You can't assume he would have scored. Even if it is a tap in from 3 yards, I've seen them missed before. A goal should never be awarded without the ball going over the line IMO.ahlycotc wrote:SBSP wrote:I agree with this, except only if the ball is stopped on the line with a hand. Even if it's an open goal from a yard out, we've seen players miss the target. If the ball was on its way in, then that's different, and a goal should be given.ahlycotc wrote:If you could change or add a Law of the Game, what would it be?
Mine is award a goal if denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity occurred closer than 12 yards from the goal. It's not fair to have someone commit a DOGSO 5 yards away from goal and then have the attacking team step 7 yards back with a possibility of missing a penalty. Since an automatic goal would be awarded, there is no need to send off or even caution the defending player who committed the foul.
For example, the ball stopped 3 yards from goal and an attacking player is running towards it to tap it in the open net. A couple yards before the attacker reaches the ball, a defender tackles the attacker from behind to stop him from reaching the ball.
I think that should be awarded a goal.
+23
Steadman
Barton
El_indian
GK01
Jordan Henderchip
menalawyerguy
Schnix
Lux
Roloman4
birminghamcity79
dena
Grenade
SBSP
ResurrectionRooney
ayvee1
Simonc89
LFC_Grunners
arsenaln1
Sean
Carlos Jenkinson
Danny
Pippo
moscowmadeit3
27 posters
If you could change or add a law...
ayvee1- .
- Formerly known as : Prince
Posts : 5862
Age : 34
Guest- Guest
dena wrote:ahlycotc wrote:dena wrote:A challenge system for review's wont work, mainly because football managers are cunts looking for anyway possible to slow down the game. A 'booth' review done by an outside official would be more effective, maybe a 5th official in the press box watching a game with a different view of the game, who can determine when a review is needed.
If you limit the reviews (2 or 3 per team per game) then it won't waste as much time. You can always add the time back at the end of the half.
Just in case anyone was wondering, you can't review a play until the ball is out of play anyways.
Even 2 or 3 is enough for a manager to use it in a scummy way, just look at how substitutions are handled, managers sub players off to waste time, and although the ref adds on time to compensate for that, it's almost never the exact same time wasted on the sub.
Then that's the referee's fault from not adding the proper amount of time. For the purposes of negotiation, we can restrict the use of reviews in the last 5 minutes of the half.
Grenade-
- Formerly known as : grenade187
Posts : 9113
Age : 43
Your just mad because an African team got knocked out of the WC. Honestly I guarantee if it was England or Australia or whatever you would not have cared Ahly.
SBSP-
- Posts : 50010
grenade187 wrote:Your just mad because an African team got knocked out of the WC. Honestly I guarantee if it was England or Australia or whatever you would not have cared Ahly.
Guest- Guest
ayvee1 wrote:You can't assume he would have scored. Even if it is a tap in from 3 yards, I've seen them missed before. A goal should never be awarded without the ball going over the line IMO.ahlycotc wrote:SBSP wrote:I agree with this, except only if the ball is stopped on the line with a hand. Even if it's an open goal from a yard out, we've seen players miss the target. If the ball was on its way in, then that's different, and a goal should be given.ahlycotc wrote:If you could change or add a Law of the Game, what would it be?
Mine is award a goal if denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity occurred closer than 12 yards from the goal. It's not fair to have someone commit a DOGSO 5 yards away from goal and then have the attacking team step 7 yards back with a possibility of missing a penalty. Since an automatic goal would be awarded, there is no need to send off or even caution the defending player who committed the foul.
For example, the ball stopped 3 yards from goal and an attacking player is running towards it to tap it in the open net. A couple yards before the attacker reaches the ball, a defender tackles the attacker from behind to stop him from reaching the ball.
I think that should be awarded a goal.
Then why are red cards handed out for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity? There is no guarantee of it going in.
There should not be a rule that makes it advantageous for teams to break said rule. Any team (sportsmanship aside) would choose to handball on the line 100% of the time, especially in the case of Uruguay v Ghana.
Guest- Guest
grenade187 wrote:Your just mad because an African team got knocked out of the WC. Honestly I guarantee if it was England or Australia or whatever you would not have cared Ahly.
No, but nice try. I remember seeing a video of a team doctor coming on the field to head away a ball that was going in the goal. Since then, I have been thinking about changing the rules about such situations.
SBSP-
- Posts : 50010
The difference is that when it's a goal-scoring opportunity, you get a goal-scoring opportunity in the form of a penalty. If, and only if, it was actually going in, then it should be given as a goal.ahlycotc wrote:ayvee1 wrote:You can't assume he would have scored. Even if it is a tap in from 3 yards, I've seen them missed before. A goal should never be awarded without the ball going over the line IMO.ahlycotc wrote:SBSP wrote:I agree with this, except only if the ball is stopped on the line with a hand. Even if it's an open goal from a yard out, we've seen players miss the target. If the ball was on its way in, then that's different, and a goal should be given.ahlycotc wrote:If you could change or add a Law of the Game, what would it be?
Mine is award a goal if denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity occurred closer than 12 yards from the goal. It's not fair to have someone commit a DOGSO 5 yards away from goal and then have the attacking team step 7 yards back with a possibility of missing a penalty. Since an automatic goal would be awarded, there is no need to send off or even caution the defending player who committed the foul.
For example, the ball stopped 3 yards from goal and an attacking player is running towards it to tap it in the open net. A couple yards before the attacker reaches the ball, a defender tackles the attacker from behind to stop him from reaching the ball.
I think that should be awarded a goal.
Then why are red cards handed out for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity? There is no guarantee of it going in.
There should not be a rule that makes it advantageous for teams to break said rule. Any team (sportsmanship aside) would choose to handball on the line 100% of the time, especially in the case of Uruguay v Ghana.
ayvee1- .
- Formerly known as : Prince
Posts : 5862
Age : 34
Because the red card is for denying a goal scoring opportunity, not denying a goal.ahlycotc wrote:ayvee1 wrote:You can't assume he would have scored. Even if it is a tap in from 3 yards, I've seen them missed before. A goal should never be awarded without the ball going over the line IMO.ahlycotc wrote:SBSP wrote:I agree with this, except only if the ball is stopped on the line with a hand. Even if it's an open goal from a yard out, we've seen players miss the target. If the ball was on its way in, then that's different, and a goal should be given.ahlycotc wrote:If you could change or add a Law of the Game, what would it be?
Mine is award a goal if denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity occurred closer than 12 yards from the goal. It's not fair to have someone commit a DOGSO 5 yards away from goal and then have the attacking team step 7 yards back with a possibility of missing a penalty. Since an automatic goal would be awarded, there is no need to send off or even caution the defending player who committed the foul.
For example, the ball stopped 3 yards from goal and an attacking player is running towards it to tap it in the open net. A couple yards before the attacker reaches the ball, a defender tackles the attacker from behind to stop him from reaching the ball.
I think that should be awarded a goal.
Then why are red cards handed out for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity? There is no guarantee of it going in.
There should not be a rule that makes it advantageous for teams to break said rule. Any team (sportsmanship aside) would choose to handball on the line 100% of the time, especially in the case of Uruguay v Ghana.
birminghamcity79-
- Posts : 104
yellow card for "over celebrating"
pisses me off
pisses me off
SBSP-
- Posts : 50010
And for taking their shirt off. Getting a second yellow for celebrating is ridiculous IMO.birminghamcity79 wrote:yellow card for "over celebrating"
pisses me off
Guest- Guest
birminghamcity79 wrote:yellow card for "over celebrating"
pisses me off
Yellow card for over celebrating is a proper punishment. Not only is it time wasting, but unsportsmanlike.
Now getting a yellow card for taking off your shirt or lifting it over your head might be a bit of a stupid rule.
birminghamcity79-
- Posts : 104
SBSP wrote:And for taking their shirt off. Getting a second yellow for celebrating is ridiculous IMO.birminghamcity79 wrote:yellow card for "over celebrating"
pisses me off
agreed, they've taken so much passion out of the game!
Guest- Guest
birminghamcity79 wrote:yellow card for "over celebrating"
pisses me off
This has started to piss me off, players can't even run over to the stand to celebrate with the fans whilst they grab them anymore!
Really grinds my gears.
SBSP-
- Posts : 50010
Depends on how you over-celebrate. If it's a last minute winner, and you jump into the crowd, that shouldn't be a booking. It's not intentional time wasting, and the ref can add on more stoppage time. If it's like that guy who was dancing for about five minutes, then yeah, that's deserved.ahlycotc wrote:birminghamcity79 wrote:yellow card for "over celebrating"
pisses me off
Yellow card for over celebrating is a proper punishment. Not only is it time wasting, but unsportsmanlike.
Now getting a yellow card for taking off your shirt or lifting it over your head might be a bit of a stupid rule.
birminghamcity79-
- Posts : 104
ahlycotc wrote:birminghamcity79 wrote:yellow card for "over celebrating"
pisses me off
Yellow card for over celebrating is a proper punishment. Not only is it time wasting, but unsportsmanlike.
Now getting a yellow card for taking off your shirt or lifting it over your head might be a bit of a stupid rule.
i dont mean like celebrating for 10 minutes while the other team just stands there, im talking about things such as jumping in to the crowd and yeah taking shirts off
Carlos Jenkinson-
- Posts : 10964
arsenaln1 wrote:Mine would be, each team has 1 chance each to have replay at a referees decision so that, if a referee made a bad decision a team can decide to replay the referees mistake on a screen and if its a bad decision they have a chance to change the decision .
polska. wrote:Like in Tennis? That is a really interestingly good idea.arsenaln1 wrote:Mine would be, each team has 1 chance each to have replay at a referees decision so that, if a referee made a bad decision a team can decide to replay the referees mistake on a screen and if its a bad decision they have a chance to change the decision .
But if the ref's decision was right, there should be a penalty for wasting time. (like in Tennis)
I said that...
Guest- Guest
Because it's a foul.ahlycotc wrote:ayvee1 wrote:You can't assume he would have scored. Even if it is a tap in from 3 yards, I've seen them missed before. A goal should never be awarded without the ball going over the line IMO.ahlycotc wrote:SBSP wrote:I agree with this, except only if the ball is stopped on the line with a hand. Even if it's an open goal from a yard out, we've seen players miss the target. If the ball was on its way in, then that's different, and a goal should be given.ahlycotc wrote:If you could change or add a Law of the Game, what would it be?
Mine is award a goal if denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity occurred closer than 12 yards from the goal. It's not fair to have someone commit a DOGSO 5 yards away from goal and then have the attacking team step 7 yards back with a possibility of missing a penalty. Since an automatic goal would be awarded, there is no need to send off or even caution the defending player who committed the foul.
For example, the ball stopped 3 yards from goal and an attacking player is running towards it to tap it in the open net. A couple yards before the attacker reaches the ball, a defender tackles the attacker from behind to stop him from reaching the ball.
I think that should be awarded a goal.
Then why are red cards handed out for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity? There is no guarantee of it going in.
There should not be a rule that makes it advantageous for teams to break said rule. Any team (sportsmanship aside) would choose to handball on the line 100% of the time, especially in the case of Uruguay v Ghana.
if it's a tackle from behind it's a red, and handball in the box a red.
Guest- Guest
While we are at it, Ref's should be smart enough to figure out that in some rare cases a player may not hear a whistle, Ala Van Persie. 
Yes, I'm bitter.
Yes, I'm bitter.
Roloman4-
- Posts : 12050
Age : 30
Location : Gainesville, FL, USA
Supports : LDU, Selección Ecuatoriana de Fútbol
Wrong thread.
Guest- Guest
A cap on wages & a yellow card for celebrating with your fans.
Lux-
- Posts : 9892
Age : 32
Location : North West London
Supports : Watford FC
ahlycotc wrote:Yellow card for over celebrating is a proper punishment. Not only is it time wasting, but unsportsmanlike.
Unsportsmanlike wise.....it depends on the nature of the celebration, and where you're celebrating.
Time wasting wise.....I've always wondered why time isn't kept like it is in rugby.......just stop the clock when the game stops....start it up again when the game continues. That way there won't be any time wasting.....
Guest- Guest
Sometimes the ocassion just overtake you and your emotions spill out onto the pitch. 
Schnix-
- Posts : 2977
Age : 113
Location : ☭ EA Forums ☭
Supports : AS Roma, AC Siena, any Bundesliga club but Bayern
diving should be immediate red, not yellow
Guest- Guest
Well I suppose that it would stamp it out.
Guest- Guest
Schnix wrote:diving should be immediate red, not yellow
No. It would be too controversial because not all incidents are clear dives. Then you would have referees sending people off for a clear foul. Also I personally distinguish between a dive and exaggerating contact. I don't see the latter as punishable by a card.
SBSP-
- Posts : 50010
No, the clock should be kept running. The only time I think it should be stopped is if there's a serious injury or some other problem with the pitch etc that takes more than five minutes.Lux wrote:ahlycotc wrote:Yellow card for over celebrating is a proper punishment. Not only is it time wasting, but unsportsmanlike.
Unsportsmanlike wise.....it depends on the nature of the celebration, and where you're celebrating.
Time wasting wise.....I've always wondered why time isn't kept like it is in rugby.......just stop the clock when the game stops....start it up again when the game continues. That way there won't be any time wasting.....
Guest- Guest
This season there was a game, I think it was Legia vs Belchatow or someone...SBSP wrote:No, the clock should be kept running. The only time I think it should be stopped is if there's a serious injury or some other problem with the pitch etc that takes more than five minutes.Lux wrote:ahlycotc wrote:Yellow card for over celebrating is a proper punishment. Not only is it time wasting, but unsportsmanlike.
Unsportsmanlike wise.....it depends on the nature of the celebration, and where you're celebrating.
Time wasting wise.....I've always wondered why time isn't kept like it is in rugby.......just stop the clock when the game stops....start it up again when the game continues. That way there won't be any time wasting.....
There was a 3 way collision which resulted in two players unconscious and one player with a concussion, they had to bring an ambulance on the field and everything.
What did the ref do? He added some 15 minutes of extra time.
Guest- Guest
polska. wrote:This season there was a game, I think it was Legia vs Belchatow or someone...SBSP wrote:No, the clock should be kept running. The only time I think it should be stopped is if there's a serious injury or some other problem with the pitch etc that takes more than five minutes.Lux wrote:ahlycotc wrote:Yellow card for over celebrating is a proper punishment. Not only is it time wasting, but unsportsmanlike.
Unsportsmanlike wise.....it depends on the nature of the celebration, and where you're celebrating.
Time wasting wise.....I've always wondered why time isn't kept like it is in rugby.......just stop the clock when the game stops....start it up again when the game continues. That way there won't be any time wasting.....
There was a 3 way collision which resulted in two players unconscious and one player with a concussion, they had to bring an ambulance on the field and everything.
What did the ref do? He added some 15 minutes of extra time.
And that's what he is supposed to do. The clock continues to run and wasted time is added back on. What difference does it make if the clock is stopped or not really? You should end up playing 45 minutes of football per half either way.
SBSP-
- Posts : 50010
The clock isn't stopped for anything. I was just saying it should be.polska. wrote:This season there was a game, I think it was Legia vs Belchatow or someone...SBSP wrote:No, the clock should be kept running. The only time I think it should be stopped is if there's a serious injury or some other problem with the pitch etc that takes more than five minutes.Lux wrote:ahlycotc wrote:Yellow card for over celebrating is a proper punishment. Not only is it time wasting, but unsportsmanlike.
Unsportsmanlike wise.....it depends on the nature of the celebration, and where you're celebrating.
Time wasting wise.....I've always wondered why time isn't kept like it is in rugby.......just stop the clock when the game stops....start it up again when the game continues. That way there won't be any time wasting.....
There was a 3 way collision which resulted in two players unconscious and one player with a concussion, they had to bring an ambulance on the field and everything.
What did the ref do? He added some 15 minutes of extra time.
Lux-
- Posts : 9892
Age : 32
Location : North West London
Supports : Watford FC
ahlycotc wrote:What difference does it make if the clock is stopped or not really? You should end up playing 45 minutes of football per half either way.
Because the correct amount of time is rarely added on.
I remember a Spurs game that was like 8/9 minutes added time.....and we were thinking "ok...that's a lot of added time but we counted and it should've been at least 13 minutes". That's a whole 5 minutes less.....in way too many games I see time wasting and the ref doesn't add the time up right.
Sometimes there's 6 subs + maybe 4 goals in the 2nd half and he adds 3 minutes
....4 goals = 2 mins added time at least, 6 subs = 3 mins added time at least.
