Gillette

[Baboo]

I'm with Wilder on this one. Football is a fast-flowing game and part of the attraction of it is the fallibility of the officials and players.

Part of the attraction may be the fallibility of players but for me certainly not the fallibility of referees. Is that really one of the reasons you go Boris - cos the men in black (Not being sexist, just playing some Johnny Cash as I type this) are crap and will make mistakes.

As for the fast flowing game - try counting the time when there are stoppages in play for throws and more particularly free kicks.

If a 4th official was watching the screen it would have been obvious to him that TH had handled the ball. A quick alert to the ref - goal disallowed&amp TH booked. I dispute that this would have taken very long at all to execute. And so what if it took a few seconds longer - in the interests of justice and fair play surely it is worth it.

[Long John Silver]

Im with CW and Boris on this one.

However there are areas that the rules could be improved in to make players less prone to taking chances with cheating/bending the rules.

My top two are:

Points deductions for cards. Have a threshold say 30 points, teams get one point for a yellow three for a red, once a club reaches the threshold they are deducted a point, then say two points at 50 etc.

This would cut out dissent at a stroke as managers would come down heavily on anyone giving unneccesary points away, it's the only way to get the big clubs in line, fines and suspensions have no real effect with the budgets and squad sizes they have.

Secondly if a pkayer is injured in a tackle and has to leave the field of play with the physio and a free kick is given then the offending player should leave the field for the same amount of time.

It has always struck me as unfair that the offending team gain numerical advantage from a foul.

If the pressure is taken off referees with the players showing them more respect they are more likely to make correct decisions.

Points deductions for however many yellow or red cards gained wouldn't do anything to help with incorrect decisions made, or incidents missed, by referees. It would just exagerrate these injustices where cards are given incorrectly, or not given when they should be.

Refs know when there is dissent, so they just need the balls (and the backup) to use their cards when it happens. Players would soon stop that if they were getting sent off every match for it. Rugby has the right idea where there is an immediate negative consequence for any dissent shown to the referee.

[Geoff]

Henry should be banned from playing in South Africa

I've had a long think about that statement and its not quite as idiotic as it sounds. If the ref had spotted the deliberate handball he could have issued a straight red card which would have bought with it an automatic 3 match ban. The footballing authorities have already set precedents in this area i.e. penalising players after the event for offences that the referee didn't see, so it would be appropriate to ban him from the opening round of the World Cup tournament but not the whole tournament obviously.

Two questions:

1. Why does it sound idiotic?
2. Why 'obviously' not the whole tournament?

Because of his cheating a country has missed the chance to go to South Africa. Why should Henry be allowed to go?

[slappy]

Seeing the replay in ultra slow motion the handball and control is obvious. At full speed it is more of an instinctive move and although wrong it was up to the ref and linesman to spot it.

I liked what a caller on radio 5 said last night. When playing 5 aside with no refs, everyone is happy to self police, admit fouls and handballs etc. As soon as you bring a ref in it is up to the officials to police the game, and hopefully get it equally right (or wrong) for both sides.

I disagree with more technology, because as other people say we want football to be a fast flowing game, not held up every few minutes for video appeals.

As for replays, Ireland had the whole of a qualifying tournament and a 2 leg play-off to qualify. We didn't hear Liverpool asking for the Sunderland beach-ball game to be replayed, even though the goal should have been disallowed. Possibly because it was so early on in the game.

[A-Ro]

Henry should be banned from playing in South Africa

I've had a long think about that statement and its not quite as idiotic as it sounds. If the ref had spotted the deliberate handball he could have issued a straight red card which would have bought with it an automatic 3 match ban. The footballing authorities have already set precedents in this area i.e. penalising players after the event for offences that the referee didn't see, so it would be appropriate to ban him from the opening round of the World Cup tournament but not the whole tournament obviously.

Two questions:

1. Why does it sound idiotic?
2. Why 'obviously' not the whole tournament?

Because of his cheating a country has missed the chance to go to South Africa. Why should Henry be allowed to go?

1 Because the punishment is not appropriate to the offence.
2 Because the punishment is appropriate to the offence.

[GodalmingYellow]

I'm with Wilder on this one. Football is a fast-flowing game and part of the attraction of it is the fallibility of the officials and players. I am intractably opposed to any form of external interruption to the flow of the play, and I think the introduction of technology would be the thin end of the wedge as far as this is concerned. I am also opposed to removal of the referee's authority in this way, although I would support improvements to the laws to make the referees' job easier (such as more active involvement of the fourth official, or allowing the assistants to encroach onto the field of play if necessary).

The fact that technology is seen to be appropriate to rugby and cricket only makes me feel that it would therefore be entirely inappropriate to football.

When there is a hotly disputed decision, the game is already held up for several minutes with arguments, so the argument of unnecessary delays holds no water with me.

In fact the use of technology in the way I have suggested would make the officials jobs easier, and reaching decisions faster and more accurately.

I would go on to add that I think only the captain of either side should be allowed to approach the ref, with an automatic yellow card to anyone else who does so. That would improve player discipline too.

[GodalmingYellow]

Im with CW and Boris on this one.

However there are areas that the rules could be improved in to make players less prone to taking chances with cheating/bending the rules.

My top two are:

Points deductions for cards. Have a threshold say 30 points, teams get one point for a yellow three for a red, once a club reaches the threshold they are deducted a point, then say two points at 50 etc.

This would cut out dissent at a stroke as managers would come down heavily on anyone giving unneccesary points away, it's the only way to get the big clubs in line, fines and suspensions have no real effect with the budgets and squad sizes they have.

Secondly if a pkayer is injured in a tackle and has to leave the field of play with the physio and a free kick is given then the offending player should leave the field for the same amount of time.

It has always struck me as unfair that the offending team gain numerical advantage from a foul.

If the pressure is taken off referees with the players showing them more respect they are more likely to make correct decisions.

No, points should be won and lost purely on the team which scores the most goals in each match. Anything which changes tht results in a table without the best side at the top and worst side at the bottom.

There are many rules which need changing and/or bolstering in football.

1. The lack of discipline on foul throws.
2. If a player asks for a physio, they shouldn't have to leave the field if the ref has awarded his side a free kick.
3. Standing over the ball to prevent a free kick being taken should be an automatic yellow card.
4. I would like to see a sin bin as an in between where a red card would be harsh, but a yellow is insufficient.
5. The offside rule should either be put back to it's original form, or removed entirely.
6. Linesmen should have the same powers of authority as the ref, incuding issuing red and yellow cards and stopping play and controlling who enters the field of play.
7. Goalkicks should be taken form the side the the ball leaves the field.
8. The 6 second rule for goalkeepers should be enforced.
9. The 10 yard advancement rule should be re-introduced for any arguing with the ref and preventing a free kick being taken.
10. A team should have as many players available for substitution as they wish, but should still only be able to use 3 of them.
11. There should be allowed use of a temporary sub for injuries requiring off field attention like stitches, so the game is always played 11 vs 11 unless there has been a sending off.
12. Players who have been subbed off, should be able to be subbed back onto the field, again sticking within the 3 maximum substitutions.
13. Red and yellow cards should be equally applicable to coaching staff.
14. Any number of coaches should be allowed to the edge of the coaching area, but stepping out of the coaching area should be an automatic yellow card offence for the coaches.
I'm sure I could think of loads more as well.

[Geoff]

I've had a long think about that statement and its not quite as idiotic as it sounds. If the ref had spotted the deliberate handball he could have issued a straight red card which would have bought with it an automatic 3 match ban. The footballing authorities have already set precedents in this area i.e. penalising players after the event for offences that the referee didn't see, so it would be appropriate to ban him from the opening round of the World Cup tournament but not the whole tournament obviously.

Two questions:

1. Why does it sound idiotic?
2. Why 'obviously' not the whole tournament?

Because of his cheating a country has missed the chance to go to South Africa. Why should Henry be allowed to go?

1 Because the punishment is not appropriate to the offence.
2 Because the punishment is appropriate to the offence.

How serious does the offence have to be? It's that kind of weak kneed approach which encourages players to cheat. Perhaps if the punishment fitted the crime (i.e. more onerous) it might deter players in the future.

[Baboo]

[
When there is a hotly disputed decision, the game is already held up for several minutes with arguments, so the argument of unnecessary delays holds no water with me.

In fact the use of technology in the way I have suggested would make the officials jobs easier, and reaching decisions faster and more accurately.
.

100% with you on this GY.
This appeals malarky is a red herring imho.
In what other sport are so many incorrect decisions given?

[A-Ro]

I'm sure I could think of loads more as well.

The player shielding the ball out of play can only do so if it is under his control i.e. he has touched it, otherwise he is obstructing the opposition player.

[A-Ro]

How serious does the offence have to be? It's that kind of weak kneed approach which encourages players to cheat. Perhaps if the punishment fitted the crime (i.e. more onerous) it might deter players in the future.

The punishment for handball is a maximum 3 match ban and more normally just a yellow card, what do you want it to be? cut his hand off maybe?

Now I'm being idiotic.

[boris]

I'm sure I could think of loads more as well.

The player shielding the ball out of play can only do so if it is under his control i.e. he has touched it, otherwise he is obstructing the opposition player.

Not if he's touched it, otherwise he wouldn't be shielding it as it would be going for a corner rather than a goalkick. It's if the ball is within playing distance of him.

[A-Ro]

I'm sure I could think of loads more as well.

The player shielding the ball out of play can only do so if it is under his control i.e. he has touched it, otherwise he is obstructing the opposition player.

Not if he's touched it, otherwise he wouldn't be shielding it as it would be going for a corner rather than a goalkick. It's if the ball is within playing distance of him.

OK fair enough, but how about making it the same as Formula One where the defender can make one move to defend the ball but after that he's obstructing?

[SmileyMan]

It needs FIFA to act of course, and retrospective action is never a great idea.

I'm not as au fait with the laws of the game as some, but is Henry required to inform the referee that he handled the ball? If not, then that's the first thing that they'd have to change - give players the chance to inform the ref on the spot that they'd done something illegal in the heat of the moment.

Once a player can (and without sanction if the ref didn't spot it - very important) be required to tell the ref that he's cheated, be it a deliberate handball, or a dive, then you can introduce the second part, which is to punish players who &quotcheat,&quot i.e infringe deliberately and allow their team to benefit from it.

There seems to be a lot of mealy mouthed excuses being made around this (not on here, in general). Boil the question down to this - do you want important results to hinge on the actions of a cheat?

[A-Ro]

I don't think you need the word important in that question.