Conference trucks::football;1

    I would say that he would have to disallow the goal and send the
    offending player off.
    
    However, I would imagine a high percentage of refs would `bottle' it
    and give him a stern lecture.
    
    Either way, it would end up with Kalashnekofs (sp?) being handed out
    amongst the coaching staff of both sides.
    
    Tony
    

Methinks, that if the foul was bad enough, play should be stopped for the card, 
else the ref(god bless 'em all), should give the chap a chat, and the next time 
he touches a player, send him off.


 What's more likely though, is that the ref will book another player on the same 
side for a harmless tackle a little while later.


 Mad

    
    Yet another clear case for the copying the rule in rugby...where the
    ref can play advantage bit stop the game as soon as he see's "no
    advantage gained" ....that would be when Arsenal got the ball back.
    The ref then takes play back to where the offence was committed, but
    sends Wright off before ManU take the free.....makes loadsa sense.
    
    Trevor

    As .4 and .5 are "being written", there may be note collision here.  I
    have to say that the goal counts and the player (Wright?) gets shown
    his second yellow followed by the red (the rule is written this way to
    let folks know that he did not commit a red card offense but rather two
    yellow card ones)
    
    			Jeff

    As the poser of the question - I question whether the goal should
    stand. The player shouldnot have been on the field. I would disallow
    the goal, show the yellow & red and give a free kick where the second
    offence took place.
    
    Paul

    >As the poser of the question - I question whether the goal should
    >stand. The player shouldnot have been on the field. I would disallow
    >the goal, show the yellow & red and give a free kick where the second
    >offence took place.
    
    Agreed, although I think that the current ruling is more along the line
    of what Jeff stated in .5. Actually, I agree with Trevor (don't let it
    go to your head now, Trevor;-))...what on earth is there to stop us
    copying the rugby union code on this one?
    
    Dom

    
    Dom, Paul....think I've been advocating this for a zillion year
    (actually played the game in schools level)....I liked this rule.
    Another one...and sorry if I'm getting boring on this....in rugger,
    when a team fails to stand the regulation 10 yards back from the ball,
    the ref will blow again, penalising them ANOTHER 10 yards...and this
    can go on and on and on. I watched ~50 yds movement one day without a
    ball being kicked (or should I say handled !). Normally though, this
    works SO well that no time wasting happens. It speeds up the game and
    doesn't allow a defence to illegally buy time to allow re-grouping,
    THAT in itself make it much more exciting when a free is awarded.
    
    Why the hell don't FIFA and UEFA ever listen to me huh ?????
    
    Trevor (aspiring rule setter...or is it perspiring ?)

I thought FIFA were going to change the advantage rule so it was more like 
rugby's i.e there must be an advantage, or the game is brought back tothe 
offence.

Re the example though, surely Jeff's explanation is the only credible one? You 
can't disallow a goal just because the referee WANTs to send someone off. If 
he's on the field, then he's entitled to score. In this case, the game should 
have been stopped earlier.

grahame

Sorry 'bout the write-locked .4 and .5. Seems the network hiccupped.
What I tried to post follows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, boy. I think that I will post this one to SOCREF-L. Bound 
to distract people from the interminable off-side debates.

Two possible play scenarios resulting in a send-off:
1) After allowing "play-on", no immediate advantage is obtained 
in the next 1-3 seconds. Blow the whistle. Call the foul. Send the 
bugger off. Restart with the DFK.

2) After allowing "play-on", the player maintains his advantage 
for several seconds before being dispossessed (or having his shot 
rebound out). IMNSHO, stop play at this point. Issue the card. 
Restart with a drop ball (sorry, that's all the Law allows).

If the foul were of a nature that it would immediately draw a 
red, then there had damn well be a 99% opportunity for a goal 
before I consider advantage. OTOH, a cautionable action which 
allows advantage (such as shirt-pulling from which a player 
extricates himself) should be dealt with when the ball goes out 
of play or when the direction of attack changes. Not in the Laws 
of the Game, but in keeping with the Spirit of the Game.

-nat (referee and player - dr. jekyll and mr. hyde)

    I agree with Nat (-.1).  Both case 1 and 2 are exactly what I'd DO!  
    
    However, Nat, doesn't the book say that you'd give the Red card "..at the 
    next stoppage of play...?"
    
    What would be your explaination for blowing the whistle, & stopping
    play on a delayed penalty?  (Of course you don't need an excuse to
    do whatever you want!).
    
    Of course, if you don't blow the whistle, any goal scored by the "To be
    red carded" player is valid!
    
    
    					Jeff

I wonder if one of the arm-chair ref's out there can sort this out.

 What is written down in the bible of ref's about being on a teammates shoulders 
on the 6-yard area for a corner ?, or lifting a player up to head the ball similar 
to a rugby line out ? Is it the old 'ungentlemanly conduct' get-out clause ?

Thoughts

Mad

    
    Re -1 
    
    Indeed it is
    
    Pj

Why ?, seems like a perfectly good rule to me.


But, What if, the player plays the whole match with another on his shoulders ?, 
therefore he no longer has an unfair advantage ?



Mad

Watching SKY last night, there was a good discussion on Referee's,etc

 Some good points which I can't remember/be bothered to list, but a good point 
was made by David Elleray, he came up with the Idea of a sin-bin for players to 
remove the yellow and red cards, a player may get 5 mins for a shirt-pull and 30 
mins for a head-butt, or something like that.

 His reckoning was that if A fouled B, and then A was booked. Assuming the 
resulting points made A ineligible for the next match, then it may be B's rivals 
who get the advantage of the player being unavailable.Whereas if A was 
sin-binned then player B would get the immediate advantage.

 A good counter point by Butch Wilkins, that the players being pumped up and 
then stopping for 5 mins could increase stiffness (!?), and more likely 
injuries.

 Any thoughts out there ?

 And please, no lines about splitting the game into 4 qtrs, mishaping the ball, 
picking it up and wearing pads. This is not a pro-change the game completely 
rule.

Mad

    Re .16
    
    Personally I think David Ellaray's point is right. I've seen situations
    where players have been brought down heading for goal, but because
    there was a defender near the goal the goalie (or whoever) only gets a
    yellow card, and all the attacking team has is a free kick. Hardly
    seems fair really, the next team the defenders play will have the
    advantage (if the goalie is suspended etc) because they fouled us! (If
    you follow that, I don't and I wrote it!)
    
    Any nonsense about causing more injuries, tosh, keep warming up when in
    the sin bin then, doh! The refs would still need the ability to eject
    someone from the game for good, sorry Monshieur Cantonah, bad boy for
    hong kong fueying that bloke, get in the bin for 10 minutes.
    
    As a general rule I don't really like things that change the gamme too
    much, especially things which are designed for TV, ie convinient breaks
    to schedule adverts in, making the goals bigger so we see more (crap)
    goals. If the yanks TV companies aren't really interested in football,
    then so bloody what? Anyways, (switch mode/rant=off), so long as it was
    thought out properly and trialled, I think this (sin bin) could be fairer,
    make for an exciting ten minutes when playing against Crystal Palace
    and 10 of the players are in the bin for 10 minutes!!!
    
    Alen.

  The one new rule I would like to see which was been mentioned in here
  somewhere is to allow the Ref to move a free kick up the field if the
  defending team doesn't quickly retire 10 yrds. This would keep the
  game flowing more and will cut back on the midfield foul on a player
  who is breaking from his own defence and catching the other team on
  the hop. so many times you see a break stopped because a foul is
  deliberately committed to give time for the rest of the defenders to
  get back.

  Rgds, Steve.

        In indoor soccer they already have the "sit in the penalty box" for X
    minutes rule.  It's kind of like ice hockey, with different amounts of
    penalty time for different fouls. (It's also like ice hockey with
    substitutions on the fly, rebounds off the boards, etc.)

    I think putting a player out for some amount of time is OK.  But for a
    one man ref system (that's what I get 99% of the time) it'd be hard to keep
    track of when the player could come back into the match (after x min.
    w/o my permission? after x minutes and then the next stoppage of play?)

    What do you do about a 5 min penalty with 2 minutes to play?  DO you
    notify the next team to bench the guy for the first 3 minutes? (This is
    NOT done in ice hockey).

    Not a bad suggestion.  Just needs some additional work. 

    
    One issue that would worry me. IF someone punched/headbutted and
    opponent and got the 30 min penalty....when he came back on I would
    imagine a few opponents would look for retribution, the crowd certainly
    would have a go....and likely incite even more violence.
    
    Na...leave the sending off alone for voilent conduct, it does a good
    job of relieving tension caused by the perpetrator....anyway, 30 mins
    is too lenient.
    
    Trevor 

 The timings that I put on where made up, as the ref on the TV didn't mention 
particulars. I must admit though, I think there would have to be another 
official to cover the sin-bin - though not a referee who would partake in other 
decisions.
 For violent conduct I think the player should be red carded(and have his head 
shaved,and have a carrot tattoed on his forehead).

 Still it's a idea worthy of a mention, even if it'll never be agreed by FIFA.
FIFA seem to feel that because the rules they bring out apply from Wembley to 
the local sunday kick abouts, anything that may mean a split in rules between 
full pro and amateur is unlikely to be agreed.


Still, Here's wishing.

Mad

p.s. Asrenal wouldnt need a sin-bin, they'd need a sin-skip 8-))

    Prolly just as well it won't get agreed, otherwise we'll have Alex
    Whingerson complaining about his boys having to freeze in the inferior
    sin bins in places like Sunderland. Whereas OT would of course have fur
    lined poofter parlours for bins.
    
    I still think this is a good idea, but retain the red card for more
    serious stuff. Dunno about the carrot bit though, how about a range of
    seasonal vegetables?
    
    Alen.

OK, maybe the carrot was a bit over the top.

Mad


p.s. mind you we could attach weights to their boots as a kind of 'handicap' for 
the season ?

p.p.s. that would mean certain players playing in diving boots by xmas though