Also you can't give a foul because the ball is dead, it just slows everything down as the ref has to step in.

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 43 seconds ago
The wall one is to stop the pushing and shoving and should have been addressed years ago.

----------------------

Is it? Instead of changing the rule the ref should just give a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they don't. Hence why it needs to be addressed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's also the intention behind the player's position.

As I said earlier, in my view it's no real difference to going and standing in front of the keeper with the specific aim of obstructing his view.

It's not allowed and this is just an extension of that rule imo.

Is there going to be a set radius around the wall in which opposition players cannot stand as well?

6. A change to the goal-kick rule will also mean the ball does not have to leave the penalty area.

7. In situations where the ball hits the referee a "drop ball" will be awarded.

8. There is also a change in the laws governing goalkeeper movements at spot-kicks with the keeper only being required to have one foot on the line at a penalty.

http://www.espn.com/soccer/blog-fifa/story/3788541/ifab-announces-major-rule-changes-in-football

Yes, one metre.

comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 3 minutes ago
Is there going to be a set radius around the wall in which opposition players cannot stand as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

".......The body -- made up of the four British home nations and representatives from FIFA -- also approved law changes to stop players from interfering with defensive walls at free kicks.

Under the new rule, players from the attacking team will have to be at least one metre away from the wall when a free kick is being taken....."

Number 6 is definitely something that needed to be looked at, as foul goal kicks is an increasing trend.

3. Substituted players can leave the field anywhere
To stop time-wasting, when a player is taken off they will no longer have to leave the field at the halfway line and can leave the pitch at the nearest point.

----------------------------

How would this stop time-wasting? If you were being subbed you would just chose to walk off on the complete opposite side of the pitch.

Just picturing a Jose team here. Tell his winger to walk to the corner flag, make the sub, tell the player to walk over to the opposite corner and then leave the field. If anything you can use the rule as stated to waste more time.

comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 16 seconds ago
3. Substituted players can leave the field anywhere
To stop time-wasting, when a player is taken off they will no longer have to leave the field at the halfway line and can leave the pitch at the nearest point.

----------------------------

How would this stop time-wasting? If you were being subbed you would just chose to walk off on the complete opposite side of the pitch.

Just picturing a Jose team here. Tell his winger to walk to the corner flag, make the sub, tell the player to walk over to the opposite corner and then leave the field. If anything you can use the rule as stated to waste more time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, they leave at the nearest point....

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Number 6 is definitely something that needed to be looked at, as foul goal kicks is an increasing trend.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see all the goal-hangers around the world rubbing their hands in anticipation of the new rule.

No reason to track back now.

2 is bloody stupid

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 16 seconds ago
3. Substituted players can leave the field anywhere
To stop time-wasting, when a player is taken off they will no longer have to leave the field at the halfway line and can leave the pitch at the nearest point.

----------------------------

How would this stop time-wasting? If you were being subbed you would just chose to walk off on the complete opposite side of the pitch.

Just picturing a Jose team here. Tell his winger to walk to the corner flag, make the sub, tell the player to walk over to the opposite corner and then leave the field. If anything you can use the rule as stated to waste more time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, they leave at the nearest point....
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I should have read the original story.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
"For a start, the attacking side can outnumber defenders away from the wall."

They can already do that!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In practical terms, this increases the likelihood though. If the attacking team no longer has 2-3 players in the wall, they are likely to be deployed in other positions, and still with an attacking mindset, since there's still the same amount of defensive. The defending team still requires a wall. Seems likely we'll have more situations where the attacking team tries 'training ground' routines, where they slip in a player around the side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't really see your point.

If there's such an advantage to be gained from it then teams would be doing it already.

Remember that the defending team will most likely leave only one player upfield whilst the attacking team will leave at least two back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

My original point wasn't that it will be a net advantage to the attacking team, but that it will change the dynamics, and that this might lead to different attacking strategies from direct free kicks. In general walls will become less vulnerable to breaches, and this will be offset by the fact that the attacking personnel will be spread more widely around the box.

comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 16 seconds ago
3. Substituted players can leave the field anywhere
To stop time-wasting, when a player is taken off they will no longer have to leave the field at the halfway line and can leave the pitch at the nearest point.

----------------------------

How would this stop time-wasting? If you were being subbed you would just chose to walk off on the complete opposite side of the pitch.

Just picturing a Jose team here. Tell his winger to walk to the corner flag, make the sub, tell the player to walk over to the opposite corner and then leave the field. If anything you can use the rule as stated to waste more time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, they leave at the nearest point....
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I should have read the original story.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or the comment you were replying to

Or the comment you were replying to

-----------------------

I was replying to "can leave the pitch". Suggesting the players have the option of where to leave the pitch. Hope that clears it up.

The comment you were replying to said "at the nearest point" but anyway. This will help as it shouldn't take more than 30 seconds to leave the field at the nearest point. Hope they stick to the adding the 30 seconds per sub too regardless of how long it takes:

Attacking team can use it to their advantage - change quickly. Will stop defending team "managing" the game in the final minutes which I hate.

The comment you were replying to said "at the nearest point" but anyway

------------------

That doesn't change my interpretation of the OP, which suggested that the players have the option to leave the field, and this could very well be at the nearest point as you pedantically point out.

Never mind.

Number 4 isn't enforceable. If it's referring to any player of the team whose taking the free kick disrupting the oppositions wall than it makes sense. If it's reads how it's worded it's moronic, what constitutes an 'attacking' player?

1 & 2 are interesting. I didn't even know 3 was a thing, having to leave the pitch via the halfway line? Never noticed that.

5 is amusing. I see why they'd bring it in but it means they'll be less manager meltdowns on the touchline, and who doesn't get a laugh out of that? (if it's not your manager acting like a clown).

I reckon the ref has enough to worry about without having to do the timing. Let somebody else do that and get them to stop the clock for the entire time when there is an injury. So often when there is a long stoppage the time added on at the end of the game doesn't properly reflect it.

If it's reads how it's worded it's moronic, what constitutes an 'attacking' player?
------
A player attacking the opposition's goal.

Penalty one is fairer and better than people think. A penalty is awarded to replace the considered guaranteed SHOT, a player would have taken if not fouled or shot/pass illegally obstructed. There's actually a number of possible outcomes following a strike on goal. Keeper can save outright, save to corner, save to safety in play and save to attackers waiting feet, conceding a goal, same again but saving lucky attacker's shot. Probably more possibilities too.

Allowing the penalty taking team a 2nd bite of the cherry is actually ruling out too many of the scenarios possible after a strike on goal. The only thing you can guarantee from a player's clean shot, is that the keeper MAY have had to save it. Hence much as is properly ruins the exciting "counter attack from a miss" thrill, it is actually a much fairer rule. The current way not only assumes the player would have had a successful shot but assumes that even if the keeper saved that shot, the attacking team still would have conceded. Simply not true at all in football.

I don't like it much but it is definitely a better rule in terms of fairness. Current system penalises defending team way too much for what is often, very little done causing the penalty

comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 7 minutes ago
I reckon the ref has enough to worry about without having to do the timing. Let somebody else do that and get them to stop the clock for the entire time when there is an injury. So often when there is a long stoppage the time added on at the end of the game doesn't properly reflect it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Should be the 4th official's job.

comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 6 minutes ago
Penalty one is fairer and better than people think. A penalty is awarded to replace the considered guaranteed SHOT, a player would have taken if not fouled or shot/pass illegally obstructed. There's actually a number of possible outcomes following a strike on goal. Keeper can save outright, save to corner, save to safety in play and save to attackers waiting feet, conceding a goal, same again but saving lucky attacker's shot. Probably more possibilities too.

Allowing the penalty taking team a 2nd bite of the cherry is actually ruling out too many of the scenarios possible after a strike on goal. The only thing you can guarantee from a player's clean shot, is that the keeper MAY have had to save it. Hence much as is properly ruins the exciting "counter attack from a miss" thrill, it is actually a much fairer rule. The current way not only assumes the player would have had a successful shot but assumes that even if the keeper saved that shot, the attacking team still would have conceded. Simply not true at all in football.

I don't like it much but it is definitely a better rule in terms of fairness. Current system penalises defending team way too much for what is often, very little done causing the penalty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You what?

Oh yeah, whole point of the wall is to obstruct the ball. Allowing attacker standing in it so he can move out the way, letting the ball through it defeats the entire purpose of a defensive wall. It's a bit like giving a penalty then allowing a player from the penalty taking team to go in goal whilst it's taken

What you not following there DJ?