What rule changes could FIFA enact that could improve the game in your opinion? The game has become very defensive and therefore it is extremely difficult to score. As Di Stefano once said: "A soccer game without goals is like an afternoon without sunshine." A couple I have thought about are: 1) Modify the offsides rule. -- One way could be to create a 1/3 line. Offsides is only called in the offensive 3rd of the field. This could extend the defense making it easier for the offense to push forward. -- Another offside modification could be to allow players to make runs before a pass is made. If a player stays level with the defense, he can then make an attacking run in anticipation of a pass. 2) Be stricter on what a defender can do. Defenders currently get away with holding jerseys, obstructing players, etc. Referees tend to let a lot go. This wouldn't be a rule change, but instead call more fouls on defenders holding offensive players with or without the ball. - In the same respect cheating by diving for a foul should be an immediate yellow card offense.
And we could have goals from inside the box count as 2 goals and those outside from the box as 3! Great idea, duder!
How could FIFA improve the game? Kick the Yanks to touch and you lot can muck around with the rules till your hearts content and give the rest of the world some peace .
Come now, we aren't all like that. Besides, Football League is trying to Americanize the game without any of our help. Penalty shootouts to decide draws? That's just silly in a league setup.
Which is why the European football associations united in a 'let's all laugh at Michel Platini' demonstration.
Cry about suggestions to make things better. Go ahead and live in some fantasy dreamland that the game is perfect all you like, but you'll be wrong. It's a game made by imperfect beings and is therefore inherently imperfect. It's not like FIFA hasn't done such rule changes in the past. Just look at the changes after the 1990 WC meant to increase scoring. Heck, the most recent suggestion of major rule changes are coming from England by proposing elimination of ties and replacing with penalty shootouts. That was a foolish idea that didn't last long in the US. Yanks are obviously not the only ones who think that there isn't enough scoring (Blatter's comments from the 2006 WC): “The football isn’t that bad, but there aren’t enough goals - and when there are too few goals, the public isn’t very enthusiastic,” Blatter told the German news agency DPA. “The essence of the game is goals.” or "After the mind-numbing low-scoring tournament of Italia 1990, FIFA introduced several rule changes that had a dramatic effect on wiping out some of the negative tactics. But since then players' fitness has improved, tactics have been refined and the fear of losing has become even greater because the stakes are so much higher." - http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=205&story_id=31444 or "I’M A traditionalist when it comes to the laws of the game, but there are a few innovations I’d like to see introduced. The first is controversial, but I would like to have two 30-minute halves, with the clock stopping every time play is interrupted by the referee’s whistle." and "I would also change the offside rule so that it only applies in the final third of the pitch." - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/serialisations/article709403.ece Mock the simple idea of rule changes all you like, but it's plainly obvious that several people around the world have made the same suggestions. If these ideas are foolish, then please bless us with your wisdom on what would be good.
1. The biggest thing that needs to change is world soccer is diving. It marred WC 2006 (along w/refs). The diving and playacting has become ridiculous. FIFA should impose long match bans on players who are caught diving. 2. The second thing that needs to change is the number of games some teams play now. Some in Europe are playing 60 games a season. This is WAY too many. Limit the number of matches per year. 3. FIFA needs to stop introducing "mandates" right before the WC. We saw how disastrous the WC was in 06 because of all the cards. Most of those offenses would have gone un-carded in other leagues/tournaments. It was not fair to the players to have to suddenly change the way they play. 4. FIFA needs to impose bans on players who touch the ref. You used to never ever be able to place your hand on a referee, but now, they do this all the time. Immediate red cards for those who do so. Bring some respect back to the game. 5. For offside calls, if the refs assistant is ever in doubt...keep the flag down! Just my 2 cents.
I have and did not find anything. The searches I tried: improve the game rule changes change rules Please enlighten me.
that was never a suggestion of a rule change. It was one man on the board of the football league who had an idea, which was roundly rejected. It's not happening. It was found in the NASL that the 35 yard offside line did little to prevent offside traps as they are usually most effective for free kicks in and around the box - well inside 35 yards. The restriction also made it very risky to defenders to push up, meaning less players would be attacking. How do you limit the number of games players play each year when clubs are in different competitions? Some players might play 65 times a year, but other might only play 40. One reason why world cups are low on goals is because penalties give the opportunity for defensive teams to progress after a 0-0 (or low scoring) draw. The knockout rounds are definitely duller than the group stages. The main reason for dull games is negative tactics, not offside calls or fouls not being given, and managers play negatively because the tactics pay off for lesser teams.
Good points, thank you. I was unaware of the NASL attempt at a 35 yard offside line, but it does make sense. I agree that the negative tactics are taking away from the game. So how do you curb them?
Diving is disgusting, the "play acting" on injuries to get the ball out of play is disgusting etc. However what happened in WC, in my opinion, was the attempted clamp down on fouls led to people diving when they normally wouldn't. A balance needs to be reached where the refs are calling fouls, even if a player doesn't go down, but is fouled, keeping advantage in mind. then clamp down on diving and hopefully players and refs adjust and we end up with a better game. WC was NOT the place to introduce new standards. Yup, see above. Again, in my opinion, WAY to much happens that doesn't get carded. I had very little issue with any cards I saw in WC, the issue was the behaviour was different and a WC change. Changes take time to adjust to, good idea, bad execution. Agreed. But to much dissent in general is allowed which leads to this. that's the directive now, 100% sure, raise flag, 99% sure, flag stays down.
Not sure what your offside modification means, players today can make the run, or start it, they just can't be beyond the defenders when the pass is made. Are you saying he can make the run beyond the defense whenever he wants? Then you totally remove offside. The stricter part I agree with, however this chagne is what led to alot of complaints in the WC. Happens every day all the way down to youth, you try and clamp down a bit on fouls and you get comments about "let them play" etc.
Actually that is what I had in mind, but I don't think it's totally removing offsides. The main purpose of the rule is to prevent cherry pickers hanging out behind defenders. This had led to many defenses relying on an offside trap to stop the offense. If a player is allowed to cross the last defender before the ball is played, then there would be no point in defenses using a trap. At the same time, a player would not be allowed to camp out in a cherry pick position. Fair enough, but I believe that the reason many players dive is because the defense isn't called for other fouls. Henry has mentioned that he complained about a referee not calling a foul on a defender and the ref's response was that he didn't go down. Defenders are allowed to grab, hold and foul. If we hold them to the laws of the game then we should see less diving and more open offense.
Now you get into an even worse "judgement" than we have now, how do you define the difference between cherry picking and making a legit run? Right now there is a well defined pretty much hard and fast rule about offside position. The only "judgement" we get is the "involved in play" part. A well executed trap is a great thing, as is the skill of strikers and coordination of teammates to perfectly time the passes. I agree. Many players dive because they feel if they don't go down they won't get the call and they should . However there are also examples of the ref making the call and being yelled at. One of the USWNT yelled out at teh ref "if I want the call I will fall down". There's a line between allowing the fight through contact and making the call. The advantage clause is meant to allow this judgement, but I do so, to often, calls not being made. The LOTG all pretty much state in Law 12, xxx or attempts to xxx where xxx=trip, kick, hold etc.
some ideas: 20 seconds to take a free kick or this will be reverted. 30 seconds after a goal. 20 seconds to enter in offensive field (similar to basketball) yellow card to any foul after the 10th foul (and red if the foul already is for yellow card).
I think refs should be instructed to always give the call. There is nothing in the rules that says a player has to fall for it to be a free kick, yet that's how a lot of refs seem to do it now. Sure, for a while it'd result in a huge increase in free kicks/penalties, but players would learn. On the other hand, I hate players who fall to the ground at the slightest contact. I think "intent" needs to be put back into the rules for some fouls and touching somebody in the penalty area through normal expected contact in a contact sport should not merit a penalty (and in some cases a sending off). I don't think either are a big factor in games being dull though.
quite the opposite. Having too many subs makes it easier for hard-working teams to cancel out skillful ones. It wasn't so long ago that you only had one sub, and the result was that games would open up as players tired.
It went on for DECADES AND DECADES in America. It never happened in England and never will. Blatter is an idiot, and anyone who quotes him loses all credibility. Leaving the game alone. If you want high scoring games go and watch ice hockey, basketball or cricket.
You don't. Defending is part of the game, the same as attacking. If you don't like it then please ******** off and watch basketball. Football has been defensive since it started. The first ever international football match was 0-0. The purpose of football is not to provide mindless entertainment for the MTV generation.
The game is fine the way it is. I would like to see more goals though and I'm tired of a lucky goal or a penalty being the reason a team goes to the next round in the WC. the solution isn't to mess with the game, but changing attitudes. Earlier in WC history, players wore caps and didn't head the ball much, but the games were higher scoring because of formations, strategies and style of play. There were fewer substitutes, more forwards, fewer defenders and I think the average player relied more on skill than physical ability (speed/endurance/bumping and pushing). I think today's game is faster which you might think would result in more goals. There was definitely less pressure to "not lose." Today there is too much on the line for teams to take a chance playing really offensively. This is especially the case for smaller teams. Costa Rica played on awesome, exciting game against Brazil in 2002 (losing 5-3 or 5-2? I think they took more shots, but Marcos was great in goal), they tied Turkey and beat China. They didn't go to the next round even though they tied Turkey for points. This WC, they were one of only two teams to score on Germany, but what good did it do? maybe they should have played for a tie and hoped for the best with Poland and Ecuador. It ended up being a strong group though. My point is, maybe we should change how a team advances from the top 2 teams on points to the top 2 teams on goals scored. This might be a bad idea, but wouldnt they be the best teams? It would fundamentally change how managers pick players and strategies. No, you couldn't just run up the score on one team and hope for the best because the other teams will obviously hammer them too. Other ideas; Maybe we should have a loser's bracket for teams that get to the 3rd round. So you don't need to be so worried about defense. Maybe offer better financial rewards for player that score more goals and get the most assists. We have to support more dynamic playing and skills and that isn't going to come by hounding our teams for losing. We have to change our attitudes. So in the end, do you want the result or want to be entertained? I don't need the crack cocaine feeling of seeing a great goal. I'd rather see a low scoring game that is interesting and results aren't that important, but I understand people who aren't this way. comments?
Good points Simon. I think I tend to agree with RichardL mostly where the problem isn't with lack of scoring. I've enjoyed watching several matches that end without goals or with very few. Mostly I get frustrated with some of the negative tactics of teams: diving, faking injury, etc. Many of these could be curbed without any rule changes. There are plenty of governing bodies that could levy penalties against players after the game for obvious diving. Complaining to refs could be quickly curbed by penalizing the actions. The NBA started that this season, but warned the players first. In the NBA, 2 technical fouls = ejection. Players at the beginning were given a technical for any dissent. Dissent is already a yellow card offense, refs just need to warn players ahead of time and then follow through. The message should be received quickly and the players adjust accordingly.