Law-makers reject fourth substitution proposal
By Mike Collett
BELFAST (Reuters) - Football's rule-making body, the International Football Association Board (IFAB), rejected the idea of a fourth substitution in extra time on Saturday but is considering dropping the one-match ban for "triple punishments".
The body, which consists of the four British associations and four from football's world governing body FIFA, also wants more time to discuss video trials being carried out in the Netherlands by the Dutch FA (KNVB).
The fourth substitute proposal, requiring a change to Law 3, did not get approval but will be referred back for further analysis by IFAB's newly-introduced advisory panels.
There are concerns it would lead to demands for an even greater number of substitutions during matches.
However, one significant change to Law 3 was approved allowing "return substitutions" in grassroots and amateur football following trials by the English and Scottish FAs.
This means players who have come off will be allowed to return to the field later in the game.
Irish FA chief executive Patrick Nelson told a news briefing: "We think this is a ground-breaking decision that will have a significant effect on the way grassroots football is played by thousands of amateur and recreational players".
HARSH PUNISHMENT
The controversial triple punishment applies when a player concedes a penalty, is sent off and is then banned for one match for denying a clear scoring chance in the penalty area.
IFAB agreed, in principle, that the one-match ban was too strong a sanction and could be dropped.
Nelson explained: "IFAB agrees that this triple punishment is too harsh and we must find a solution. A proposal from UEFA that a yellow card rather than a red card should be shown was rejected.
"But after significant discussion it was agreed that FIFA's Disciplinary and Legal Committees should investigate the removal of the automatic one-match ban."
If that process is completed in time to be approved by the FIFA Congress in May, the change will apply next season.
UEFA was not happy with the rejection of its proposal for a yellow card rather than a red to be shown nor with IFAB's plans to drop the one-match ban, saying the body had missed the point.
"UEFA would like to express its extreme disappointment with the decision taken by IFAB to reject our provision regarding ‘triple punishment’," said European football's governing body..
"The problem with the current law is the mandatory sanction of a red card, which in many cases is too harsh and has a killing effect on the games.
"Therefore, we also fundamentally disagree with the IFAB's view regarding the one-game suspension, since we feel it totally misses the point," it added in a statement.
The Dutch FA wanted to extend an experiment which involves a video assistant watching a TV monitor and liaising with the referee via a headset to help him make the right decision on crucial plays.
They hope to use the system in their Cup competition but the idea was also referred back for further discussion.
IFAB, formed in 1886, pre-dates FIFA's founding by 18 years, and is the game's ultimate law-making body with proposed changes needing a 75 percent majority to make it into the statute book.
(Editing by Martyn Herman and Ken Ferris)