mind. In ice hockey you can kick the puck anytime except NOT into the net deliberately. If there is no “kicking motion” the goal would count Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.