1) A complete ban of the back-pass. It would make the defenders play it out instead of heading it or chesting it down in the hands of the keeper. 2) Kick-ins instead of throw-ins. Players would be less likely to kick out the ball if they knew a dangerous cross would be a result instead of a usually harmless throw-in . How about it?
When you get your wish for an annually-contested 'World League', then maybe you can implement some of these rule changes. Until then, no thanks.
Can't completely ban the back pass, in some cases you might be cutting off a defender's only option. Maybe you force the goalkeeper to play any back pass with his feet, including headers. Kick in option may be worh looking at though.
Mobile Forget about my views on other issues. If you don’t like these changes tell me why. And BTW I’ve made my piece with the WC and the national cups the way they are.
Sorry, didn’t make that one clear. I meant of course banning keepers from using hands if the pass came from their player.
I take it you want football to be even more attacking? Well, changes to the offside rules and the rules regarding the keeper's ability to handle the ball have had a dramatic effect up the game as it is. There have even been Golden/Silver goal rules to make the game more "exciting." This, however, is as far as it should go, because changing the rules further would just be trying to make the game a spectacle for non-football fans, to try a gauge the interests of a wider audience at the expense of the quality of the game. Defending is an art, just as is attcking, tackling as beautisul as scoring, and this should not be forgotten!
Hey I have been a defender for most of my life. And I agree, a well-timed sliding tackle is beautiful. I just want to make the defenders and the keeper play them selves out of a difficult situation without the help of the keepers hands.
What you're forgetting is that the goalkeeper is an attacking player once he gets the ball. Instead of being the guy who can pick up the ball and start a quick counter, you're making him a guy who can only stop shots and occasionally hoof a ball upfield in desparation. They used to do this in American college soccer. It was beyond ugly, even given the relatively ugly nature of the American college game 30 years ago. Besides, in addition to making defenders less likely to kick the ball out, your proposal would also creat conditions that would make it more likely that an attacker won't take on a player to try to beat him in order to earn the cross, but instead will just kick the ball off him in order to get what would effectively be a free kick from the touch line. That sounds dull to me. No need to change the rules. At least, these rules.
OK if you saw a lot of games with kick-ins I’ll trust you. I saw it a couple of summers ago in a Italian pre-season tournament, and I thought it helped the game. As for the first rule, why not favor keepers that are also skillful with the ball at their feet? They could still start counter-attacks if they were good with the ball at their feet.
The goalkeeper is the only player on the pitch who can use his hands. So let's introduce a rule that favours those that are good with their feet? Pointless rule changes make the game worse, not better. Kick-ins? Spare me. The game is fine as it is. Now there's a thought that never gets much of an airing around here. Instead of endless threads about how this or that aspect of the game could be mangled - sorry, I mean 'improved' - how about we all talk about the very perfectness of the game? Let's have a thread about how exactly right the game is, here and now and for ever more. That would make a nice change.
I love the game how it is, but do you really think it was better when the feet back-pass was allowed? When the win was two points? Some changes can improve it.
That's always the argument put forward in support of further change, but it doesn't wash. That's just change for change's sake. The fact that they don't play 2-3-5 formations is probably a good thing, therefore let's have kick-ins and stifle the goalkeepers role in the game even further. Non sequitur. There are certain things that did need to be done, but they were the result of an organic change in the game. Had it not been for the terribly negative approach of many teams at the 1990 World Cup, the back-pass rule would probably not have been changed when it was. As things stand, every rule change addresses an obvious and specific weakness in the game. But most of the changes proposed in threads such as these are just pointless tinkering, derived from no actual need or necessity. If it ain't broke, as they say ...
have you ever wondered why the rules for throw-ins make it kind of awkward? Many years ago throw-ins could be taken any way the thrower wanted without any restriction. Very quickly players learned how to thrown the ball a long and accurate way, and it was deemed wrong that the penalty for accidentally putting the ball out of play could be almost as severe as the penalty for committing a deliberate foul on the touchline. Bring in kick-ins and it would be even worse. The tried it as an experiment in English non-league a few years ago and it wasn't liked, and it also favoured taller teams who were good from set-pieces over footballing sides.
I remember one time my dad told me that it would be more exciting if they allowed unlimited substitutions. That was really cute.
----- Every year FIFA trys a lot of different things in under leagues in every country. Very few of those make it through as actual FIFA rules of the game. Kick ins have been tried many different times, and it may have a chance to make it as an option with the throw in option some day. The choice is up to the attacking team. This is just me speaking I never thought of a throw in as a real attacking option, but it can be. I think of a throw in merely as a restart for the attacking team in most cases. No back pass? What would the attacking player do if he could never back pass, and still want to hold possession? You would even have a hard time reversing the field if back pass was not allowed. Once you start playing into a bunker defense you have to back pass at least once in a while to spread out the defense. Do we back pass too much oh yes, but not allowing a back pass is not the answer.
There are two words I absolutely hate when soccer announcers use it. Those 2 words are "FRESH LEGS". You don't sub for a more rested player. You sub only to improve the team. A starter is a starter for a reason. He brings something to the game that fresh legs can't other wise Fresh legs would have started to begin with. A problem with the adult game is the starter must be game fit, and more then just 90 minute fit. To do that they have to work on fitness on their own as well as in practice. They also have to learn to pace themselves. They have to be able to bring that special part of their game to the surface in the 90th minute. The fresh legs sub does not have a special part of his game or he would be the starter. The starter also has to have an iron will, to be their when the ball is there even if he is dead on his feet. He wills himself to be there. Plus they have to think hustle after a lost ball because if they don't, and could have regained the ball when they had a chance and didn't. Then 5 passes later the opponent scores who's fault is that? It is his fault for not regaining the ball he could have regained, but he didn't because he quit trying.
Well, no. It can be tactically astute to bring on a player to run at tiring defences. Different players offer different options.
Depends if 'Fresh legs' is appropriate to the tactical plan devised prior to the game or whether he is the most suitable response to the events of the game. Perhaps 'Fresh Legs' tends to get most of his starts in away games when he is an effective outlet up front for a defence that expects to be under sustained pressure. Or perhaps the starter that 'Fresh Legs' is replacing is having a stinker. Or perhaps he is just up against a player who has his number. Perhaps 'Fresh Legs' is a better choice going up against the player in question. It is by no means a given that the disposition of a team decided upon prior to the game actually proves to be the correct one. There is no absolute in these selections that says Player A is better than Player B, so he starts. Because, of course, 'better' is subjective and related largely to the manner in which the team plays on any given occasion and the challenge it is facing. Bringing on 'Fresh Legs' is a perfectly legitimate concept. It doesn't matter how fit you are, a player who has been running around for an hour will not be as fresh as a player that has just come on. Add to that the fact that 'Fresh Legs' tends to be a pacey, direct player and you are altering the balance of the game in a substantive manner by bringin on ol' 'Fresh Legs'.
so many people had already replied to this line, but i'll do it anyway. Well rested player does tend to improve the team. Didn't Owen used to be a super sub? Fast, well-rested players are nightmares to tired defenders.
Are you trying to tell me that any dime a dozen player is better then a starter as soon as he comes into a game because he has fresh legs? This is a joke right? This is really a dumb position for me to even bother answering. Owen was and is a special player when ever he comes on to the field he brings a lot more then just fresh legs to the team. When you sub a guy like him into the game you are improving the team. He has great ability an ordinary player does not have, and he has a winner will. A tired player with a winners will is a lot more useful then a player with fresh legs. Richie
Actually, in terms of rule changes, there's something I seriously think soccer should take from hockey. No, not penalty boxes. Rather, the rule that the captain is the only one allowed to talk to the referee. Far too often we see teams surrounding the ref and berating them to protest a call, causing a lengthy delay in play and opening up the potential for a lot of ugliness.
I don't think anyone is saying this, no. The original position we were debate included no presumption with regard to the quality of the player coming on. You are the one that has made the connection between 'not a starter' and 'dime a dozen player'. There are literally dozens of practical, tactical, coincidental and even unintended reasons why a player coming on to the field of play at some point after the starting whistle can improve a team. And having fresh legs is just one of them. Beyond that entirely unremarkable fact, all you are really taking exception to is a commentator's habit of using the term 'fresh legs' to describe a sub. Which is neither here nor there, when all is said and done. It's just a catchphrase.