Well, fancy that . . .

[Ian_Cook]

What a difference a game makes:

Soccer: nothing much happens to the player, maybe a Free Kick

Rugby: Red Card and six to eighteen weeks suspension depending on severity

This is why they have this kind of behaviour, and we don't.

Another thing to think of is what effect would it have on the rest of the game ie would it help create a running game?

The perhaps they could consider making the nearest opposing player stand 20m back from the place of the kick instead of 10m

Of course, they can always make their YC like ours, a temporary suspension, say for 15 minutes.

 

[Jacko]

Soccer Refs deserve everything they get as they are spineless.
As far as I am aware foul and abusive language are yellow and red card offences in soccer.
All the have to do is apply the rules and the problen would be solved.

Bit harsh - they could say exactly the same thing about us and the scrum feed!
It's very hard to break from convention as an individual official. The only way to tackle this would be to address at the start of the season, having briefed the clubs extensively. The players would test the officials and the officials would need to have been reassured that they are not going to be dropped for booking most of the players out there. It would soon stop.

 

[FlipFlop]

Bingo JAcko.

If the FA/UEFA/FIFA had the will, then there would be a way. But currently there isn't the will.

 

[Dixie]

I commend Chopper on his idea of allowing the 10m to go in any direction in our game. I think that would be beneficial - but may slow things down as the ref would have to enquire as to direction before pacing out the distance and making the mark.

 

[OB..]

I commend Chopper on his idea of allowing the 10m to go in any direction in our game. I think that would be beneficial - but may slow things down as the ref would have to enquire as to direction before pacing out the distance and making the mark.

It is certainly worth thinking about and possibly trialling.

However would it not be simpler to say in the first place that any penalty within 15m of the touchline is brought in to the 15m line?

 

[Robert Burns]

It is certainly worth thinking about and possibly trialling.

However would it not be simpler to say in the first place that any penalty within 15m of the touchline is brought in to the 15m line?

10 m further forward, double whammy for opening your gob. Penalty is moved 10m forward and if outside the 15m take to it. No marching again, that's an automatic YC. :noyc:

 

[4eyesbetter]

The major problem that soccer had when they trialled the 10-yard rule is simple - they didn't get that it's a first-response tool to prevent players chirping at you. So they made it something that you did additionally to giving a caution for dissent, which occurs about as often as a lunar eclipse, and so of course nothing changed from it. The other objections, that was just extra crap that could have been sorted if they hadn't fundamentally misunderstood what the rule's for (and if the will to change things actually existed within the governing bodies).

 

[chopper15]

When a ref awards Blue a PK and Red has to be immediately sanctioned again he's usually warned or carded and the ref paces 10 forward, space permitting . . . . that's the LoG pay-off for TWO CONSECUTIVE FOULS against Blue.

Should a blue be immediately sanctioned he's also warned or carded, but . . . his side not only have a justified PK taken away from them, but the punishment is further compounded by having a PK awarded to the Red team who fouled them in the first place. And that is the considered LoG pay-off for only having committed ONE FOUL.

So, why not consider a 10 back, angled back or disadvantage laterally pacing sanction at the ref's descretion? The ref could then 'balance the equity book' by warning or carding Blue, rescinding the PK and marching them back 10 for a scrum . . . Red ball, of course. And the pay-off? . . . An equitable TIT-for-TAT PK ANNULMENT.:hap:

 

[OB..]

When a ref awards Blue a PK and Red has to be immediately sanctioned again he's usually warned or carded and the ref paces 10 forward, space permitting . . . . that's the LoG pay-off for TWO CONSECUTIVE FOULS against Blue.

Should a blue be immediately sanctioned he's also warned or carded, but . . . his side not only have a justified PK taken away from them, but the punishment is further compounded by having a PK awarded to the Red team who fouled them in the first place. And that is the considered LoG pay-off for only having committed ONE FOUL.

You are treating all fouls as being equal. They are not. Red is offside: penalty. Red complains: 10m forward. Red player is slow retiring so Blue kicks him: reverse the penalty.

So, why not consider a 10 back, angled back or disadvantage laterally pacing sanction at the ref's descretion? The ref could then 'balance the equity book' by warning or carding Blue, rescinding the PK and marching them back 10 for a scrum . . . Red ball, of course. And the pay-off? . . . An equitable TIT-for-TAT PK ANNULMENT.:hap:

Arbitrary, complicated, and unnecessary. You are taking an academic rather than a practical view of a situation which does not happen all that often anyway.

 

[chopper15]

Thanks for the considered reply OB. Appreciated.