Should some football interpretations or rules or be changed for the better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ralphpom

See Morpeth and Marske have joined the NPL which under the new structure gets them a trip to Wisbech .....

---

No choice in the matter now because any club that turns down the automatic promotion is dismissed from the Northern League and goes into the Second Division of the Northern Alliance or into the Wearside League (if accepted).
It will be interesting to see how they cope financially with all the extra expenditure required. It will also be interesting to see if Marske will play at their own ground because they have had a lot of problems during last season.

The whole pyramid idea has ruined Non-league football.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ralphpom

The whole pyramid idea has ruined Non-league football.

---

Certainly seem to have many more clubs going to the wall these days than there ever were. Some of it is down to owners or prospective owners who seem to think that it could be a way to football riches which, as we know, do not really exist outside the PL and not always there!

The biggest problem, however, still revolves around the fact that 'fans' are just geared up to the PL and its ilk and many would never even consider going to watch their local non-league team and all it has to offer.
The pyramid seems to force clubs to go out of their financial comfort zone and players are also asking for silly money to turn out and it invariably ends with problems.

Yes all true

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sinkov

I would bring in a revolutionary change, I would abolish penalty kicks. The point of them is apparently to punish a defending team going outside the laws to prevent a goal being scored, by giving the attacking team a good chance of scoring. But there is no logic to that, as only about 80/90% are converted it is in effect a lottery. But why should it be a lottery, scrap the lottery of the penalty kick and award a penalty goal instead. Instant certain justice for the attacking team, instant certain retribution for the offending team.

Every infringement would give a goal away, no chance of your keeper earning you a reprieve, which would concentrate the minds wonderfully of defenders intent on Jackie Pallo impersonations instead of defending properly.

It would also have the effect of concentrating the minds of referees, if they had to award a goal instead of a pen, it would hopefully make them realise the utter stupidity of penalising defenders whose hands or arms inadvertently come into contact with the ball. Too easy for them to point to the spot and let events run their course, if they had to award a goal because the ball flicked a defenders hand they would seriously have to consider whether it really was worth awarding a goal to the attacking team, and that blot on the game could be eradicated.

Never happen though will it, too much responsibility for the officials, they much prefer the cop out of penalty kicks and VAR.

---

You couldn't make a clearer case for penalty goals than tonight's game. Rebic is about to tap the ball into an empty net when he's brought down from behind. Modric should never have had to take a penalty, Schmeichel should never have had the chance to save it, Croatia should have been awarded the goal they had been cheated out of, and justice would have been done.

There are penalty tries in Rugby, it works there and no one complains, it works well. But not football, it isn't even considered, football prefers to be on the side of the cheats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sinkov

You couldn't make a clearer case for penalty goals than tonight's game. Rebic is about to tap the ball into an empty net when he's brought down from behind. Modric should never have had to take a penalty, Schmeichel should never have had the chance to save it, Croatia should have been awarded the goal they had been cheated out of, and justice would have been done.

There are penalty tries in Rugby, it works there and no one complains, it works well. But not football, it isn't even considered, football prefers to be on the side of the cheats.

---

Great argument pity that it is outside The Laws of the Game! FIFA would rather mess about with everything else rather than give the officials such a clear indication about things like this sinkov. I think that, even if they did consider this, they would have twenty eight referrrals to their new VAR toy before deciding what actually might have happened. They would probably also want to bring in hawkeye to determine the track of the ball and whether or not it would have ended up in the net.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersub6

Great argument pity that it is outside The Laws of the Game! FIFA would rather mess about with everything else rather than give the officials such a clear indication about things like this sinkov. I think that, even if they did consider this, they would have twenty eight referrrals to their new VAR toy before deciding what actually might have happened. They would probably also want to bring in hawkeye to determine the track of the ball and whether or not it would have ended up in the net.

---

They don't actually need to do anything different supersub, instead of the ref awarding a penalty, just award a goal. He is in effect awarding a goal 90% of the time when he gives the pen anyway, Why give the cheats a possible get out, just give the goal without the rigmarole of the penalty kick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sinkov

They don't actually need to do anything different supersub, instead of the ref awarding a penalty, just award a goal. He is in effect awarding a goal 90% of the time when he gives the pen anyway, Why give the cheats a possible get out, just give the goal without the rigmarole of the penalty kick.

---

Because the ball has to cross the line and can not be "assumed" to cross the line?

It's the old story of a dog running onto the pitch and the ball is kicked towards goal but hits the dog running across the goal line and the ball doesn't go in. Result? No goal.

But there you are--just tampered with the rules by awarding a penalty goal.

They have been tampering yet again with the rules regarding Australian Rules Football (not our kind of football).

Because the game has developed with most players surrounding the ball at a stoppage and causing congestion and hampering the "ggod" players' ability to run and carry the ball they are trialing restricting the number of players in a zone and increasing the number of steps a player can run with the ball before bouncing and catching it.

Its evolution.

If you think back to our Football its been a long time since you can charge a goalkeeper and bundle him and the ball over the line.

Its evolution.

Originally road speed signs were nothing more than recommendations before we had the ability to monitor them absolutely.

There are no reasons for rules to stand forever without change.

The environment in which they were created looks nothing like the one we are now living in.

If you believe that tactics have changed for the worst within the current "rules" of the game and that the football spectacle is the loser then change must happen before fans say "that's enough--I'm off".

If you look back at my original suggestion blueheeler, it was to abolish the award of penalties altogether, and award a penalty goal instead. Therefore whether the ball would have crossed the line or not is irrelevant, my point is that if the offence is deemed worthy of a penalty, then award a penalty goal. It isn't actually that much of a leap, as 85% of penalty awards result in goals anyway. So why give the offending team a 15% chance of getting away with it, as Denmark did in this case ? Why give them the opportunity, I don't see the logic in it, and last night illustrated my point perfectly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sinkov

If you look back at my original suggestion blueheeler, it was to abolish the award of penalties altogether, and award a penalty goal instead. Therefore whether the ball would have crossed the line or not is irrelevant, my point is that if the offence is deemed worthy of a penalty, then award a penalty goal. It isn't actually that much of a leap, as 85% of penalty awards result in goals anyway. So why give the offending team a 15% chance of getting away with it, as Denmark did in this case ? Why give them the opportunity, I don't see the logic in it, and last night illustrated my point perfectly.

---

As I said with your original suggestion it is a good idea, however, was he certain to have scored? I can remember Akinbayi skying one over the bar from less than one yard against Watford when it was easier to score.
I just want TLOG left alone completely because I don't think that any of the so-called improvements have improved the game at all.

Interesting to see the great number of penalties which have been awarded in this World Cup and compare that to the number that were awarded in the PL last season. There have been 27 awarded in 52 matches so far against 80 in 380 PL games.