Are you?
Why is it difficult to understand 4 quarters instead of 2 halves is a decent idea.
Are you?
Why is it difficult to understand 4 quarters instead of 2 halves is a decent idea.
Obviously scrapping the offside rule is more than a bit mental, but there is a debate there on how you tweak the rules to make it harder for teams to kill games off (i.e. parking the bus).
Outlawing passing back to the 'keeper is one of the ways it's been done before and arguably has been successful.
What else could be done? Or does anything actually need to be done.
Why is it difficult to understand 4 quarters instead of 2 halves is a decent idea.
An orange card might well be the most idiotic thing FIFA will ever consider.
Yes jasonDepends how hungry you are
Sinbin works really well in a lot of sports why do you think it is so idiotic?
The sin bin works perfectly in rugby and hockey though. All of them are high intensity athletes.
Love the idea of ex players being refs. We could have Gerrard and Carragher as the resident Anfield refsBecause most refs in football, as I said, are poorly trained to make the right incisive judgements, so they already use yellow cards for everything from 'mood setting' to serious specific sanctions. Give them a second 'safe' card and they'll soon turn that into more of a capricious gesture than a genuinely consistent and pertinent response to a foul.
I don't recall talking about a 'sin bin' as such. I don't feel completely opposed to the concept, but I have major doubts that it would suit football. For one thing, I suspect sports scientists would question the prudence of using that kind of arbitrary break for high intensity athletes in a 90 minute game; it depends how long the break would be. But I'd have thought a stop-start process might breed injuries. It would certainly wreck someone like Studge. And in terms of a spectacle and a sporting event, I'm not sure the majority of people would find the system more coherent than chaotic.
But I repeat about refs - you can either improve their training to enforce a simple set of rules, or you can over-compensate for their shortcomings by adding many more rules. The yellow card was mainly introduced (aside from making decisions more visible of course) in response to a feeling that refs couldn't be trusted enough to decide when a player deserved to be sent off, and also players couldn't be trusted to listen to a ref's warning(s) about their behaviour, so Ken Aston proposed the process: 'Yellow, take it easy; red, stop, you're off'." It was also in part a commercial decision, as broadcasters had complained that too many games were being spoilt by stars being sent off for dubious reasons.
A third card, for me, is just the wrong way to look at it. Instead of making more of an effort to teach refs to read situations more shrewdly - and drafting in ex-players as refs would help that - it would basically encourage them to think: 'Right, I've now got TWO goes before I really HAVE to get it right'. Refs should be doing less, not more. Making players more mindful of the rules, as well as refs, is the best way to enhance the game's simple core appeal,
This is so true, they also command a lot more respect from the players. Cannot see any high profile footballers wanting to stick their head over the parapet though!Ha. It works very well in cricket. Having so many ex players as umpires helps to maintain a good degree of trust and respect from current players, and it also means that their reading of the game, and any gamesmanship, is usually pretty sound. But there's no stigma surrounding umpires, so it's quite an appealing transition for retiring pros. To get ex footballers to become refs instead of pundits, you'd have to convince them they wouldn't become hate figures overnight.[/QUOTE