FRC Feedback - poll on new rules - which do you like least?

[thewobbler]

I'd harbour a guess that as referees have almost never blown time when a 45 has been awarded, it's a continuation of that ethos.

It's a bit daft though if you ask me.

[David McKeown]

What is the exact rule on finishing regarding 45's?  I can't find it in the rule book

[flowerpot]

What is the exact rule on finishing regarding 45's?  I can't find it in the rule book

     depends on what one you are looking at, published one, refs one, managers one, one in Eammons head.

[onefineday]

Not sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

[tbrick18]

Not sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

[Keyser soze]

Would be interesting to see an analysis of the games so far and see if there would have been any different results without the 2 pointers.

No, I'm too lazy to do it.

[Milltown Row2]

Not sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

[Rossfan]

The "terms of strategy and defensive play" were the main ingredients in the boring chess matches of recent years.
I like good defending too....but only when you have to.
Hopefully they keep implementing the steps/overholding to give individual defenders a more level playing field.

[twohands!!!]

The "terms of strategy and defensive play" were the main ingredients in the boring chess matches of recent years.
I like good defending too....but only when you have to.
Hopefully they keep implementing the steps/overholding to give individual defenders a more level playing field.

So much of the defending the last few years was simply all about getting a 2nd or 3rd player around the player in possession to bottle them up. When a side got a lead it was all about wasting time and slowing the game down as much as possible. 

[tbrick18]

Not sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

Some teams will be able to compete equally for the ball from a long kickout and others wont.
The days of the underdog winning out are few and far between if they continuously have to kick the ball into an area of the field where they can't win it.
From when we are playing underage football, if there's a big man in the middle catching every ball we're told to keep the ball away from him, now we're saying too bad, kick it out there anyway.
Every team will have it's strengths and weaknesses and I think what this new rule says is that if you're strong in that middle 3rd you will have the advantage over teams that might have better defenders or better forwards. So 8ish players in the middle of the field are what decides the game. There's now more weight being given to having strong midfield type players than there is to the rest of the players. That's not right imo, but I appreciate others have a different view on that.

On the goalkeeper positioning question, I never knew the keeper had to have a keeper jersey, so what you're saying makes sense there.  I was wondering why managers didn't try some move with re-positioning players so that the GK could receive a backpass - now I know.

[trileacman]

I hate the rule banning a keepers involvement. I think it's such a negative regressive rule. Like if Morgan or Beggan are coming bombing out of defence why should they be punished for playing a 1/2 or supporting an attack?

I agree the pass back to the keeper was a problem but it in itself should have been outlawed. I.e a keeper who just takes possession and shovelling it out to one side. But in a rule book littered with subjective interpretations it wouldn't have been hard to let keepers receive possession so long as they are using it in an attacking movement and not simply holding onto possession.

[twohands!!!]

I hate the rule banning a keepers involvement. I think it's such a negative regressive rule. Like if Morgan or Beggan are coming bombing out of defence why should they be punished for playing a 1/2 or supporting an attack?

I agree the pass back to the keeper was a problem but it in itself should have been outlawed. I.e a keeper who just takes possession and shovelling it out to one side. But in a rule book littered with subjective interpretations it wouldn't have been hard to let keepers receive possession so long as they are using it in an attacking movement and not simply holding onto possession.

It's not a rule against goalkeepers involvement - it's a rule against allowing 12 attackers versus 11 defenders. Goalies can still be involved they just can't have the advantage of being unmarked.

Given how much the goalie position was used to waste time and just play keep ball I can totally see why the FRC put restrictions on them playing the ball in their own half.

I'm struggling to think of how you would word any rule that would let keepers receive possession so long as they are using it in an attacking movement and not simply holding onto possession.

Seems like to would be an awful mess trying to have a ref decide when a goalie is actually contributing to an attack in their own half versus just pretending to contribute to an attack to waste time.

Also taking the keeper out as an option for passes in their own half as really increased the incentive for pushing up and putting the opposition under pressure in their own half as opposed to just turning tail and sprinting back inside their own half.

The keeper can still play in the opposition half, his team just need to have 4 players back in defence.

[The Trap]

How many new rules are we up to now?
Started with 49 but would need about 10 new ones around the hooter alone!

No wonder there is a referree crisis brewing.

[David McKeown]

Not sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

A goalkeeper can be tackled in the small square. He just can't receive a shoulder charge.

[Milltown Row2]

Not sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

A goalkeeper can be tackled in the small square. He just can't receive a shoulder charge.

They can tackle but, any, and I mean touch that's not on the ball is a free out, as you have rightly said, the only physical tackle allowed in the game never mind just on the keeper in the square is shoulder to shoulder, that's it in a nutshell.

So this is why McColdrick was saying that the tackle isn't an easy thing to define