Rule Change Idea...

[Chico]

A friend of mine suggested something the other day that I kind of like...

Free kicks inside the box are not an automatic penalty, direct free kick from inside the box is only a penalty IF it is DOGSO, otherwise just a direct free kick from where the infringement occurred.

Thoughts?

[Nice One Cyril]

A friend of mine suggested something the other day that I kind of like...

Free kicks inside the box are not an automatic penalty, direct free kick from inside the box is only a penalty IF it is DOGSO, otherwise just a direct free kick from where the infringement occurred.

Thoughts?

and have all 11 opposition players lined up on the goal line? That'd work well

[haywood djablowme]

and have all 11 opposition players lined up on the goal line? That'd work well

A lot like Mourinhos tactics

[Con M]

A friend of mine suggested something the other day that I kind of like...

Free kicks inside the box are not an automatic penalty, direct free kick from inside the box is only a penalty IF it is DOGSO, otherwise just a direct free kick from where the infringement occurred.

Thoughts?

and have all 11 opposition players lined up on the goal line? That'd work well

They're called Laws-of-the-Game, not rules. Refer to the other thread about requests for changes that made the 1st December 2014 deadline for IFAB's AGM.

[Chico]

A friend of mine suggested something the other day that I kind of like...

Free kicks inside the box are not an automatic penalty, direct free kick from inside the box is only a penalty IF it is DOGSO, otherwise just a direct free kick from where the infringement occurred.

Thoughts?

and have all 11 opposition players lined up on the goal line? That'd work well

I take your point but how else would we address the inequity of the penalty kick for "soft" fouls in the area?

[Bomber]

A friend of mine suggested something the other day that I kind of like...

Free kicks inside the box are not an automatic penalty, direct free kick from inside the box is only a penalty IF it is DOGSO, otherwise just a direct free kick from where the infringement occurred.

Thoughts?

and have all 11 opposition players lined up on the goal line? That'd work well

I take your point but how else would we address the inequity of the penalty kick for "soft" fouls in the area?

You do know that indirect free kicks can still apply in penalty area (for the supposed "soft" fouls you talk about)?

[Nice One Cyril]

A friend of mine suggested something the other day that I kind of like...

Free kicks inside the box are not an automatic penalty, direct free kick from inside the box is only a penalty IF it is DOGSO, otherwise just a direct free kick from where the infringement occurred.

Thoughts?

and have all 11 opposition players lined up on the goal line? That'd work well

I take your point but how else would we address the inequity of the penalty kick for "soft" fouls in the area?

Not sure about the inequity bit, but in general it's simple, teach your defenders not to make stupid and unneccessary challenges inside the area.

As an added incentive, we could also introduce retrospective 5 match bans for forwards that dive in the box, but that ain't gonna happen

[Nice One Cyril]

I take your point but how else would we address the inequity of the penalty kick for "soft" fouls in the area?

You do know that indirect free kicks can still apply in penalty area (for the supposed "soft" fouls you talk about)?

If you take the keeper out of the equation, that pretty much only leaves you obstruction, which most refs seem to give as fouls these days anyway.

[Bomber]

I take your point but how else would we address the inequity of the penalty kick for "soft" fouls in the area?

You do know that indirect free kicks can still apply in penalty area (for the supposed "soft" fouls you talk about)?

If you take the keeper out of the equation, that pretty much only leaves you obstruction, which most refs seem to give as fouls these days anyway.

And I'm amazed at the irregularity that this type of foul is given as such (silly as it is).

[Outlaw 2.0]

If you take the keeper out of the equation, that pretty much only leaves you obstruction, which most refs seem to give as fouls these days anyway.

And I'm amazed at the irregularity that this type of foul is given as such (silly as it is).

Love the defender "seeing the ball out" that basiccaly hip and shoulders the attacker away from the ball. Technically, foul.

[Nice One Cyril]

If you take the keeper out of the equation, that pretty much only leaves you obstruction, which most refs seem to give as fouls these days anyway.

And I'm amazed at the irregularity that this type of foul is given as such (silly as it is).

Love the defender "seeing the ball out" that basiccaly hip and shoulders the attacker away from the ball. Technically, foul.

That's bull because almost always the attacking player is climbing all over the back of the defender and it should be a foul 99% of the time. Even if the defender blocks him, it's obstruction, not a foul.

I wish refs would give fouls when players grab, you can put your arm out to block and hold a space, but it's not a game where use of your hands is allowed (keepers excepted).

[haywood djablowme]

If you take the keeper out of the equation, that pretty much only leaves you obstruction, which most refs seem to give as fouls these days anyway.

And I'm amazed at the irregularity that this type of foul is given as such (silly as it is).

Love the defender "seeing the ball out" that basiccaly hip and shoulders the attacker away from the ball. Technically, foul.

Time to change your sig/pic Outlaw. Defoe's on the weekend was better

[Raich Carter]

haywood djablowme
Time to change your sig/pic Outlaw. Defoe's on the weekend was better

Yes it was

[Old Master]

I can't recall seeing a foul given for obstruction in the penalty box for many years.

Obstruction should only be paid when the ball is not within "Playing Distance".

Many players get away with holding players back with their arms which is also illegal.