FOOTBALL - IF YOU COULD CHANGE THE RULES?

Andy

Andy

Evoweb Jester/Stadboardmaker.
14 December 2006
Cyberspace
Liverpool
unnamed.jpg​
I have been meaning to start this thread for some time. Also after doing a search i haven't found one like this to post to.

As the title suggests "If you could change the rules" and had the power to change them, what in your opinion would better the game?

To start off i would put forward 2 changes....

The offside rule (when the ball is played forward)

If the receiving (offside) player collects the ball and then finds himself back onside with no CLEAR advantage (e,g defenders back behind the ball) in play, then play should be allowed to continue.


The points system

I still feel the points system could be bettered to promote more entertainment, here i put forward 2 options

Minimal change

Back to two points for a win, one for a draw, and 3 points being awarded only to any side who wins by a 3 or more goal margin.


Radical change

Two for a win, one for a draw, and three points+ bonus points for each goal added to the 3 goal margin (eg 5-0 = 5 points. 5-1 = 4 points. 4-2= 2 points) therefore losing teams still have something to play for. Going by the current system most teams would roll over at 3-0 0r 4-0 but with this system they could still make a difference.

These are thoughts i have had for some time, but it would be good to hear your views, on other rule changes as well has my own.
​
 
I have my reservations about goals equalling points because - and I'm aware it's curmudgeonly - I don't think football has an obligation to entertain. If an underdog wants to slug their way to glory on 1-0 then fair play, I say.

With you on offside. For the ease of officiating, far more advantage needs to be given to attackers.

Handball obviously needs reviewed. Tempted to say make everything deliberate or otherwise a handball. Without it being as black and white as that I don't know where it can go.

One overnight and pretty major change I'd make is to reduce the duration of the match from a pie in the sky 90 minutes to 60 guaranteed minutes. Countdown timer that stops when the ball is out of play.

The ball is only live for about 60 minutes on average anyway, and time-wasting is a royal pain in the hole.
 
Totally agree on the time wasting, we had teams in League 2 come to us and time waste from minute one. Only time it cost them was when their keeper got booked after about 20 minutes for time wasting(!) and then came out of his box on the corner of the area to compete for a ball over the top and clattered our striker giving him a second yellow. That was a sweet moment when time wasting really didn't pay.

Sky used to show time in play in their early years and I seem to remember it was about 56 mins or so usually, so 60 minutes in play would be more or less what we get as you say.

Before I start my list I can't believe they actually sat down to do this before last season and came up with you can kick the ball forward at kick off. Really? Of all the things that could be improved you come up with something completely irrelevant.




Time Wasting (in lieu of approval for @Flipper the Priest 's proposed 60 minutes in play idea.)

Subs are made whilst the ball is in play - what the hell else has the fourth official got to do except argue with managers? So why not make them while the game is in play and he's in charge of them. Then let's see how long they take to get off the pitch then.

Stand in front of the ball after giving away a free kick and it gets moved forward 10 yards. A rule they brought in, didn't use and it disappeared.

My current pet hate - tactical fouls on a counter attack. Drives me mad. My proposal is that a deliberate attempt to stop a counter attack by pulling the player back, tripping him etc and it's a free kick anywhere the other team want outside of the box. Invariably they have been prevented a good chance of scoring on the break with the tactical foul and all they get is a free kick with the other team now having 11 men behind the ball. No advantage to the fouled team at all. Now they'll at least get that attempt on goal.

Handballs

How about handballs in the area (unless obviously deliberate or accidental in the referee's view) then it's an indirect free kick.


Also

A clear dive in the area (reviewed after game) is a one match ban.



Agree with the offside.

As is it now I think the obvious answer would be Var look at it. Is it clearly offside without having to draw lines? Yes, offside. No, benefit of the doubt to the attacker.
 
Some leagues are already implementing this but my only change would be you can match squad is however many people you want it to be. You want 25 people to come with you, they can. You can still only use 3 subs but you can have all of your players available.

Also scrap that hot mess called VAR. Absolute garbage.
 
Last edited:
Flipper the Priest said:
Handball obviously needs reviewed. Tempted to say make everything deliberate or otherwise a handball. Without it being as black and white as that I don't know where it can go.

One overnight and pretty major change I'd make is to reduce the duration of the match from a pie in the sky 90 minutes to 60 guaranteed minutes. Countdown timer that stops when the ball is out of play.

The ball is only live for about 60 minutes on average anyway, and time-wasting is a royal pain in the hole.
Click to expand...

I agree But i would be tempted to make it 70 fixed minutes (35 each half)

has for the Handball laws i am with you'

mattmid said:
Totally agree on the time wasting, we had teams in League 2 come to us and time waste from minute one. Only time it cost them was when their keeper got booked after about 20 minutes for time wasting(!) and then came out of his box on the corner of the area to compete for a ball over the top and clattered our striker giving him a second yellow. That was a sweet moment when time wasting really didn't pay.

Sky used to show time in play in their early years and I seem to remember it was about 56 mins or so usually, so 60 minutes in play would be more or less what we get as you say.

Before I start my list I can't believe they actually sat down to do this before last season and came up with you can kick the ball forward at kick off. Really? Of all the things that could be improved you come up with something completely irrelevant.

Time Wasting (in lieu of approval for @Flipper the Priest 's proposed 60 minutes in play idea.)

Subs are made whilst the ball is in play - what the hell else has the fourth official got to do except argue with managers? So why not make them while the game is in play and he's in charge of them. Then let's see how long they take to get off the pitch then.

Stand in front of the ball after giving away a free kick and it gets moved forward 10 yards. A rule they brought in, didn't use and it disappeared.

My current pet hate - tactical fouls on a counter attack. Drives me mad. My proposal is that a deliberate attempt to stop a counter attack by pulling the player back, tripping him etc and it's a free kick anywhere the other team want outside of the box. Invariably they have been prevented a good chance of scoring on the break with the tactical foul and all they get is a free kick with the other team now having 11 men behind the ball. No advantage to the fouled team at all. Now they'll at least get that attempt on goal.
Handballs
How about handballs in the area (unless obviously deliberate or accidental in the referee's view) then it's an indirect free kick.
Also

A clear dive in the area (reviewed after game) is a one match ban.

Agree with the offside.
As is it now I think the obvious answer would be Var look at it. Is it clearly offside without having to draw lines? Yes, offside. No, benefit of the doubt to the attacker.
Click to expand...

Good call on the handball -indirect freekick.

Also regarding subs (good point matt, i didnt think of that) but yeah, have the fourth official make the subs "on the fly"

I thought years ago.....to stop the last minute time wasting subs. To have no subs after the 80th minute (only for emergencies in the last 10 mins can a sub be used) and in the event that all three subs have been used by the 80th minute, one other sub, may be used, but only in an emergency. Although i could see this being abused in some way.

Tactical fouls should be treated with "ok you took a yellow for the team, but now have a one match ban", or if that seems too harsh, have those type of yellows make up 1/2 to getting a one match ban. Also blatant dives in the box would carry a 3 match ban.
 
Yes I'm sure they'd find a way to abuse it, fake an injury etc.


I was thinking about number of subs after the comment above and I wonder if going the other way would actually in time lead to a better spreading out of the talent. Let's say we went back to only three named subs or at a push 4 but one must be a keeper. You can still use three. Surely in time this would help spread talent further because you'd have 10/11 players in your squad not getting regular games or even being involved in the match day. This might actually make them go play somewhere they will be first choice and then the rest of the bigger squads would start to have space for more young players in them

Maybe we should take a bit from basketball too and say once you're in the other team's half you can't pass back into your own half. Might stop the tedious possession football that is the in thing now. The amount of times this season alone I have seen a team have a throw-in in line with the opposition's box and it gets thrown back to the full back and then back to the centre backs and in some cases even the keeper!



How about this one.

When you have a situation where an attacker is bearing down on goal having got past the last man but is brought down outside the box and he was the last man so it is currently deemed a red card.

How about a new rule? The attacking team have the choice. Either as now a straight red card and a free kick or an alternative... The player stays on but you get a penalty. Also perhaps if the player already has a yellow he doesn't get a second but if he hasn't been booked yet he does get a yellow card as well.
 
Yesterday after much effort, i went through the entire 2016-17 premier league seasons results, just out of curiosity, to see what difference my
points changes would have made. I will let you draw your own conclusions.

Official Table 2016-17
Untitled.jpg

2016-17 Premier league final table (Minimal point change)
points
1. Chelsea 72
2. Tottenham 68
3. Man City 63
4. Liverpool 61
5. Arsenal 54
6. Man Utd 53
7. Everton 52
8. Southampton 36
9. Cry Palace 35
10 West Ham 35
11 West Brom 34
12 Bournemouth 34
13 Leicester 34
14 Stoke City 33
15 Burnley 30
16 Swansea 30
17 Watford 29
18 Hull City 25
19 Middlesbro 24
20 Sunderland 20


2016-17 Premier league final table (Radical point change)

1. Tottenham 77
2. Chelsea 76
3. Man City 70
4. Liverpool 65
5. Arsenal 57
6. Everton 54
7. Man utd 53
8. Southampton 37
9. Bournemouth 37
10 C Palace 36
11 West Brom 35
12 west Ham 35
13 Leicester 34
14 Stoke City 33
15 Burnley 30
16 Swansea 30
17 Watford 29
18 Hull City 25
19 Middlesbro 24
20 Sunderland 21
 
So two thing stand out. Sunderland were still shit under any system and if the radical system was introduced Pochettino would still be manager of Spurs! :))

I'm actually surprised how little it changes things really, although of course the system wasn't in place so the incentive to score more wasn't there.

Maybe the route to entertainment is to lose 1 point if you don't score. So a loss to nil would be -1 and a 0-0 draw would be 0 points for either team.
 
There are some implementations, I would possibly change.

Handballs in the area, unless actually a goal line clearance should be an indirect free-kick.
I still to this day believe Mane purposely kicked the ball at Sissoko's hand in the CL final, and it I feel it won't be long till players purposely start blasting the ball at players hands.

The 60 minute rule, with 30 mins a half should be implemented, after watching LL football, it is so frustrating to watch teams like Wycombe and Lincoln go 1-0 up in games and then spend the next 70 minutes diving, faking injury and taking over a minute to take a goal kick.
This should be monitored by the 4th official.

I don't know how to really implement this, but after watching the Brighton - Wolves game last night, I was really angry that Brighton's 4th was chalked off for the Wolves player falling over as he was last man and just thought, if I throw myself to the ground here I will get a free kick.
The ref blew instantly, although there wasn't even enough contact to make a toddler fall over let alone a full grown man.
The ref should not of blown and then VAR should of checked and gone that was a foul.
VAR should also be given a time limit of say 60 or 90 seconds - If they can't see anything in that time, then it isn't clear and obvious.
Even with VAR, decisions are still sometimes wrong - Pogba got a penalty against Villa for minimal contact and effectively tripping himself up.

But my biggest issue with football and has been for a long time - There is no retrospective bans for diving and general being an unsporting c**t on the picth.
Players should get an instant 1 game ban if they dive or cheat during a game.
Or if you do what Rivaldo done, then VAR should give Rivaldo an instant 500 game ban and allow every Turkish player to kick him in the face.
I really hate cheating in football and it needs to be stopped, and TBH VAR has not done this as yet.

One last thing I would change as well..
FUCK OFF SEEDING - Everyone qualifies for the World Cup and should be treated as equal - None of this 2 European teams and what not to basically fix the whole thing, so that African teams can simply not qualify for the end of the tournament.
 
bsmaff said:
There are some implementations, I would possibly change.

Handballs in the area, unless actually a goal line clearance should be an indirect free-kick.
I still to this day believe Mane purposely kicked the ball at Sissoko's hand in the CL final, and it I feel it won't be long till players purposely start blasting the ball at players hands.
Click to expand...

I also thought this with the new interpretation, that players could abuse it. like when they kick the ball off an opponent for a throw in or goal kick.

bsmaff said:
But my biggest issue with football and has been for a long time - There is no retrospective bans for diving and general being an unsporting c**t on the picth.
Players should get an instant 1 game ban if they dive or cheat during a game.
Or if you do what Rivaldo done, then VAR should give Rivaldo an instant 500 game ban and allow every Turkish player to kick him in the face.
I really hate cheating in football and it needs to be stopped, and TBH VAR has not done this as yet.

One last thing I would change as well..
FUCK OFF SEEDING - Everyone qualifies for the World Cup and should be treated as equal - None of this 2 European teams and what not to basically fix the whole thing, so that African teams can simply not qualify for the end of the tournament.
Click to expand...

:LOL: well said mate some good points raised there.
 
mattmid said:
So two thing stand out. Sunderland were still shit under any system and if the radical system was introduced Pochettino would still be manager of Spurs! :))

I'm actually surprised how little it changes things really, although of course the system wasn't in place so the incentive to score more wasn't there.

Maybe the route to entertainment is to lose 1 point if you don't score. So a loss to nil would be -1 and a 0-0 draw would be 0 points for either team.
Click to expand...

Yes, like you, i was quite suprised how little it impacted the overall outcome. But with the radical system, tottenham put more teams to the sword in their games. But like you said the mentality would have been different. Sunderland was the only lowly placed team that benefited 1 extra point from the system, By getting a 4-0 win :P
 
bsmaff said:
The 60 minute rule, with 30 mins a half should be implemented, after watching LL football, it is so frustrating to watch teams like Wycombe and Lincoln go 1-0 up in games and then spend the next 70 minutes diving, faking injury and taking over a minute to take a goal kick.
Click to expand...

Wycombe are the worlds worst team to play. From minute 1 to , well usually about minute 98 with them. If you get any kind of momentum against them, down goes one of their players, physio on and kill the game. Goal kicks, throw-in's, free kicks all delayed as long as possible and like you say, once they are 1-0 up you can forget any free flowing football happening from there on in. You can normally guarantee at least 5 minutes added on each half and that isn't even half of what should have been added.


bsmaff said:
But my biggest issue with football and has been for a long time - There is no retrospective bans for diving and general being an unsporting c**t on the picth.
Players should get an instant 1 game ban if they dive or cheat during a game.
Or if you do what Rivaldo done, then VAR should give Rivaldo an instant 500 game ban and allow every Turkish player to kick him in the face.
I really hate cheating in football and it needs to be stopped, and TBH VAR has not done this as yet.
Click to expand...

This is so true and if you think about it there would generally be no need for VAR if player's were actually honest.
 
I'm very conservative in terms of rule changes. I think I would not change anything, outside of scraping VAR, making offside law more strict (offside is offside, doesn't matter if you are active or not), and maybe relaxing handball rules in the area.

Time wasting, diving, tactical fouls are part of the game. Should be penalized for sure, but decapitating might be slightly too much.
 
We have retrospective punishments up here and it works... okay. A Compliance Officer flags up incidents to be reviewed (outside of the ref's match report) and a panel of unnamed people review the incident, taking into account video evidence and testimonies from the parties involved.

They don't always get it right though. Depends on whether they can be arsed checking the footage. This case cast major doubt on the whole process (a video of the 'dive' is in the article):

https://www.fourfourtwo.com/news/sc...anel-verdict-controversial-keatings-dismissal

Not a rule change, but one thing I'd like to see is football taking some responsibility. I'm sure I heard a high-profile player in the last week say they don't know the current rules. I think it was in relation to handball. Well fucking learn them. And if you don't like them, make a constructive case for change. Same goes for ex-pros. Baffles me that players and coaches aren't involved in the rule-making process, and it appears - other than whining to TV after the game - that they're not interested in doing so.
 
Tinker said:
I'm very conservative in terms of rule changes. I think I would not change anything, outside of scraping VAR, making offside law more strict (offside is offside, doesn't matter if you are active or not), and maybe relaxing handball rules in the area.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%, offside law is the soul of football.
A yellow card for any diving, always - now that would make the game watchable and fluent again.
 

that is just unfair
goalkeepers should be allowed to come off their line
especially when you can do a hop skip irritating penalty like bruno fernandez
(which if u think about is the same as coming off the line for a GK)
 
I may well be wrong here, but i would have thought the offside rule was first invented to stop "goal hanging" ? if so then it has gone way too far. :P
 
Also the dreaded penalty shootout springs to mind, and how people have always complained its an unfair way to decide a game.

So i would say play extra time without the offside rule. That should really open up the field, and see who can outscore each other over 30 mins.
 
Buzzy said:
Also the dreaded penalty shootout springs to mind, and how people have always complained its an unfair way to decide a game.

So i would say play extra time without the offside rule. That should really open up the field, and see who can outscore each other over 30 mins.
Click to expand...


Or you could take off three outfield players and for fun it's the other team who decide who goes off :D
 
I've always thought ice hockey-style penalties would be better. Like the MLS used to have all those years ago, when the player started 35 yards from goal. At least it'd involve more skill. I reckon I could beat any keeper from the pen spot. Running at them from 35 yards? I'd shite it.
 
barlasarda said:
Some leagues are already implementing this but my only change would be you can match squad is however many people you want it to be. You want 25 people to come with you, they can. You can still only use 3 subs but you can have all of your players available.

Also scrap that hot mess called VAR. Absolute garbage.
Click to expand...

VAR shouldn't be garbage but it's been used so poorly that it became garbage.
 
I'll have to think about this one a bit but first I would bring back the ref being a part of the pitch, when the ball hits him. Tough titties if it happens to be an unfair hit.
 
Another dodgy VAR offside with Spurs yesterday, it is a toe goal should be given.
Decisions should always benefit the attacking team.
 
Just thought of something else that needs to change. When a player is fouled and has to go off so should the player who fouled him. The times a man gets fouled outside the box and it's a chance to cross the ball into the box and the attacking team lose the injured man as he has to go off until the ball is back in play whilst the offending player stays on giving them the extra man! How on earth is that fair? I could have sworn they brought in a rule that if the player was booked the injured player didn't have to go off the pitch but it doesn't appear to happen if it did.

Retrospective banning for diving - another thing that was supposed to happen and still isn't. I swear Sterling only dribbles into the box with the ball to get touched so he can fall over these days. He rarely looks to lay it off he just keeps running with it looking for contact.
 
mattmid said:
Just thought of something else that needs to change. When a player is fouled and has to go off so should the player who fouled him. The times a man gets fouled outside the box and it's a chance to cross the ball into the box and the attacking team lose the injured man as he has to go off until the ball is back in play whilst the offending player stays on giving them the extra man! How on earth is that fair? I could have sworn they brought in a rule that if the player was booked the injured player didn't have to go off the pitch but it doesn't appear to happen if it did.

Retrospective banning for diving - another thing that was supposed to happen and still isn't. I swear Sterling only dribbles into the box with the ball to get touched so he can fall over these days. He rarely looks to lay it off he just keeps running with it looking for contact.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point mate, i don't think it's fair either. I don't know what the current ruling is but...what if a team had used all their subs and a player was injured in a yellow card incident. would the affected team be allowed another sub? I don't know, but if not, then surely the offending team should lose a player, if not the yellow card offender.

just watched this on YT..proposed new offside rule....

 
@Buzzy I think they should just pause it as they do now, look at it, if it's clear to the eye one way or the other then give that decision and if it needs lines drawing to be certain then it's onside. Simple. Thereby as it was supposed to be, favour the attacker in tight calls.
 
@mattmid what we have now is a topsy turvy situation, where with the offside rule, the defence is favoured, and with the handball rule the attackers are favoured. Things as they currently stand are unbalanced or not calibrated to fair interpretation of the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom