Question Number: 30044

Other 1/24/2016

RE: Intermediate Under 13

Phil of Tarzana, CA United States asks...

This question is a follow up to question 30038

It sounds like a lot of good changes in the rewrite. I think one of the most important will be to allow an injured player to receive treatment on the FOP, so that the offending team doesn't gain an advantage by injuring a player.

I suppose they could also allow a temporary substitution that wouldn't count against the number of subs if the injure player came back within 5 minutes. That would prevent delays. However, teams always seem to find a way to take advantage of a 'cure' & a player could feign a more serious injury to allow a 5 minute rest.

One change I would like to see is that persistent infringement against the same opponent be a team foul that could result in a red card. Right now, teams are encouraged to take out the best opponent by having their players take turns fouling. To me, this violates the spirit of the game. After a couple yellow cards for reckless fouls against the same opponent, a red card for the next player that fouls the same opponent would put a stop to this.

This would prevent the sort of tactic that happened when Athletic Club kept fouling Neymar (Yes, I'm a Barcelona fan).

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Phil
We all have little changes that we would like to see that we believe would help the game. It is wishful thinking and highly unlikely as the game is slow take make changes. As to your suggestion many times a player probably only comes in contact with a small group of players. If there has been say three / four cautions in that group it is unlikely that the player will be fouled again. Also a team cannot afford many more as the high risk of dismissal plus many ROCs have a pretty heavy fine for excessive cautions. If I got the sense of targeting in a game there would be zero tolerance on any foul. These are some of my suggestions
1. Sin Bin for cautions.
2. Use it or lose it. Time wasting on a throw in, goal kick would result in a turnover rather than a caution.
3. Kick off could be taken when the kicking team is ready to do so. Tardy players whose only aim is to delay are ignored.
4. Timing like rugby with the referee deciding when a countdown public clock is stopped / started.
5. Game is finished when the ball next goes out of play when time expires.
And finally offside. No offside on any pass inside the penalty area. The intention of offside was to prevent players loitering in the opponents half The modern game has no requirement for that and we see too many attacking situations inside the penalty area ruled out for a technical offside. If a team can get inside the penalty area with the ball then no player if off his side and not should be called offside.
This offside decision caused a major row.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pzLjQ0SAcJw&t=1m12s
Technically it was offside yet IMHO that was never the purpose of the offside law to penalise such situations. Had AR Mike Mullarkey not made a technical error in missing this offside the goal would have been ruled out. We talk of rewarding attacking play and creating more goals. Why limit the opportunities to do so inside the penalty area. Okay if a team can push up towards half way attackers who are left behind are in offside positions and that is what the law should deal with only.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Phil,
there are changes coming but in reference to the one you mention look for greater scrutiny as to caution for exaggeration,
I like your attitude on the red card, it is not without substance, a referee can choose his tools, even a careless foul if I though it was a targeted move gets bumped to caution so a reckless foul on a targeted player could be seen as SFP. or a double yellow one for the reckless one for the USB of targeting a player as a tactical event over and above the force of the foul itself.
As I keep saying lets wait till the cards are dealt before we play the hand.
Cheers