haven't seen a rule change article in a while

The 6 yard box marks the boundary of where goal kicks can be taken from.

I see no benefit to making the penalty box smaller.

It's San Francisco, btw.

 

Most American's I know don't want to ruin the game, they're as good as a supporter as
anyone. It's just the odd idiot who just doesn't get it, posts stupid messages and embarrasses everybody.
Pele's recognised as being one of the greats here on BS.
You should try your trolling on rivalries.

 

The six yard box is also the closest to the goal an attacking team could have a free kick. Of course this would only apply to fouls that earn an indirect free kick.

For example, the goal keeper handles a back pass or a throw-in from his teammate while standing in one yard in front of one of the posts.

The free kick would be moved straight out from the post and placed on the 6 yard line.

 

Yeah you'd have more goals allright. Every time the keeper tries to kick the ball out he'd either score a goal or give away a penalty kick.

Great idea.

BTW a great footballer can make dumb statements about the game just as well as a great visa card salesman

 

Ideas to increase scoring aren't necessarily a bad thing.

Every highlights show or video focuses almost exclusively on goals. Nobody likes a nil-nil draw. I think most fans would agree that defenses are tougher than ever. Maybe too tough for the good of the game's appeal.

But come up with an idea to handicap the defenses and increase scoring a little, and you're a heretic.

Every game could use some tweaking of the rules once in awhile when things are out of balance. Football should be no different.

 

I think there are enough goals as it is.

 

more goals would do nothing to make it more interesting. draws and scoreless draws more specifically can be awesome to watch. you can appreciate great dribbling, passing, goal keeping, and defending without having to see a goal. i have seen many 2-0, 3-1, or w/e score games that are much more boring and not even technically a good a soccer game when compared to games with no goals.

i also agree with AFCA about good players can make stupid comments, i believe i read van basten wanted to do away with the offsides? hows that sound to you vmax.

 

Agreed.

Every Sunday night, I watch an EPL highlight show that shrinks a match down to 10-15 minutes and shows build up to goals and near misses. I understand that is the norm, not the exception.

First part is debatable, but the second part, I agree.

Well, it's not showing in the attendance or TV viewership. I support Liverpool, notorious for low scoring games. Somehow, they manage to pack Anfield every match.

I agree. But most ideas prsented here (or almost every idea proposed by Pele) are, for lack of a better word, stupid. Reducing the penalty box fits in the stupid category.

I agree that increasing scoring can help the game. But only if those extra goals come as a result of improved play. The backpass rule and tougher enforcement of the tackle-from-behind rule improved the game, not by increasing scoring, but by cutting down on negative play.

Exactly what problem is addressed by shrinking the box? Absolutely nothing, unless you think attackers having to earn goals is a problem.

People come to watch soccer, not the scoreboard.

 

Re: Re: Re: haven't seen a rule change article in a while

Nobody minds intelligent disscussion, you just left half out.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: haven't seen a rule change article in a while

Great discussions and breakthroughs often germinate out of goofy, unorthodox ideas.

 

Most highlight shows or videos I've ever seen will break down the highlights into a series of clips that last no more than 10 seconds each. True, they show near-misses as well as goals. Still, the idea of a "highlight" is a play that results in a good shot on goal. I don't know of any videos that feature series of fancy midfield play that result in balls out of bounds.

Are the Anfield faithful great fans of that style of play, or do they just like winning? I wonder how faithful they would be if Liverpool played that style and lost more often than not.

For some people, LFC is in their blood--they're going to stick with the team, come what may. But I'd imagine that some would tire of a dull loser after enough years, and move on to some other interest. And what of those who are seeing Liverpool for the first time, whether they're young kids or new subscribers to FSW or whatever... are they attracted to that kind of game? Even when the team loses, or the game results in a nil-nil draw?

OK. Explain how it fits into the "stupid" category. What is the great benefit to the game by allowing the goalkeeper so much area in which he can use his hands? And what is lost if that is restricted?

I think the effect would be just that attackers would have more room to work in front of the goal. If a keeper is going to come off his line, he'd have to play defense like anyone else. It doesn't mean that goals would become gimme's.

Why wouldn't attackers still have to "earn" their goals?

If the backpass rule is something that has improved play, can you think of any other good ideas that might have the same effect?

 

1) So much area? It's not even 1/10th of the overall pitch (assuming 120 yards by 75 yards). What's lost is several things. Keepers even bothering to come out and cut down the angle on breakaways, which would create many cheap goals. Keepers coming out to punch or snag crosses in a way that's pretty spectacular at times. It also (barring other rule changes) would increase the frequency of a goalkeeper getting sent off, which is detrimental to the game as well, I would think.

2) The back pass rule (combined with the six-second rule) had the desired effect of keeping teams from wasting time by hoofing the ball to the keeper, who would then pick it up, wait for a bit, then hoof it or roll it away. This new rule will do nothing to increase attacking soccer. It will just increase scoring by allowing cheaper goals because the 'keeper won't be allowed to cut down angles, etc, and because of the likelihood of more PKs.

 

So this is a little different from:

But fair enough. Well, the EPL highlight show I watch every Sunday night shows sequences that don't happen anywhere near the goal. When I lived in the UK, that was the norm, unless you were watching the news and maybe each match was given 5 seconds of airtime.

Anyway, those highlight shows that you refer to only show goals, not because goals are the only redeemable part of a match, but because of time constraints.

Of course not. But they're savvy enough to understand that you have to play a style to match the players and they accept it as long as the club is winning. And as for what happens when they start losing, please refer to LFC, circa mid-to-late 1990s.

Kids who grow up in Liverpool most likely have chosen Liverpool or Everton before they can really appreciate quality of play, so it's really a non-issue.
As for outsiders, if they don't like Liverpool's style of play, there are plenty of other clubs to support, many of whom with attractive, attacking styles.

I guess I should have been clearer. I sort of explained by asking what specific problems are solved by shrinking the box.

For example, the backpass rule:
Defenders were constantly killing chances and half-chances by simply passing the ball back to the keeper, who would then simply pick up the ball and proceed to boot it out of trouble. That, we can all agree is negative football.
What the backpass rule did was force either the defender or keeper to actually work to get the ball out of their area, by making the keeper play the ball on the ground. Problem solved.

Also, the tackle from behind rule:
Tackle from behind has always been illegal, but defenders would still resort to it, as a professional foul, because it was a sure way to kill the attack and maybe even put the attacker in the hospital. That, we can all agree is negative football.
By making the tackle from behind a red card offense, defenders were less likely to resort to it as they would not only give up a free kick, but risk putting their team a man down. Problem solved, to some extent.

Now, shrinking the penalty box - what specific problem does this address? What sort of negative football is hurting the game so much that shrinking the box would eliminate?
Most rule change proposals like this are stupid because they fail to address specific problems. They don't make the play any more attractive and proposed for the sake of increased goals without improved play.

And don't you think defenders would adjust to the rule? By pushing the line back and packing the defensive third? Which would result in more congestion in the back? And less counterattacks and defenders making runs out of the back? And wouldn't the attacking team send more longballs towards the goal, knowing that the keeper can't cut them out?
I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like attractive soccer.

Look, you and I have watched many, many exciting nil-nil matches, and some boring 3-2 matches as well. The game is pretty exciting as it is, infinitely better than where it was in the late 80s and early 90s. And I doubt superficially adding more goals would make it any more so.
Like I said before, people come to watch soccer, not the scoreboard.

 

When it comes to problem-solving ability, I have often been told that I am full of it.

Problem: Too many games per year for over-extended players:

Solution: Play two games at once. Change the field into a big plus(+) with four goals at each end. Then have four teams play at once. Assign points 9-6-3-0. This could have a lot of interesting aspects such as alliances being formed, strange tie-breakers, etc. And the teams could sell more shirts since each team would need four colors.

Problem: Not enough passing, dribbling, positive soccer:

Solution: More balls! I think players could use more balls! You could have, say, two balls on the field. That way goals could be scored simultaneously at both ends. Think of the excitement!

Problem: Goalies getting too good, saving all the shots.

Solution: Movable goals. Put the goals on tracks and have a player on each team assigned behind the opponents goals. Then when the team is on the attack, the 'goal mover' can push the goal back and forth, giving his team an advantage. Obviously, the offside rule does not apply to the goal mover, and the GM cannot come on the field to contribute. We could recruit bobsled pushers for this position. Or skycaps.

 

Strangely enough, my college coach would have us do this on the same field (not using the giant cross field of your proposal, alas ), using the same goals. Red vs. Blue would play Green vs. Yellow, for instance. Only one ball per game. It was a pretty good training exercise -- playing an actual game with a mere 22 guys on the field afterwards, you'd feel like you had acres of space, where before you might have felt rushed because of tight quarters.

Then last year, I read The Glory Game by Hunter Davies, about a season in the history of Tottenham Hotspurs (72-73, IIRC) -- turns out that they would do this as well.

We would also do moveable goal games, too -- until a guy stumbled and broke his foot when the goal fell on him.

Great suggestions

 

Wouldn't a smaller penalty area mean less goals? Because then the defenders wouldn't have to be careful when the ball got to within 18 yards and there would be less penalty kicks. The best way to increase scoring is just take away two players from each team or make the net bigger. Not that I want this, (although I might not mind a few less players and a little smaller field) but that is the way to increase scoring.