Changes In Football thread

[tmesis]

FIFA trialing a change to the offside law so that you are only offside if the whole of the attacking players body is beyond the defenders body

Makes sense.

Offside was only meant to be to stop players gaining an advantage by goalhanging etc, not to be some kind of technical infringement.

Now, if they can revert the handball rule to be about stopping players controlling/blocking the ball with their arm, rather than being handball if the ball so much as grazes a player's arm, the game would be much improved.

Just moves the point of technicality really, so instead of checking to see if a knee is a mm ahead of the defender, they'll be checking to see if there is anything at all level with the defender.

That's true, but at least it'll feel like the player is being penalised because a player is gaining an advantage.

That said, it will bring out loads of complaints from managers when their teams concede goals that would have been ruled out before.

[Sutekh]

Makes sense.

Offside was only meant to be to stop players gaining an advantage by goalhanging etc, not to be some kind of technical infringement.

Now, if they can revert the handball rule to be about stopping players controlling/blocking the ball with their arm, rather than being handball if the ball so much as grazes a player's arm, the game would be much improved.

Just moves the point of technicality really, so instead of checking to see if a knee is a mm ahead of the defender, they'll be checking to see if there is anything at all level with the defender.

That's true, but at least it'll feel like the player is being penalised because a player is gaining an advantage.

That said, it will bring out loads of complaints from managers when their teams concede goals that would have been ruled out before.

It's getting a bit more like the old days! Linesmen should be able to make the call correctly and therefore reduce the need for VAR to interrupt games.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Makes sense.

Offside was only meant to be to stop players gaining an advantage by goalhanging etc, not to be some kind of technical infringement.

Now, if they can revert the handball rule to be about stopping players controlling/blocking the ball with their arm, rather than being handball if the ball so much as grazes a player's arm, the game would be much improved.

Just moves the point of technicality really, so instead of checking to see if a knee is a mm ahead of the defender, they'll be checking to see if there is anything at all level with the defender.

That's true, but at least it'll feel like the player is being penalised because a player is gaining an advantage.

That said, it will bring out loads of complaints from managers when their teams concede goals that would have been ruled out before.

Weren't they already doing that anyway by being ahead of the defenders? I'm not sure what difference it will make, it won't change the margin of the decisions and someone will be "a stud-length onside" as opposed to "an armpit hair offside". The same fans and managers will be moaning.

Undoubtedly it will impact the defensive line and it will probably impact how necessary, or not, pace is needed in a backline.

[Winston Biscuit]

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2024/04/09/relevent-fifa-legal-fight-deal

FIFA and U.S. promoter Relevent Sports have reached an agreement to “end their legal fight over the ban on big European football leagues and clubs playing official matches in the US,”

Relevent yesterday told the Manhattan federal court that they “expect the agreement ‘will resolve the claims between them’ in the litigation.” There is “no guarantee that the resolution will result in European league games taking place in the US." But Relevent in a statement said that FIFA was considering “changes to its existing rules about whether games can be played outside of a league’s home territory.

[Sutekh]

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2024/04/09/relevent-fifa-legal-fight-deal

FIFA and U.S. promoter Relevent Sports have reached an agreement to “end their legal fight over the ban on big European football leagues and clubs playing official matches in the US,”

Relevent yesterday told the Manhattan federal court that they “expect the agreement ‘will resolve the claims between them’ in the litigation.” There is “no guarantee that the resolution will result in European league games taking place in the US." But Relevent in a statement said that FIFA was considering “changes to its existing rules about whether games can be played outside of a league’s home territory.

Cr@p off to that ever happening. FIFA (as with all FAs and leagues) should be protecting the domestic game not setting up the possibility to flog domestic games off to highest bidders.

[Dirk Gently]

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2024/04/09/relevent-fifa-legal-fight-deal

FIFA and U.S. promoter Relevent Sports have reached an agreement to “end their legal fight over the ban on big European football leagues and clubs playing official matches in the US,”

Relevent yesterday told the Manhattan federal court that they “expect the agreement ‘will resolve the claims between them’ in the litigation.” There is “no guarantee that the resolution will result in European league games taking place in the US." But Relevent in a statement said that FIFA was considering “changes to its existing rules about whether games can be played outside of a league’s home territory.

Cr@p off to that ever happening. FIFA (as with all FAs and leagues) should be protecting the domestic game not setting up the possibility to flog domestic games off to highest bidders.

The overall aim of the big European clubs and the TV companies is to have matches spread across the world, so that at a weekend there's a match every two hours to suit all international markets. The only way to really do this is to spread the matches out across multiple-time zones.

So you'd have a two games played in the far east, one in the middle-east, two or three in Europe (lunchtime, afternoon & early evening) and then one on the East coast of the US followed by one on the West Coast. That would fill the screens with near continuous football from about 8am to midnight (Europe time) plus making it more available to other territories.

Other leagues are just historical accident and can go and get screwed as far as the big clubs are concerned.

[Winston Biscuit]

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2024/04/09/relevent-fifa-legal-fight-deal

Cr@p off to that ever happening. FIFA (as with all FAs and leagues) should be protecting the domestic game not setting up the possibility to flog domestic games off to highest bidders.

The overall aim of the big European clubs and the TV companies is to have matches spread across the world, so that at a weekend there's a match every two hours to suit all international markets. The only way to really do this is to spread the matches out across multiple-time zones.

So you'd have a two games played in the far east, one in the middle-east, two or three in Europe (lunchtime, afternoon & early evening) and then one on the East coast of the US followed by one on the West Coast. That would fill the screens with near continuous football from about 8am to midnight (Europe time) plus making it more available to other territories.

Other leagues are just historical accident and can go and get screwed as far as the big clubs are concerned.

We are now kind of at a bit of a tipping point with football at the top end. The latest edition of The Sports Agents podcast is worth a listen, they are not saying anything revolutionary, but just plainly pointing out the obvious. Football clubs have always needed the fans, to help pay the way but also to help fill up the stadiums, but the reason clubs like Spurs & Man City are pushing up their tickets and removing concession prices is because we have reached a point where the top clubs actually don't need the local fans anymore.

TV money is way more valuable than matchday tickets, and the international fans are providing more value these days, with their millions of online followers, shirts sold worldwide, summer tours to satisfy them and the clubs are offering ticket deals internationally at high prices. Its capitalism at its most ruthless, but its where its been heading for a while.

Agree on the above in terms of taking football to different locations and time zones etc. I think in the next 5-10 years we will see a huge disconnect between fans and clubs at the top as their games get staggered for far east telly and then finally the odd game moved over there.

could really help lower league football though, which I am bang up for

[Dirk Gently]

Yep it's been coming for years but it's closer and closer now.

Another of the aims of the big European clubs is to go global, so there'll be a local version of Barca, Juve, Liverpool and so on in every territory worldwide. The main clubs in Europe will use the South American, US, Middle East or Far-East "version" to develop players and as a place for older star players to still be saleable assets, "loaning" their bigger players out as needed.

Trample all over the idea of local leagues and clubs, of course, but this is their absolute wet dream of global domination.

[WestYorksRoyal]

I think for the top clubs season ticket holders and the hard core really are an inconvenience. If you could sell all your tickets to tourists or armchair fans enjoying a one off big day out, they would all spend far more money than the hard-core bunch.

But there are only a few teams who fit this category. Committed, "legacy" fans will continue to be the lifeblood of most PL clubs, let alone clubs lower down the pyramid.

[Winston Biscuit]

Yep it's been coming for years but it's closer and closer now.

Another of the aims of the big European clubs is to go global, so there'll be a local version of Barca, Juve, Liverpool and so on in every territory worldwide. The main clubs in Europe will use the South American, US, Middle East or Far-East "version" to develop players and as a place for older star players to still be saleable assets, "loaning" their bigger players out as needed.

Trample all over the idea of local leagues and clubs, of course, but this is their absolute wet dream of global domination.

Coincidentally the new mental leader of Argentina has been talking up the idea of selling off the football clubs out there which are currently 'fan owned', and just this week Sergio Aguero spoke up on this saying he thinks it would be good for someone outside the country with money to come in and buy one of the big clubs. I wonder if any of his previous employers nudged him towards saying that....

[Winston Biscuit]

Semi-Automated offside technology voted in by PL clubs. Will be introduced by the end of 2024

[Sanguine]

Semi-Automated offside technology voted in by PL clubs. Will be introduced by the end of 2024

Excellent news.

I'd like to see the 'Wenger rule' come in though to completely change what determines a player is 'offside'.

[Clyde1998]

ESPN are reporting IFAB run a trial to help enforce the six-second rule for goalkeepers holding on to the ball: https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/sta ... 0020130025

As part of the trial, the referee shall:

1. start counting to eight seconds when the keeper has clear control of the ball in their hands;
2. raise their hand to indicate a countdown from five seconds to zero;
3. award the opposition a throw in or a corner (which ever has been chosen for the match) closest to the position the keeper most recently held the ball;
4. warn the keeper in the first instance and book the keeper in further instances.

Throw ins and corners being used as a punishment is being trialled as the punishment due to the issue of indirect free-kicks in the box potentially being too large of a punishment and issues regarding managing a free-kick in the penalty area.

Eight seconds being used as there are often legitimate reasons a goalkeeper can't realise the ball within six seconds. I'm not sure what happens if an opposition player blocks the goalkeeper from realising the ball for longer than eight seconds.

Hopefully the existing six-second rule will be enforced in the meantime.

[Franchise FC]

ESPN are reporting IFAB run a trial to help enforce the six-second rule for goalkeepers holding on to the ball: https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/sta ... 0020130025

As part of the trial, the referee shall:

1. start counting to eight seconds when the keeper has clear control of the ball in their hands;
2. raise their hand to indicate a countdown from five seconds to zero;
3. award the opposition a throw in or a corner (which ever has been chosen for the match) closest to the position the keeper most recently held the ball;
4. warn the keeper in the first instance and book the keeper in further instances.

Throw ins and corners being used as a punishment is being trialled as the punishment due to the issue of indirect free-kicks in the box potentially being too large of a punishment and issues regarding managing a free-kick in the penalty area.

Eight seconds being used as there are often legitimate reasons a goalkeeper can't realise the ball within six seconds. I'm not sure what happens if an opposition player blocks the goalkeeper from realising the ball for longer than eight seconds.

Hopefully the existing six-second rule will be enforced in the meantime.

One of my absolute hates in the game
I regularly look at the clock when keepers get the ball and VERY regularly they get over 15 seconds and a lot over 20 seconds

[Stranded]

ESPN are reporting IFAB run a trial to help enforce the six-second rule for goalkeepers holding on to the ball: https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/sta ... 0020130025

As part of the trial, the referee shall:

1. start counting to eight seconds when the keeper has clear control of the ball in their hands;
2. raise their hand to indicate a countdown from five seconds to zero;
3. award the opposition a throw in or a corner (which ever has been chosen for the match) closest to the position the keeper most recently held the ball;
4. warn the keeper in the first instance and book the keeper in further instances.

Throw ins and corners being used as a punishment is being trialled as the punishment due to the issue of indirect free-kicks in the box potentially being too large of a punishment and issues regarding managing a free-kick in the penalty area.

Eight seconds being used as there are often legitimate reasons a goalkeeper can't realise the ball within six seconds. I'm not sure what happens if an opposition player blocks the goalkeeper from realising the ball for longer than eight seconds.

Hopefully the existing six-second rule will be enforced in the meantime.

This all seems pretty sensible and would argue that the relative harshness of an indirect free kick close to goal is one of the reasons it has never been enforced too strictly - given long throws and corners only result in goals what, about 3% of the time then the punishment fits the crime.

Worth noting that the trial states that the competition trialling it has to pick if the punishment is a corner or throw in at the start of the trial, it cannot be changed from game to game.

[Sutekh]

ESPN are reporting IFAB run a trial to help enforce the six-second rule for goalkeepers holding on to the ball: https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/sta ... 0020130025

As part of the trial, the referee shall:

1. start counting to eight seconds when the keeper has clear control of the ball in their hands;
2. raise their hand to indicate a countdown from five seconds to zero;
3. award the opposition a throw in or a corner (which ever has been chosen for the match) closest to the position the keeper most recently held the ball;
4. warn the keeper in the first instance and book the keeper in further instances.

Throw ins and corners being used as a punishment is being trialled as the punishment due to the issue of indirect free-kicks in the box potentially being too large of a punishment and issues regarding managing a free-kick in the penalty area.

Eight seconds being used as there are often legitimate reasons a goalkeeper can't realise the ball within six seconds. I'm not sure what happens if an opposition player blocks the goalkeeper from realising the ball for longer than eight seconds. Opposing players should get booked for obstruction and the keeper gets a free kick

Hopefully the existing six-second rule will be enforced in the meantime.

This all seems pretty sensible and would argue that the relative harshness of an indirect free kick close to goal is one of the reasons it has never been enforced too strictly - given long throws and corners only result in goals what, about 3% of the time then the punishment fits the crime.

Worth noting that the trial states that the competition trialling it has to pick if the punishment is a corner or throw in at the start of the trial, it cannot be changed from game to game.

Yet more additional hassle for the ref to have to do but then this is a law that the officials have never seemed to apply in the last 20 years or so (it seemed to get applied when it was 10 seconds that the keeper was allowed the ball). Surprised officials have not had this "reminder" (or been reprimanded) over it sooner.

Looking forward to seeing no change next season, or various managers bleating about it if it is applied.

[Stranded]

ESPN are reporting IFAB run a trial to help enforce the six-second rule for goalkeepers holding on to the ball: https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/sta ... 0020130025

As part of the trial, the referee shall:

1. start counting to eight seconds when the keeper has clear control of the ball in their hands;
2. raise their hand to indicate a countdown from five seconds to zero;
3. award the opposition a throw in or a corner (which ever has been chosen for the match) closest to the position the keeper most recently held the ball;
4. warn the keeper in the first instance and book the keeper in further instances.

Throw ins and corners being used as a punishment is being trialled as the punishment due to the issue of indirect free-kicks in the box potentially being too large of a punishment and issues regarding managing a free-kick in the penalty area.

Eight seconds being used as there are often legitimate reasons a goalkeeper can't realise the ball within six seconds. I'm not sure what happens if an opposition player blocks the goalkeeper from realising the ball for longer than eight seconds. Opposing players should get booked for obstruction and the keeper gets a free kick

Hopefully the existing six-second rule will be enforced in the meantime.

This all seems pretty sensible and would argue that the relative harshness of an indirect free kick close to goal is one of the reasons it has never been enforced too strictly - given long throws and corners only result in goals what, about 3% of the time then the punishment fits the crime.

Worth noting that the trial states that the competition trialling it has to pick if the punishment is a corner or throw in at the start of the trial, it cannot be changed from game to game.

Yet more additional hassle for the ref to have to do but then this is a law that the officials have never seemed to apply in the last 20 years or so (it seemed to get applied when it was 10 seconds that the keeper was allowed the ball). Surprised officials have not had this "reminder" (or been reprimanded) over it sooner.

Looking forward to seeing no change next season, or various managers bleating about it if it is applied.

It's only being trialled next year and can only be trialled in a competition that isn't in the top 2 divisions of a domestic structure. So we could see it in League 1 next year but most likely will end up being used in the Slovenian 3rd division.

[Sutekh]

This all seems pretty sensible and would argue that the relative harshness of an indirect free kick close to goal is one of the reasons it has never been enforced too strictly - given long throws and corners only result in goals what, about 3% of the time then the punishment fits the crime.

Worth noting that the trial states that the competition trialling it has to pick if the punishment is a corner or throw in at the start of the trial, it cannot be changed from game to game.

Yet more additional hassle for the ref to have to do but then this is a law that the officials have never seemed to apply in the last 20 years or so (it seemed to get applied when it was 10 seconds that the keeper was allowed the ball). Surprised officials have not had this "reminder" (or been reprimanded) over it sooner.

Looking forward to seeing no change next season, or various managers bleating about it if it is applied.

It's only being trialled next year and can only be trialled in a competition that isn't in the top 2 divisions of a domestic structure. So we could see it in League 1 next year but most likely will end up being used in the Slovenian 3rd division.

Understood. File under sin bin then.

[Four Of Clubs]

.... this is a law that the officials have never seemed to apply in the last 20 years or so (it seemed to get applied when it was 10 seconds that the keeper was allowed the ball)
.

It's only being trialled next year and can only be trialled in a competition that isn't in the top 2 divisions ..... most likely will end up being used in the Slovenian 3rd division.

Understood. File under sin bin then.

....sounds like a load of 'Dravaj Ptuj' to me!

[Winston Biscuit]

reportedly a vote taking place today by PL clubs as to whether to bring in spending caps on wages, transfers and agents costs