Dumbest rule in sports

[jdl22]

No it's taken where the offending player was. That's exactly why it's the a dumb rule (well the rule isn't dumb of course but the placement of the free kick). As I said I've never seen this actually played out. I could only see it in a match of children because they can't send the ball deep into the opponents end.

In general however I think that placing the free kick where the offending player was punishes the defensive team. The moral of the story is that if you're going to get called for offside then you should be well offside.

[jdl22]

Much like you I watched nearly every world cup match with groggy eyes. I'll see if I can find the match in question and let you know.

[JoeU]

That would be great. I should have some of the 2002 games on tape. I know I have all the US' 1st round games from 98 on tape (not like I'd like to watch that mess again [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]).

Joe

[jstnrgrs]

so basicly they play an extra period. If the score is still tied at the end of that period then they play another. Sounds like a good idea to me (assuming that sudden death is unaccatable).
The rule makers also suggested that games ending with a golden goal could create safety problems in the crowd
From what I have heard, just having a soccer match posses a safty problem.

[jdl22]

The problem I have with the silver goal rule is that it is neither here nor there. If you want to stop the match if a goal is scored I don't like it that much but it's fine. The same practice is used in the NFL and NHL (and perhaps a few lesser known sports I don't know). However when you say that maybe the match will end at this time, maybe some other time that strikes me as strange. It seems like being a compromise is the only benefit.

just my $.02

[ComedyLimp]

"1) Keep the official time on the stadium clock"

I dont think its really neccessary as there is 45 mins each half and then any extra time to be played is announced by the fourth official so you pretty much known as a spectator who much time is or isn't left.

There's also a long standing tradition in Football that the game should be essentially the same whether played professionally or in Amateur leagues on a Sunday morning. Hence there is resistance to rule changes that require something other than a pitch, two goals, 22 players and some officials. Also the Ref is considered the highest authority and FIFA are loathe to introduce anything that denudes that in even the slightest manner.

These reasons also mitigate against the use of TV Replay although it seems likely that sooner or later TV will be used for "Did the ball cross the line for a goal" type disputes.

"2) Stop the clock when the ball is not in play (to prevent teams from stalling). (Also the clock time should be reduced to go with this change.)"

It's not really neccessary. Persistent time wasters are punished with a yellow card and the referee will indicate that the time will be added on.

"3) Make substitutions faster"

I agree with this. Substitutions late in the game are often to use up time and are really annoying. I've seen players coming off take a long minute to slowly trudge off from the opposite side of the pitch and I'd force them off at the nearest point on the pitch.

"4) Eliminate diving."

That is already covered in the rules (FIFA calls it "Simulation") and its been a priority for the last few years that they re-emphasise at the start of each season and in the major competitions. Players now get regularly booked for diving. It might seem simple to just clamp down really hard and it will go away, but its actually very difficult to enforce. Blatant dives are relatively rare and often its more a case of a defender making contact with an attacker before the ball and the attacker going down when he could probably have stayed on his feet. Its a very tough call to make so in practice dives are only punished when there is no contact and the attack just flings himself to the ground.

"I sugest that if a player is hurt (or pretending to be hurt), he should be required to leave the field to get medical attention. His team could then either substitute for him, or play short handed while he is checked"

They are. Once the referee has ensured the player is not seriously hurt he will oblige the player and trainer to leave the pitch at the nearest point and the game will contiunue. The player must then re-enter the field of play at the half way line and only on the refs signal. Either way the injury time is added on by the 4th official.

"If a player who acts injured then gets back up and playes, he should be yellow carded"

Simulating injury is punishable by a yellow card.

"Speaking of which, there is no penalty for being yellow carded. I suggest that the player be required to leave the field for ten minutes during which time his team would have to play short handed"

"Sin bins" are an idea I support but I support it becuase the yellow card is too severe a penalty not too lenient. By which I mean that in major tournaments the later stages are often blighted by lots of players getting a second yellow card in the competition and having to miss a match. Hence the biggest games of the show piece tournaments are often deprived of great players and the offending team is too severely punished (losing a key player for a semi-final is a *very* severe punishment) for what often amounts to two badly judged but not malicious tackles. Also the team that was sinned against gets no actual benefit from a yellow card but owuld from a Sin Bin idea.

"Never decied a game with penalty kicks. I think they should just keep playing until someone scores"

I agree. I'd have 30 mins extra time and then 15 mins periods until there is a winner. If Football (NFL) and Baseball can last 4+ hours I'm not sure why we have to pretend to be in such a hurry to get it over with. We are after all only talking about major tournaments held once every other year and the importance and gravity of a World Cup makes deciding the game on penalties offensive. (In domestic Cups you can have replays for drawn games after extra times so the problem is less of an issue).

"At the start of over time, each team would be required to remove one player from the game (so that they are plying ten on ten). Every five minutes there after each team would be required to remove one more player"

This idea usually gets vetoed on the basis that the game quickly becomes something other than football as we know it when played short-handed. You problably couldn't go below 7-a-side on a full sized pitch without it getting a bit farcical and being reduced to hoof it into space and have your fastest striker run after it. It does have its proponents though and other than the play till there is a winner idea I think its the best alternative.

[jstnrgrs]

Thank you for making a thoughtful responce to my suggestions. I do agree with everything you said except for your comments on the clock issues, but as these are the smallest of the problems I mentioned I don't think it is a big deal. Your comments did, however, cause me to think of another major problem with soccer.

I think that no player should ever be suspended because of a call made by a referee in another game. In the middle of a game, the action is to fast, and there is to much chance that an official will get the call wrong. The ref should only be concerned with the game that he is officiating. Let the governing body review the tape and hand out suspensions. This is the way that it is done in most other sports.

[jayadd]

a pitcher is not allowed to wear a differnt color glove under his mitt or have any white from his elbow down. It is considered a distraction to the hitter.
According to MLBPA your peripheral's can not pick up the ball fast enough while camouflage and can be a danger to the hitter in terms of reation time.