Παρακατω και η δικια μου αποψη την οποια εγραψα στο ξενο φορουμ.
Ειναι στα αγγλικα και σορυ που δεν εχω την ενεργεια να κατσω εδω να την γραψω ξανα στα ελληνικα.
The following is my opinion.
First I have to say THAT I AGREE in general with changes. NO sport can stay the same forever as we can very easily see (i.e. new ball in football, goalkeeper
can not block the ball when a defender passes the ball to him, in basketball they change the 3-pointer line, the attack time is 24, even last year the team who gets a foul can not renew the time to 24secs, in volleyball a few years ago there was no "libero" player. I can write examples forever!! I hope you get the point)
So I can not understand people who "object" without any reason or logical explanation.
On the other hand I believe that they real reason for changes should be the following:
[size=14pt]We have identified "problematic cases" which are also very common cases. Which happen very often (statistically).
Cases for example, in which we have players who exploit the "rules" and somehow "cheat" or do not play as "sportsmen". So we need to find rules to "fight" this phenomenon[/size].
Based on the above, I do not think for example that Case 4 is an important change which adds something. Losing the goalkeeper is not a very common scenario, moreover it adds mathematical calculations ("you now have 3, ooops no you have 4 more moves") and makes the game more complicated.
I will comment on the proposals based on the above assumption (large font).
1) No stop and wait the block of the defender player after a throw in if the ball remaining in the same quarter.
Reason for the change: Throw in is a foul that looks like a corner or a free kick. It is not logic to wait if the ball after the throw in, remain in the same quarter. Often, particularly in the final phase of the match the throw in became an excuse only for losing time.
2) Chance for the attacker player to decide the number of the movements before a free kick, a corner or a throw in. (Example: The attacker ha ve the chance to make from 0 to 3 movements before a corner. He decides for 2 and the defender player have only two blocks.)
Reason for the change: The attacker player has the possibility to flick very quickly a corner in order to create a surprise to the defender player. In all the sports there is the possibility to restart the game for having the surprise advantages. Moreover in this way we can avoid all the loose of time of the player that is winnning the match and use this time for making his block very slowly.
Cases 1 and 2 mainly try to "prevent" the extra time the defender will spend on purpose, especially near the end of the match. I also find it unacceptable that (REAL SCENARIO!!!) 30 secs before the end of the game, that the opponent (defender) gave his hand to my teammate because he had won a corner kick!!! Unacceptable!!! The same case with free kicks a few secs before the end which is difficult to be sure if they are on purpose to stop the attacker.
My own proposal was that we should always give a chance to the attacker to do the free kick, throw in, corner kick, no matter if the time has passed.
The referee should give some extra time or allow for example 2-3 flicks to be made by the attacker (i.e the corner/throw/free kick plus 1 or 2 more)
If the defender still is giving free kicks then he should be punished with a direct kick.
I believe that it is not nice AND NOT REALISTIC to end the game when there is no game played!!! (because the defender spends days!!! to do his flicks)
At the same time I like the idea that the attacker can choose the number of flicks for throw in, corner kick and free kick, which is more realistic.
But this is my personal opinion.
The important thing is to FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THE PROBLEMATIC CASES, as well as TO PROTECT PLAYERS from UNFAIR OPPONENTS
3) Direct free kick if the defender make a freekick during the attempt to shoot of attacker player.
Reason for change: Often many players intentionally make a free kick to avoid the attenpt of shoot made by the attacking player. We must punish this type of behaviouring.
This is very difficult to judge. Also many times it is the attacker who is trying intentionally to get a free kick. For example I have only one flick left, so I flick the ball,
and while the ball is moving I flick a player from far (a shot in the dark! most of the times) and out of nowhere I am awarded with a free kick !!!
Imagine if (using the case 3) you are awarded with a direct kick!!! Totally unfair.
At the same time (as in all the sports) we see that INTENTIONAL fouls exist. And most of the times are not even punished differently.
I believe that it is really very difficult to judge when a defensive move is correct or incorrect.
If we add this rule, then it is as if we are saying to the defender not to try to defend.
4) Only five flicks for the attacker player if the goalkeeper miss the ball, before the goalkeeper come back to the goal.
Reason for change: It is not fair nor realistic to assist to an action of five minutes only to have the chance of an easy shoot when the goalkeeper of our opponent it is out of the goal. The attacker player have only five flicks before the goalkeeper of our opponent come back into the goal.
As I said I do not think that this is a common scenario. Therefore is has lower priority compared to other cases.
5) Only 2,30 minutes, not including blocks and stops, are allowed to the attacker player for shooting.
Reason for change: Very often, particularly in team competition, we assist to long actions made only with the intention to control the ball. There are players that keep the ball for more than 5 minutes. To avoid this behaviour the attack players have only 2 minutes and 30 to go to the shoot. After this time the referee calls a free kick. When there is a stop or a block the referee stops his chronometer.
Ok! I like the "reason for change", but I also think that the proposed solution will create more problems.
In todays subbuteo I think that it is very easy for a player to keep the possesion for 5 or more minutes.
Especially if we have hopes to make the sport televised, it would be really ridiculous to have players flicking the ball around for the last 5 or 10 minutes of the
game just in order to spend time.
The rule EXISTS already in the book. But the problem is that the refs do not follow it.
The refs should "press" the attacker to attack and try to shoot in a reasonable time by saying that they will punish him.
I did it as a ref and the attacker HAD to listen to me, or else I would have given the ball to his opponent.
It is that simple.
Also one case that I would also like to discuss and I would be interested to know what other players think as well as the FISTF BoD
is the very "grey" case of PUTTING THE FINGER AND FICKING BETWEEN our figure and the defender figure when the distance between them is minimal!!!!!
In most of the cases the skin of the finger touches the defenders base (who obviously managed to block the attacking figure with his move) but the ref
can not see this. In most of the case the flick is not even correct (based on the definition of legal flick). Players with very very long nails have advantage because
they can touch somehow the base from top.
This way even the best defensive block becomes useless!!!!!
My proposal (which is very simple to be checked by the ref!!!) would be to allow the attacker to flick the figure (putting the finger in between) only:
if he can position his flicking finger between the figures AND BEING ABLE TO TOUCH THE PITCH with his finger
or (if the above is "too much")
to be allowed to flick only if the distance between the 2 figure bases is at least 9for example) 0.5 cm. I have seen bases almost touching , and somehow the flick was legal!!! How is it possible to flick?
I find it ridiculous! Then what is the reason of the defensive block?
BE CAREFUL! I did not say to prevent the flicking. I just say that you can not put your finger between the figures. You can just put it anywhere else!
I hope that you understand the case. And I wish if we could discuss it further.