I posted a similar idea in the Blatter wants to do away with KTFM thread, but that thread has all kinds of proposals in it from replays to coin flips. This one leaves KFTM in place, but makes it more likely that extra time will see more dynamic play, and that KFTM will be used less frequently. It's based on modifying the six seconds rule for goalies. The basic idea is that if the time they get to wait for teammates to spread out and get open down field is reduced, more attacking play can occur. My first idea was that every time the goalie held the ball for any length of time, the six second rule changes to five, then four, etc, until eventually the keeper can only parry or punch the ball. But that seems like a bit much to keep track of, so the new idea is to simply lop off some of those seconds in each overtime period. For example, in the first OT period, 'keepers get three seconds to release the ball; in the second period, they get none; thus a second half catch results in an IFK. There might be good reasons to do this at the top or edge of the area, kinda like when a hockey goalie holds the puck and a face off ensues close to goal. Another alteration could be to go to 4 and 2 seconds in each period, respectively, so that keepers still always have the ability to catch the ball, but as the game gets longer, they've got less time to restart play. (can the keeper get far from goal in 2 seconds to make an IFK less of a threat than a punched ball??) Clearly the whole if it ain't broke thing needs to be considered here. Apparently FIFA thought allowing back passes to be handled was one of those broke things, and if I remember right, they were tweaking the goalie rules in terms of the number of steps and bouncing all all that for years before the six second rule eventually solved the issue. Now at least Sepp thinks KFTM are broke. This proposal takes a fix that has apparently worked quite well and offers adjustments to encourage even more open play in Extra Time. Is it crazy?
Yes. "Enforcement" of 6 seconds is mostly "hey let's play" in a real soccer game. The last thing in the world you want to do is have overtime games decided by technical application of a time limit on GKs -- do you really want the world cup decided by a whistle deciding the GK had held the ball for more than 2 seconds? Do you really want everyone screaming at the ref everytime the GK gets the ball in OT. This is an implausible restriction on GKs and changes the game of flow to one of ticky-tack timing. Not im a million years would I support this. (IMO, if you wanted to hamstring GKs in OT to make it easier to score, restricting the use of hands to the GA would be less detrimental to the game -- though I think you would want it to be an IFK infraction in the PA rather than a PK . . . )
What? The dumbest idea I have ever heard. The simplest way to encourage more open play would be to allow the use of more subs. But, that was already shot down.
I seriously doubt that. The idea of restricting the keeper to only handling the ball in the 6 yard box would be that if his momentum took him beyond that line, the ensuring IFK is at the top of the goal area. I think that's more problematic than calling the time more closely, which would most likely result in set pieces at the fringes of the PA. The idea is not so much to generate set pieces as to get the ball back into play quicker. The back pass rule was invented to discourage overly defensive play and encourage more attacks. At the time it may have been the dumbest idea some ever heard, but it seems to have worked. Who guarantees these additional subs aren't used to put defensive players in for attackers, to make it more likely to get to KFTM? Almost verbatim. Very few keepers get called for seven seconds, and referees can avoid making the call by calling on the keeper to get the ball in play. In fact, I think few officials would confess to calling six second violations without first addressing the keeper. From an officiating standpoint, would reducing the six second rule make it harder for referees to get into position for the distribution? I do think referees would have the tools and the necessary thick skins to handle shouts about two or four seconds, they seem to handle most of the other crying OK. I really don't think this proposal would result in ruining the game or making a win about a technicality (cue posting of one of the KFTM videos with the celebrating keeper and the back-spinning ball creeping into the net). The best argument against it, I would think would be that it would introduce a new dimension to calling and playing the game that might not have any real impact on reducing the amount of scoreless OT periods and could negatively impact the officials' positioning.
First of all, it would create total chaos for keepers to not be able to catch the ball during certain periods of time. Nobody would go for that kind of circus. So what do the "more viable" options get us, a couple of more minutes of active play in an overtime period? Just extend the period by two minutes.