Making footie more like a proper sport

Discussion in 'General Hockey Chit-Chat' started by Ravennghorde, Jun 17, 2017.

  1. sanabas

    sanabas FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,726
    Likes Received:
    1,050
    But you can have the equally unfair situation where one team has 22 fit players rotating through the positions, while the other one only has 19.

    Not necessarily. You can also have players being encouraged to go flat out for longer, to spend longer at peak heartrates, because they know they can do that, come off for a rest, then go at peak workload again later. You're more likely to get injured, especially to pull muscles, going repeatedly at peak loads rather than trying to pace yourself. Rolling subs encourage athletes to repeatedly reach the point of exhaustion.

    Neither of these have to be a problem. Some sports have a concussion protocol, where a player can come off & be assessed for injury, then return to the field if deemed to be ok. That can easily happen for other injuries, too.

    Sports can frequently provide a better spectacle when players are tired.

    No reason that games have to be frequently interrupted for non-rolling subs. No reason that subbing needs to waste time. Both are a question of how the game does things, not an inherent benefit of rolling subs vs players only being allowed to sub off once. You could equally argue that rolling subs means many more substitutions happen during a soccer game, therefore even more time gets wasted.

    Again, this is nothing at all to do with subs. This is a peculiarity of soccer's timing system. Rugby has subs, everyone knows exactly how long is left on the clock. If hockey got rid of rolling subs, everyone would still know exactly how long is left. Aussie rules has rolling subs, spectators & players on the ground can know the end of quarter is close, but not exactly how many seconds are left. How the timing is displayed is independent of the substitution system.

    None of what you've put are reasons why rolling subs are inherently better. Nor are they inherently worse. You've put reasons why soccer should change its timing system from the silliness of someone holding a board up after 45 minutes and then everyone guessing exactly how long there is to go. You've put reasons why teams should be able to do something when someone is injured. But they can both be fixed without introducing rolling subs, and they won't automatically be fixed by introducing rolling subs. .
     
  2. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,653
    Likes Received:
    509
    Simulation is pretending you were fouled, players will only be booked for diving, not exaggerating after they were fouled, it's part of the same rule not 2 separate contexts - rolling around pretending you were shot after a foul is not simulation in the context of the rule. What they are talking about is people pretending to be injured e.g. if a player raises his hands and a player pretends they were hit in the face or a collapse after two players put their heads together pretending a headbutt.

    Incidentally football is not "no contact" unless I misread what you meant? Footballers can shield the ball off the pitch or ease a player off the ball when challenging for it. It's only a foul if they did something like barging a player to stop them getting to the ball

    With regards to forced foul, the FIH statement at the time was as follows:

    Manufactured Offences Rule Deleted

    The Rule which used to say that "players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally" is deleted - any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules (my emphasis)

    Be aware of attempts to gain free hits by the ball carrier, for example, by: -

    Deliberately running into opponents
    Playing the ball dangerously into a defender's body
    Trying to demonstrate an obstruction by lifting their stick dangerously over an opponent's head

    These are offences in their own right and upset opponents; think through where the ball carrier is likely to do this
     
    #22 Gingerbread, Jun 19, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
  3. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    2,106
    Likes Received:
    820
    That cannot be seen as an equally unfair scenario. There is a limit to the number of substitutes allowed. Similar to hockey. Furthermore it cannot be said that having one or two less people on the subs bench is equal in difficulty to having one or two less people on the field of play. It is not equivalent.

    I am inclined to agree with you here.
    However this is a case of correct management of players being applied.
    You are also assuming that players immediately pace themselves if they are guaranteed to be in play for longer. You are assuming that they don't just suffer at peak heart rates for longer and deteriorate as a result of that.

    That is impractical.
    How do you define a twisted ankle which can be run off and one which requires closer medical attention? (Ligament/cartilage damage for example?)
    Side strains, hernia injuries, hair viciously put out of shape, knocks to the knee, etc etc. they all have very very different parameters governing whether or not it is sensible for a player to continue. Most of them will not kill/damage a player's health long term like concussion may if left unchecked.
    Furthermore

    It is also something of a straw-man.
    A player with concussion is NEVER in a fit-state to play on. A player with a sore leg may well be.
    Concussion is a specific measurable thing, the symptoms of which are quantifiable (to enough of an extent to make it manageable) and it is known that the having of concussion will have an immediate and lasting effect on a player if this is not treated immediately. Furthermore enough of the symptoms can be gleaned on-site without having to remove the player from the field of play. At least enough to understand if it is safe to carry on.
    Most injuries other than the most obviously dreadful ones require off-pitch diagnosis to define whether the injury is a passing niggle or something serious. The scenario you are suggesting could see all players taken off the pitch for all injuries. 3 substitutions would not withstand that. Rolling subs would allow this to happen and for un-broken players to return to the fray.

    If we were to allow players who went off for assessment for all injuries to return if fine, then we would basically have rolling substitutions or we would have yet another level of complexity and management of substitutions coupled with even more breaks in play.

    QUOTE="sanabas, post: 411766, member: 690"]
    Sports can frequently provide a better spectacle when players are tired.[/QUOTE]
    They can frequently provide blooming awful spectacles as well.
    To take it to a slightly ridiculous extent, just how tired do you want them? Who is to say how tired is optimum? I want my players crawling on the ground begging for salvation before they can come off, however my wife is more keen on the players who have loads of energy and are at the height of their physical prowess.

    QUOTE="sanabas, post: 411766, member: 690"]
    No reason that games have to be frequently interrupted for non-rolling subs. No reason that subbing needs to waste time. Both are a question of how the game does things, not an inherent benefit of rolling subs vs players only being allowed to sub off once. You could equally argue that rolling subs means many more substitutions happen during a soccer game, therefore even more time gets wasted.[/QUOTE]

    The game needs to be stopped to allow the referee to take note of the substitution and to ensure that the current quota have not already been used. It is not feasible to do this whilst the game is on-going as the referee is rather distracted by events on the pitch.

    QUOTE="sanabas, post: 411766, member: 690"]
    Again, this is nothing at all to do with subs. This is a peculiarity of soccer's timing system. Rugby has subs, everyone knows exactly how long is left on the clock. If hockey got rid of rolling subs, everyone would still know exactly how long is left. Aussie rules has rolling subs, spectators & players on the ground can know the end of quarter is close, but not exactly how many seconds are left. How the timing is displayed is independent of the substitution system.[/QUOTE]
    I agree except for the fact that one of the reasons the timing methods used are so used is because of the rather tortuous process of substituting players. I agree that there are other solutions, but where one solution eases many problems, it clearly has more to recommend it as a result.

    "Page 30 - Law 7- The duration of the match:
    Allowance is made in either period for all time lost through:
    • substitutions
    • assessment of injury to players
    • removal of injured players from the field of play for treatment
    • wasting time
    • any other cause

    The allowance for time lost is at the discretion of the referee"


    The last line here is the real killer and the example why this is a bad rule and needs fixed. Fixing the timing is part of the overall review which is under consideration and it will help much of this. But eliminating one instance where the game must be stopped will also, obviously, benefit this.

    Untrue. I have put plenty reasons why they are better. You just don't agree that these reasons are valid.

    I've indicated that rolling substitutions removes one of the causes of this timing silliness. Furthermore if the timing silliness were to be fixed by other means, it would be one fewer reason why the game had to be stopped and could be allowed to continue and flow as hockey does. To, in this case, hockey's credit.

    Agreed, but as I HAVE written, rolling subs, used properly, can have a beneficial impact in preventing instances where these things come to pass.
    I have also put reasons why teams should be able to do something when a player needs a short rest to be allowed to function to a higher standard over a longer period of time, coupled with the benefit from having one less reason to stop the game and have everyone standing around like goats, and the associated tactical benefits that this seems to bring at certain points in a game, there is a reason why rolling substitutions will have a positive impact on the game.

    Very few laws of any game solve anything outright on their own. Rules are part of a more nuanced overall approach which when applied correctly and consistently have a holistic effect on the game.
    The rules of association football are in many cases badly written, open to interpretation in a financial climate which demands certainty and consistency and are subject to a playing body who will use any minor inconsistency or uncertainty to their benefit whether that is the correct action or not. (The last point is not exclusive to football in any way as this forum repeatedly shows.)
     
  4. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    2,106
    Likes Received:
    820
    It is unsporting behaviour as demonstrated by my last post.
    The word "simulation" only appears once on page 125 in the extract I posted. There is nothing at all to rule out simulation or feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled if contact has occurred, because as you said, contact is fine. Contact which is careless, reckless or uses excessive force (these three descriptors are the exact ones in the football rules) is a foul and should be appropriately penalised, otherwise there is nothing to penalise.

    That is not held-up by the wording of the rules or the interpretation section further on in the rules.
    It could be said to be merely conjecture. It would be grossly unfair if someone who picked the rule-book up and read, understood it and applied it were not party to a secret section which only special people get which actually and materially changed the meaning of certain rules. Not even FIFA operate like that.

    No you didn't. I wasn't very clear.

    Correct, but barging is allowed if the ball is within playing distance. My unclear use of non-contact was meant to indicate the cry of "he touched me" when a player catapults themselves up in the air and claims they were shot.

    Playing a ball into a player's foot is not mentioned and nothing in that statement or the accompanying and subsequent editions of the rules of hockey indicate that playing a ball into a player's foot (if not unsafe/violent etc.) is a foul.
     
  5. sanabas

    sanabas FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,726
    Likes Received:
    1,050
    Perfectly practical. Would no doubt have some specific questions that'd need to be decided upon for it to work well, but still perfectly practical. A player with a suspected injury can be replaced while they are assessed, even if the team has used up all its subs. A player who goes off to be assessed can come straight back on for the person who replaced them without it counting against the sub limit. Easy. Tennis manages it. Got a suspected injury, allowed to have a medical timeout to get looked at. Simply cramping up, you don't. Rugby does it. Prop gets suspected injury, they can be replaced by a prop who has already subbed off, despite rugby having similar setup to soccer. I suspect every sport with both a subs limit and a blood rule manages it too.

    And it needs to be a 3 sub limit why?

    And we need breaks in play for subs why?

    It's always the last 2 minutes of a tied game that are really, really, exciting, let's just make all games 2 minutes long, so we can have the most exciting bits with players at their freshest.

    I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about how all sports should do this a particular way. About how it's always a better spectacle, less chance of the game petering out and not being exciting at the finish when players have repeated short breaks.

    Exactly why does the game NEED to be stopped for the referee to keep track of subs? As a hockey umpire, I give zero stuffs about how many subs a team has used. If they sneak a 19th player out there, I am going to neither notice nor care.

    Almost none of what I said in my last post is specific to soccer. But every bit of it you've replied to talks about how soccer does things, as though all sports have those same limitations. You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension that soccer is the only sport in the world. Despite kicking this particular discussion off by saying that
    My emphasis added. Soccer has a stupid rule. Soccer should change that stupid rule. No worries. Agree with you.

    But whether soccer keeps or changes said stupid rule about the timing of the final whistle has nothing at all to do with the general question of repeated subs vs a player hits the showers once they sub off for the first time. I don't care what soccer does. I don't like soccer. Changing the big things I don't like about it would make it not-soccer. The smaller things I don't like it are similar to what you seem to not like, and I agree they should change them.


    No, I don't agree that most of it is relevant. You put two sets of 3 points. #1 in each are sweeping generalisations which I don't think are always true. #2 & #3 in both are problems that are independent of subs, and therefore not relevant. Plus I very much dispute that players won't try and hide injuries, and that clubs won't pressure players into playing on when injured. Because the available evidence from sports like aussie rules and rugby league is that they'll do both. Because having 1 less rotation available from your bench is significant, as is losing one of your top players.

    Rolling subs are not inherently better for every sport. There are sports that don't use rolling subs, and changing to them would make things significantly different. e.g. baseball or rugby. There are sports that do use them, and changing away from them would be completely impractical, and again a fundamental change. e.g. ice hockey, aussie rules, american football. Switching to rolling subs *might* improve some of the issues you raise about soccer. But most of the issues would be better addressed by addressing the actual problem, e.g. time-wasting, nobody knowing when the game will end, referee pausing to make notes about stuff better managed by those on the sideline, etc.
     
  6. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,653
    Likes Received:
    509
    Have to agree to disagree then Krebsy, the way the top leagues (PL, Champions League, European Championships, World Cup etc) all operate is that the only simulation that people are booked for is diving, not for pretending to be injured from an actual foul with retrospective punishment possible now.

    The guidance (Fifa directive, World Cup 2006, Germany) was

    Blatant simulation is a mandatory caution; if there is minimal contact, consider a caution.
     
  7. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    2,106
    Likes Received:
    820
    It doesn't need to be a three sub limit. But it is. Therefore we must have breaks in play for substitutions to allow the referee to ensure that the correct number are being used.
    If we have any limit, then there has to be a record and there has to be a break in play.
    If we have infinite subs which means we don't need a record to prevent cheating, then we have rolling subs.

    In football matches, for the most part, there's no one other than the referee and their assistants to take notes of these things, they are rather engaged as the game is going on and will need a break in play to be able to record this stuff.
    If in hockey we had a limit, any match without a bench would require breaks too. It is simple practicality.

    Baseball may not benefit from rolling subs. But soccer will.
    Baseball is a radically different sport.
    Cricket already has rolling subs for the fielding team. It does no harm. I don't know if baseball does or not.

    I'm not going to answer the middle bit because, with respect, there is no point.
     
  8. Inselaffen

    Inselaffen FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,424
    Likes Received:
    520
    Location:
    Back in the big sand pit.
    I think rolling subs would improve football as would getting rid of the offside rule. Rolling subs might eventually happen but I don't see offside ever going
     
  9. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,653
    Likes Received:
    509
    Nah offside would just lead to goal hanging and unattractive lumping the ball - while goalies do get some protection in football, remember you can challenge for an aerial so it would be beneficial to stick 2 players in the box around the keeper and just lump it in looking for deflections. It works in hockey because aerials are still of limited use outside the top levels and because the defence have the automatic right to the ball in that scenario unless the striker is clearly the initial receiver
     
  10. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    2,106
    Likes Received:
    820
    We could make the football out of hard plastic so that aerials are potentially dangerous and give the non lifting party the right to the ball.

    Change is bad. Down with new.
     
  11. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,653
    Likes Received:
    509
    Got enough issues with footballers getting dementia to try and turn it into hockey

    Flip side, why don't we allow competition for aerials in hockey, I'm sure players will be responsible!
     
  12. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    2,106
    Likes Received:
    820
    Generally flippant posts are not worth arguing with. Unless you cannot not argue. ;)
     

Share This Page