What Rule Change Would You Suggest?

[Jimboyjones1976]

Phoned into Clyde last week regarding the Jordan Jones diving retrospective ban only to be followed on the show by some jumped up Killie fan who straight away dived into a bit of whataboutery without even listening to what I was saying.

Anyhows, my suggestion was this. Using the Jones case as an example, the whole thing overlooked the fact that when retrospective bans are handed out, the team (in this case Dundee who were cheated against) are the ones who don’t benefit from the punishment handed down. The next two teams to play Killie benefit instead. 

My suggestion was that when a retrospective red card or ban is handed out, the team the player played for should play from the start with 10 men for the period of time the player should’ve been off for in the next meeting of the two teams. That way it addresses the fact they were wronged and also allows them the chance against ten men that they should’ve had in the first place. I would also keep the 2 game ban too.

Got me thinking what rules the rest of you would change in the game?

[kennysmassiveego]

What were you wasn’t saying ? 

[Ludo*1]

Following on from your idea, I wouldn't use a sin-bin idea, I'd use a flat ban for the player the next time the two teams play against each other.

Rule I'd change is that all top flight clubs should operate a multi-ball system (I've only picked top flight due to cost, preferably I'd have every club utilise it). I get pissed off waiting for the ball boys fetching the ball in far off locations and it also allows teams to manipulate time wasting as well.

[Fony Titz]

Get rid of offside rule.

[Ira Gaines]

Being able to celebrate with your own supporters shouldn't be a bookable offense. Neither should the tops coming off.

On a kinda related note, celebrating in front of the opposition fans should be actively encouraged.

[RussellAnderson]

I'd make the backpass rule stricter. 

Even if there's a deflection/ricochet/accidental touch using a foot, and the keeper handles it - indirect free kick. 

I love indirect free kicks in the box. More pls. 

[7-2]

21 minutes ago, Jimboyjones1976 said:

Phoned into Clyde last week regarding the Jordan Jones diving retrospective ban only to be followed on the show by some jumped up Killie fan who straight away dived into a bit of whataboutery without even listening to what I wasn’t saying.

Anyhows, my suggestion was this. Using the Jones case as an example, the whole thing overlooked the fact that when retrospective bans are handed out, the team (in this case Dundee who were cheated against) are the ones who don’t benefit from the punishment handed down. The next two teams to play Killie benefit instead. 

My suggestion was that when a retrospective red card or ban is handed out, the team the player played for should play from the start with 10 men for the period of time the player should’ve been off for in the next meeting of the two teams. That way it addresses the fact they were wronged and also allows them the chance against ten men that they should’ve had in the first place. I would also keep the 2 game ban too.

Got me thinking what rules the rest of you would change in the game?

I'd ban from P&B anyone that actually calls a Clyde phone-in. 

[Jambo99]

1 hour ago, Jimboyjones1976 said:

Phoned into Clyde last week regarding the Jordan Jones diving retrospective ban only to be followed on the show by some jumped up Killie fan who straight away dived into a bit of whataboutery without even listening to what I wasn’t saying.

Anyhows, my suggestion was this. Using the Jones case as an example, the whole thing overlooked the fact that when retrospective bans are handed out, the team (in this case Dundee who were cheated against) are the ones who don’t benefit from the punishment handed down. The next two teams to play Killie benefit instead. 

My suggestion was that when a retrospective red card or ban is handed out, the team the player played for should play from the start with 10 men for the period of time the player should’ve been off for in the next meeting of the two teams. That way it addresses the fact they were wronged and also allows them the chance against ten men that they should’ve had in the first place. I would also keep the 2 game ban too.

Got me thinking what rules the rest of you would change in the game?

hibs, celtic and rangers should lose every game. 

[LiviLion]

Results should clearly be decided by the club's support.

[ropy]

3 corners a penalty

[Melanius Mullarkey]

8 hours ago, kennysmassiveego said:

What were you wasn’t saying ? 

Not enough imo

[Dominique Malonga]

If there’s a 50/50 Decision, then the referee should give the Catholic teams the benefit of the doubt.

[Oscar P]

Goal kicks should be taken from the side they were conceded at, as corners are.

Reduce time wasting by goalkeepers.

[Busta Nut]

these threads often make your mind up on who the arseholes are, there'll be someone who you are unsure if their opinion is decent or a bit wanky then they suggest something daft like sin bins or an orange card or something shite.

[Dons_1988]

The absolute nerve of someone to not listen to what he wasn't saying.

[Jacksgranda]

Celtic and Rangers to get only 2 points for a win.

[Bonksy+HisChristianParade]

9 hours ago, Jimboyjones1976 said:

Phoned into Clyde last week regarding the Jordan Jones diving retrospective ban only to be followed on the show by some jumped up Killie fan who straight away dived into a bit of whataboutery without even listening to what I wasn’t saying.

Anyhows, my suggestion was this. Using the Jones case as an example, the whole thing overlooked the fact that when retrospective bans are handed out, the team (in this case Dundee who were cheated against) are the ones who don’t benefit from the punishment handed down. The next two teams to play Killie benefit instead. 

My suggestion was that when a retrospective red card or ban is handed out, the team the player played for should play from the start with 10 men for the period of time the player should’ve been off for in the next meeting of the two teams. That way it addresses the fact they were wronged and also allows them the chance against ten men that they should’ve had in the first place. I would also keep the 2 game ban too.

Got me thinking what rules the rest of you would change in the game?

Ridiculous rule. How about you stick to Specsavers and I’ll do the game mate. 

[Squirrelhumper]

My bet hate is referees inability to understand the rules regarding throw ins. Must be 2 or 3 foul throws every game, yet none are ever pulled back.

 

[nsr]

Teams to be docked points for fan misbehaviour.

[Widge]

My bet hate is referees inability to understand the rules regarding throw ins. Must be 2 or 3 foul throws every game, yet none are ever pulled back.
 

I think it’s our referees. There was a game in Europe saints played where the same fullback committed a foul throw every time he took it. Referee pulled him up 3/4 times in the match, so much so I think one of his teammates took over. It’s the simplest rule to implement and referees should start with the easy ones surely!