Haven't heard anything about this, not that I was expecting to seeing as it's only Marco who's pleading for these changes (so far) but there was some attention (not much, but still) given to his ideas in the Dutch media....so what are your thoughts on these ideas, if you've heard about them at all? Some of his ideas in case this is news to some: . Off-side rule should be removed . If not, use technology to make sure an off-side call actually is off-side AND re-implement the old off-side rule (even if a player who isn't taking part in the play is offside...that's off-side) . Every game should have 2 times 35 minutes of pure playing time . Coaches should have the right to 1 time-out in the game . If a player gets a yellow card, he should be removed from the game for a few minutes . Less teams in a league ("it's not about quantity, but quality") . Clubs would have a maximum of 24 players under contract, not more Here's a link to a Dutch article about the suggestions.
Marco van Basten is an idiot although he did say 1 good thing "Clubs would have a maximum of 24 players under contract, not more "
I don't know. There has been too many suggestions about changing the rules, by many *experts* of the game. Some are ridiculous; some thoughtful, while others seemed too "American". I enjoy the game as it is. But I for one would be curious to see if in the future FIFA would ban all sliding tackes. That would reduce the number of injuries significantly. Players like Bosvelt would then be lost... ...but it could also make the game "soft". But on the other hand it could emphasize technical skills over brute....hmm....
How about the old NASL 35 yard line for offside. If you outside 35 yards you weren't offside. Still dumb. Time outs: I could live with it, but I wouldn't like it. Yellow card: Penalty box, Marco has been watching too much hockey. Less teams: Less money - don't like it. Max 24 players: Max 28 players and I could live with it.
I like the suggestion that temporarily removes a players receiving a yellow. I think it's a crime when a team loses a player for a few minutes due to injury from a foul when the offending player gets to remain in the game. It would be easy to impolement a rule such as this. The ref sends the player off and then is signaled from the sideline after say, 5 minutes and then the ref can call the player back on. Similar to when an injured player goes off.
So if a player collects a caution, he sits out for five minutes. This means another clock - and most likely another official to maintain the box. This means two boxes. This means two officials. This means two clocks. This sounds like a lot of trouble. What happens if a player fakes an injury to get somebody in the box? Next Marco will want us to give two points for shots outside the penalty area.
Won't work. This is soccer/football, not rugby. Ask Mutiny and Fusion fans about this one. Plus you tell me if the Scottish Premier League is a "quality" league compared to the EPL or La Liga. With the number of league and cup matches I don't think so. Ask the Chicago Fire if they can play the MLS season, US Open Cup and the TFC (CONCACAF) Champions League with a 24-player roster (especially with the number of injuries occuring). An 18-player roster would be even more disasterous.
.He wants less games in a season so the players won't 'burn-out' (á la some players at the last WC) That's why he wants less teams in a league, so the amount of games played get less, which according to him would lead to players being able to perform better (less fatigue factor, injuries etc.) It's an idea I guess, which UEFA agrees with if you look at what they did to the CL. .Maximum amount of contracted players = to slightly take away the advantage the rich clubs are having versus the not so rich at the moment. And because of less games played, you wouldn't need as many players as say you do now. Personally, I don't really think the game needs any serious changes. The farthest I'd go is the use of technology to correct a ref's wrong call (put a tv in front of the 4th official who does nothing at the moment, he can then 'buzz' the ref if need be, like the linesmen do) I kind of like the maximum amount of contracted players, but then what if a team gets hit with a lot of injuries (á la Ajax at the moment) do they have to get by with what they got (use an attacker as a goalie ) because they aren't allowed to contract more players?
Marco was my favorite player for a long time, so I don't want to be too critical of him (is he really a recluse?) But I will say that the problems he identifies are best addressed by enforcing the existing rules, not by making new rules. I am all for, by the way, referees cracking down on time wasting. In the NHL, they have followed the example of the Olympics and implemented a faster face off, where everyone has to be ready for the puck to be dropped within a certain amount of time. Judging by the first couple of nights, this shortens games by 15 minutes or so - which is much needed. What if for a goalkick or free kick, there is a 10 second limit? If the kick hasn't been taken, it's an IDFK for the other team. If the defending team isn't out of the way on a free kick in 10 seconds, move it up 10 yards and bookthe offender. Maybe 10 seconds isn't the right length of time, but the principle is to set an arbitrary period by which the player HAS to take the kick. You could do something similar for throws-in. What do you think?
. Off-side rule should be removed Is van Basten proposing we do away with offside? I thought he was simply advocating we change the way law in enforced: Don’t allow a linesman to negate an attacking play immediately, but let other officials, with the benefit of replay, make judgment after the fact. Critics complain that instant replays will be too intrusive, but I disagree. The current system is too intrusive, with legitimate offensive thrusts halted by erroneous offside calls. Why not let play continue and only pass judgment if an actual goal is scored. The game will become much more free flowing and so many bogus calls will be averted. . If a player gets a yellow card, he should be removed from the game for a few minutes He’s had several ideas along this vein… the one I like best is having fouls accumulate and when a player reaches a certain number he has to serve penalty time. This would certainly discourage incessant fouling that too often is a team's primary tactic.
MVB is an introvert, not a recluse. Sorry, but I completely disagree… The offside rule is broken. It is impossible to judge realtime, as is evidenced by the controversy it generates at every level and in every game. How can a linesman monitor a player’s exact position relative to a defender while he simultaneously determines the exact moment a pass is struck 30 yards away? He too often he can’t. The proposal to allow play to continue and offside be determine after the fact is the perfect solution
Any thoughts on the proposal to reinstate the offsides rule, where offsides would be called if any player is in an offsides position, even if not involved in the play. I like this part, myself. I have seen many games where a ball is played in the direction of a player in an offsides position, but is received by a player who began the play in an onsides position. Brazil scored a goal in the '94 World Cup, when the other team stopped as Romario let the ball roll inches by him and Bebeto (?) ran on and scored. Given how poorly offsides often is called, the defender has to give some attention to the offsides player--even if offsides is called well in a match, when turning to pursue, it is not always easy to know immediately which player to pursue. The few seconds of distraction caused by the player in the offsides position gives the attacking team an advantage. In some instances, the offsides player becomes involved in the play, albeit onsides, and receives a pass or follows a rebound. (Not being a ref, I don't know if the rule indicate that offsides should be called here, but I don't recall seeing it whistled.) His earlier offsides position gave him an advantage over any defender who has to pursue him. Anyway, I think Marco may be right in calling for this rule change. Not too sure about the others, although I'm still thinking about the yellow card/penalty box idea.
Re: Re: Marco van Basten wants new rules I do like this idea. It would allow referees to crack down on the "tactical foul" without unecessarily sending players off. Also, wasn't Van Basten one of the players in the late 80s or so whose ankles were destroyed by the thuggish nature of the game at that time? I'm all for rule changes that allow teams who actually play the game an advantage over teams whose primary strategy is to foul and dive. Speaking of diving, I also advocate a system whereby a player, if judged to have taken a clear dive can be retroactively red-carded and forced to sit out at least three matches in that competition. Diving simply is the worst scourge on the game today and a heavy-handed crackdown is needed. Great thread! Maybe this should be moved to the Beautiful Game forum so more people can see it. Sachin
I really don’t have any problem with the change to a “passive” offside (even though Holland was the victim of the example you site). The controversy in ‘94 wasn’t cause be the rule change itself, but by FIFA’s decision to change the rule right before the World Cup. They should have phased it in gradually via lesser competitions or domestic league play. You don’t make such a dramatic rule change just before the most important tournament in the World. This led to confusion (and hence the wrong team was anointed Champion. ).
Re: Re: Re: Marco van Basten wants new rules “Also, wasn't Van Basten one of the players in the late 80s or so whose ankles were destroyed by the thuggish nature of the game at that time?” Van Basten credits brutal Italian doctors as much as brutal Italian defenders. “Diving simply is the worst scourge on the game today and a heavy-handed crackdown is needed.” I agree whole heartedly, but there’s one scourge worse… those that accept the tactic and claim “it’s part of the game”. I'm so sick of hearing that phrase.
The surgeon whom Marco blames for ending his career is a Belgian named Dr. Martens. Of course, he never would've needed a surgeon if defenders had found a way other than hacking him to stop him from scoring. The mess they made of his ankle (which Martens would later exacerbate) was a significant factor in FIFA's decision to ban tackles from behind. Marco has made proposals to FIFA before. He went to Switzerland for a FIFA Task Force 2000 meeting and proposed giving a player a "P" for every foul committed. After 5 "P's" a player would have to be substituted and the sub restrictions would remain so you could theoretically be reduced to 10 men without ever getting a card. He felt as though nobody was listening to his ideas so he never went back. His reasoning for the "P" rule was pretty good. We all know that refs use their judgement in issuing cards so there isn't much consistency between games and players are often given "warnings" for serious fouls. The "P" rule would force consistent disciplinary action and keep defenders far more honest than they are currently.
Re: MVB is an introvert, not a recluse. No problem with disagreement of course, but to me, the aftermath of such situations will be so chaotic as to make it unworkable. Who will make that decision afterward? If they couldn't do it when the ball was struck, how are they able to do it afterward? I'm seriously interested to know how this would work, and would it work the same at high professional levels as for the youth game at the park?
His proposal uses officials in a booth reviewing video replays (a la the NFL). Play would not be interrupted and infractions would be enforced after the fact only if they resulted in a goal. Obviously this option is only available to the top levels. Not sure it if video replays are the answer, but opening up a dialog can’t hurt. I have my own ideas for fixing offside.
Down in Brasil they've done something very interesting to speed up the taking of free kicks. The ref counts off the 10 yards and then takes out a can of spray paint and makes a line. It is real clear where the wall can set up. Shortens the whole process considerably. I don't really see the "problem" that these changes would solve. Why does a coach need a time out? Why should a player that gets a yellow have to sit out? These rules will slow the game down and require more referees to monitor. I doubt if the sitting for a yellow would reduce the amount of cards or thuggish fouls. As for reducing teams and team sizes, why? Doesn't playing more games give better experience to players? Doesn't training with the best improve the reserves on a club side? Making professional football a more elite club would not improve the quality it would just eliminate more mediocre players for getting a chance to improve themselves by practicing and playing against the best.
I didn't really like the other proposals myself, but I did somewhat like this one. Reducing the team sizes takes away a little from the edge the rich teams have over the not so rich. Not only will it keep big teams from buying more players from the smaller teams, but also a team with a bigger selection has an advantage over a team who doesn't have the $$$ to afford that many players when it comes to fatigue and injuries. This proposal would only help the competition in a league or cup in my opinion, not make it more elite.
Incorrect offside My understanding is marginal offside calls would be made in the booth, not on the field, hopefully eliminating bogus offside calls that thwart legitimate attacks.