Ten rule changes to improve football. Discuss

1 Scrap the away goals rule and penalty shoot-outs in two-legged games

The away goals rule was introduced to stop visiting teams playing negatively but, while this has been achieved, the progress made has been cancelled out because home sides play more negatively. Managers often speak of a goalless draw at home as a decent result, because it allows their team to advance with a score draw away from home.

Furthermore, second-leg matches are rendered stone dead when an away side moves one goal ahead on aggregate late in the 90 minutes having scored more away goals, because they will only fail if they concede twice in quick succession. Without the away goals rule the home side in this situation would need only to score once to draw level, thus creating more excitement.

If the scores are level after 120 minutes (irrespective of which team have scored the more away goals) then the away side in the second leg should advance because, over the course of the tie, they have played an extra 30 minutes away from home. A penalty shoot-out does at least, in theory, reward footballing ability (unlike the away goals rule) but it remains an unsatisfactory diversion from the real game.

2 Use goal difference before head-to-head records

When two or more group rivals finish level on points in the Champions League or European championship, they are divided first by head-to-head records, and only if those do not split them does goal difference over the whole group phase come into play.

In a European championship qualifier (unlike a World Cup qualifier, when goal difference holds sway) if England scrape past Andorra 2-0 they will be at no disadvantage in their battle to top their group with, say, Croatia if the latter beat Andorra 22-0. The head-to-head method is (a) unfair, (b) confusing (permutations towards the end of the qualifying phase are often too baffling to comprehend properly) and (c) discourages positive play. Apart from that it’s all right.

3 Introduce “celebration time” and remove punishments

Goal celebrations are part of the enjoyment of the game for players and spectators. If you see a goal scored on television, you don’t immediately look away because the play has stopped – your eyes remain glued to the screen to watch the gleeful reaction of the scorer and his team-mates.

Such expressions of joy reinforce the impression that the game is important and therefore worth watching. Why not allow the goalscoring team one minute to celebrate before they must return to the halfway line? The minute can be added on at the end. Removing a shirt is a harmless form of celebrating and should not earn a yellow card. Players should not be booked for hugging members of the crowd; in fact, in these days of players being increasingly isolated from fans, it should be cherished.

4 Book players for ANY dissent

People in the game claim constantly that it is a matter of human nature that players are unable stop themselves complaining if they feel an injustice has been committed.

This is obviously nonsense, as is shown in rugby and cricket, when the vast majority of players keep their thoughts to themselves. The Respect campaign, in which referees this season have booked players for strong dissent – very angry reactions to their decisions – is, inevitably, working well, with back-chat having noticeably declined, and will continue to do so as long as the officials stick to their guns.

The odd case of dissent will continue, particularly from players with anger-management issues, but generally players will stop the moment they realise that their previously normal behaviour in a match will bring dismissals and suspensions. But, while we’re at it, let’s introduce yellow cards for all dissent – even brief shows of irritation by the waving of arms – to remove a stain on the game visible in internationals games down to park football.

5 Scrap the rule that forces injured players to leave the pitch after receiving treatment before re-entering the field

This was introduced to stop players trying to waste time by feigning injury but, while it might indeed have reduced the number of occasions that trainers have come on to the pitch, it has penalised genuinely injured players.

These players, even when they have been readied for action by the trainer on the pitch, must walk to the sidelines and wait a few seconds to be summoned back into play by the referee, sometimes while a set-piece is taking place.

In fact, time is wasted under the present system because play is held up while the fit-again player trudges off pointlessly with his trainer (instead of the trainer just sprinting off on his own). In any case, the problem of players wasting time can be overcome simply by adding time at the end of a game, a facility that many referees are reluctant to use, which thus, of course, encourages time-wasting.

6 If a player falls to the ground and stays down apparently injured for, say, three seconds, the referee should stop the game immediately

This would save time since, in almost every case, another player (whether a team-mate of the injured player or an opponent) will kick the ball into touch deliberately to allow treatment to be administered.

At best, it takes about 10 seconds after the player has fallen for the ball to be kicked out; other times it might be 15 to 20 seconds of uncertainty as one team gesture to their opponents to kick the ball out and those opponents, hesitantly and reluctantly, agree.

Occasionally, when one team refuse to kick the ball out, it leads to furious arguments between the players about the morality of the situation. When play restarts with a throw-in, and the ball needs to be returned to the possession of the other team, yet more time is often wasted as a player kicks the ball deep towards the opposing corner flag and the goalkeeper, unchallenged, trots out to collect it and saunters back before launching his clearance. If a player is lying genuinely injured on the ground, his team should not be penalised by having to play with ten men. If the referee decides the player is feigning injury, he should be booked.

7 Players must retreat ten yards at a free kick within five seconds

Offending teams often amble away from the scene of the crime, buying themselves vital seconds and almost always without punishment – those players who do so should be booked. If the offence is within shooting distance and the offending team want to build a wall, fine, but they have five seconds to do so, rather than the unofficial 50 seconds or so at present, which includes an interrogation of the referee, a study of the standard of the grass in the immediate vicinity and a long consultation with the goalkeeper.

If five seconds isn’t enough time to prepare, then don’t commit the foul in the first place. The attacking side theoretically have the option of taking a quick free kick but this is normally denied them by their opponents crowding around the ball. A defending team being allowed to bring ten players behind the ball at their leisure is often unfair because the attacking team might have had only one or two defenders between them and the goalkeeper when the foul took place.

8 Dismiss goalkeepers for encroachment at a penalty

Deciding whether challenges are fair or foul is often so tricky that a consensus cannot be reached after repeated video viewings – was the tackle acceptable and, if not, was it deliberate? Such uncertainty disappears when assessing whether or not a goalkeeper deliberately advanced past his goal-line before a penalty kick was taken.

It must be assumed that a professional goalkeeper has the capability to balance on two legs, so any placing of his feet beyond the white line is cheating. This happens for the majority of penalties but is almost never punished. In an extreme, but by no means unique, case, the Azerbaijan goalkeeper playing against Wales at the weekend stood two yards off his line as a penalty was taken and his save was allowed to stand. The assistant linesman can easily spot such an infringement, so the threat of a red card would surely bring this cheating to an end.

9 Suspensions for an accumulation of non-bookable fouls conceded

Five yellow cards bring a suspension, and so should, say, 30 fouls that lead to a free kick but not a booking (you would discount a player’s fouls committed in a game when he was booked, since he might have received his yellow card because of persistent fouling, so he would already have been punished for those fouls).

This would weed out those “clever” players who halt attacks by impeding an opponent in such a subtle way that referee feels a booking would be too harsh.

10 Scrap offside

OK, admittedly I’m not completely convinced it would be an improvement, but let’s trial it in a few friendly games to find out.

For those who immediately say football would not work without offside, the response is: “Nor does the offside rule itself work.” This is not just a reference to arguments about when players are active or inactive – an issue which, incidentally, while complicated, is reasonably fair and only rarely applied wrongly.

The over-riding problem is that in a typical game there will be at least three or four incorrect offside calls because the assistant referee could not tell whether an attacker was behind the last defender when the pass was made him – and, indeed, the officials usually should not be criticised. It is so hard to decide close calls that a monkey with a flag would have the same success rate. In fact television commentators, when studying a replay, thus knowing which players to watch at the key moment and having the action slowed down – unlike the linesman, who needed to be looking at all the players at real speed – often still get it wrong.

These offside mistakes frequently lead to goals being wrongly awarded or chalked off, which brings at least some limited reaction (although how many people are aware that Wayne Rooney had a goal wrongly disallowed in Manchester United’s last league match against Portsmouth, for example?). But the routine errors, when a player is wrongly given as offside when clean through on the goalkeeper (linesmen tend to err on the side of the defending team when unsure), and thus had perhaps a 30-40 per cent chance of scoring, are almost completely disregarded. Yet this is not basketball, but football, which averages about 2.5 goals per game, so every goal has a good chance of changing the result. Effectively, several decisions per match, which could each have a huge bearing on the result, are a complete lottery.

Comments

[will]

are you taking the **** some of those ideas are abolutely idiotic. it sounds like you would like matches to end as 5 a sides. automatic sendings off for a keeper encroaching? how far a dive forward or a step? no goalkeeper dives in a straight liine, but yes how many referees order retakes of penalties like when Dida used to effectively charge the taker. do you really think the ref is going to be brave enough to send him off. a retake is plenty and a booking if they do it again. the most important thing there is the linesman or the ref having the cohones to actually blow up.

suspension for an acumulation of non bookable fouls? have you watched a game of football, you do know that repeated foul play is a bookable offense? surely thats better than some bean counter suspening filipo inzaghi for being permanently offside.

your giving defenders 5 seconds to retreat from a free kick- your basically asking for them to sprint away from the taker or get booked as the attackers will use it as an exuse to belt the ball at a defender who might be too close.and what about the attacking side who want to load the penalty area with centre backs, are they going to be booked for time wasting while they wait for the big men at the back to get forward?

if a player goes down for more than 3 seconds kick the ball out? that is the easiest excuse for time wasting i have ever heard, imagine your 1-0 with ten minutes to go. the wining team will be rolling around crying every ten seconds. fair enough you say if the ref thinks its a dive he should be booked, but what if youve just had a heavy but fair slide tackle, your not injured but youve had the wind knocked out of you or a bruised ankle or something. you get up slowly but its taken more than 3 seconds so what does that mean you get booked? youll do well to end up 5 a side. have you ever heard the phrase "play on"?

fair enough scrap the rule that says if your injured you have to go off.

football isnt rugby and it isnt cricket i dont care what the majority view is, i would prefer to see more dissent in rugby than less in football. freedom of speech extends to the playing field and if the referee is what the crowd often call him then players are well within their rights to question his judgement. football is supposed to be a mans game, if the referee cant take a bit of banter then he shouldnt be a referee. look at the hand of maradona goal in 86, would you really say that the players werent well within their rights to go to the ref and tell him what an abject decision he had just made?

celebration time isnt a neccesarily bad idea, although i would just say let them celebrate untill the ref thinks its taking the ****. and i dont know about you but when i watch football my initial reaction is never to watch the players celebrate, if i dont support them id rather gouge my eyes out with my own fingers than watch them celebrate and if weve just scored im too busy celebrating myself. but you are absolutely correct that shrit removal and crowd hugging shouldnt be punished.

goal difference is better than head to head.

i think away goals should also be banned but dont get rid of penalties, it may a lottery but when you win on penalties its glorious. fair enough england have only won once on penalties, but that was brilliant. imagine what it will be like when we beat germany on penalties one day.

over alot of the ideas i absolutely hate, so no doubt sepp "the ice hockey administrator(look it up) blatter will probably love them. except of course the good points you actually did make.

[Matthew]

Let's learn from other sports:
1. Sin bin for second yellow card.
2. Video ref for key decisions - penalties and possible violent conduct only.
3. Allow physio on field to treat injured players while game continues - no kicking ball out, game only stops if serious injury, or player is in the way of play.
4. External timekeeper, with clock prominently displayed - ball goes out of play...clock stops, player seriously injured...clock stops, substitution...clock stops. Far more fun if you actually know there is 3 seconds to go...
5. Post game video review for serious offences not spotted at the time - diving, violent conduct, etc. - with view to handing out suspensions to guilty parties.
6. Arguing with ref (as noted above...yellow card), touching ref (automatic red card).

[Steve Dawson]

Point 4, absolutely spot on. When will the "powers that be," realise that the way many footballers behave at all levels of the game is a complete embarassment. Learn a lesson or two from rugby: any one who gives the referee any grief is punished. It would only take one weekend of reds and yellows for dissent in the Premiership for players to get the message: Show some respect for yourself,your audience, the officials and the future of our game. Those who run football should take note. Real fans of football think the current situation is a disgrace and are flabbergasted that stronger action is not being taken.

[Gwyn]

Interesting article. With respect to change 10 (offside), hockey which has some similarities to football, scrapped offside several years ago. The game hasn't changed that much although it is now a lot easier to umpire.

[Josh]

(1) is a good plan, but I think the Carling Cup has it right. Away goals don't apply until after extra time. Cuts their value somewhat, bringing the effect more into line with the problem it is supposed to solve.

(10) is also a great idea, but it misses the most insidious aspect of the offside rule: the offside trap. Every time a striker is caught offside by a yard or two, with the defender chasing, you have to wonder why a perfectly fair attack was brought to a halt. Being half a yard nearer the goal is not the offence offside was brought in to prevent.

[Wilfie Mannion]

"Celebration time" is, without question, the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Absolutely pathetic. Some find it nauseating that footballers, some of whom are on six-figure weekly salaries, go mad having scored a goal. Surely this is what they're paid to do? The majority of players in the game struggle to even kick the ball with their "other" foot. Should "celebration time" be considered should Wayne Rooney or Shaun-Wright Phillips, for instance, drum up the courage to try his left peg rather than take wild swings at the ball with the outstep of his right boot? SWP struggles to kick with either foot, mind. What happened to humility? What happened to just getting on with the match while your side has the momentum? The whole shirt-taking-off, badge-kissing and look-at-me-I'm-a-hero-for-having-scored-a-goal is, bluntly, pathetic.

[Zach C]

Some decent ideas but some horrible ones... Rule 5 has good intentions but would fail in its purpose. Rule 6 breaks up the flow of the game and pushes it well beyond 90 minutes. Rule 9 punishes the players who play hard and make a lot of generally good tackles but foul up on occasion. In order to punish those intended, you would have to look at a ratio of clean tackles made to fouls committed, which is way too much fuss. And of course rule 10 is simply outlandish. If this rule was imposed, there would be a constant forward on the goal line thus drawing back atleast one defender and making the game something more like Aussie rules football, rather than the football we love today.

[Martin]

Can we see referees re-inforcing the 'six-second' rule with goalkeepers.

It used to be something they were strict on, with hurried kicks often adding a bit of - shock horror - excitement. Now, keepers seem to hold onto the ball for an eternity, wasting more time.

[Dan Basheer]

There are a few references in this piece to 'adding time on at the end of the game' - i.e. the goal celebration and the injured players sections. I might be wrong, but I thought that the referee was supposed to stop his watch whenever the ball is out of play (although most don't, even goal kicks and throw-on's are classed as stoppages)? If this is still the case then how can there be any such issue of time wasting? The only time being wasted is television time and spectator time because people want to watch a game of football, not the prima donnas rolling on the floor like they've been shot. If a player is injured and the referee has stopped the game, then he must also stop his watch, then no playing time is lost. Ditto after a goal is scored - the watch is stopped because the ball is out of play. If a player is found to be feigning injury at this point then rightly book him for wasting the referee's time (dissent in a way and also for playacting), but it is not wasting game time. I agree with not punishing players for goal celebrations, but again, players don't take too long to celebrate a goal anyway so, when they do, no playing time will be lost. I think most people are confused as to the issue of 'stoppage time' and 'injury time' and 'added time', when really there isn't any added time. It is fabricated by television because their little clock in the top corner keeps ticking when the referee is (or at least should be) stopping his.

[brett sutton]

while some iof these rules are great , the first rule ,to improve football , is scrap the pass back to the goal keeper .
that goes , and pressure is built up in the last 25% of the pitch ,mistakes will be made ,and spectacular goals of the thief variety will be reborn

[Monty Carlo]

Some interesting suggestions there. Here are a couple more...

Instead of stopping play and insisting an injured player leaves the field of play, why not allow tha player to receive treatment on the pitch while the game continues. It will then be in the best interest of the player not to feign injury as it puts his team at a disadvantage. If a player is genuinely injured then the ball can be deliberately put out of play as they do now.

In a game with potential for a penalty shoot-out; why not have the penalties BEFORE the extra time? The winner would then go into the extra time period a goal up which would encourage more football and discourage both sides from being ultra-defensive.

[Andy]

Several of your ideas are pretty unrealistic to be honest. Some are OK though.

Are you big on rugby union? I see that leaking through into your number 7. Perhaps, like in rugby, the defending team ought to have to retreat the full ten yards within this 5 seconds limit, and if they do not, then you get to take the free kick from up to 10 yards further upfield, like with 'tapped' rugby penalties.

I don't think number 4 is going to be an issue if they press through this whole 'only the captain can talk to the ref' idea, but it's very sensible nevertheless.

[Robin Reynolds]

Having been a Class One Referee for 25 years I found that Law changes were very rare. Your selection has some good points but has little to no chance of ever being accepted.
One point is your rule 10. Offside will never be removed as a Law, and I would suggest the majority of Linesmen decisions are correct.
However, one aspect could be thought through and that would be to retain the centre circle but introduce a 15 yard area either side of the centre line that would become an offside free area. This would help the game in several ways.
1. Less distance for the linesman to run to judge gaol line incidents,
2. Less area between the new 15 yard line and the goal line for offside to be judged.
3. Allow forwards an opportunity to be closer to the opponents goal thus creating more goal scoring oppotunities.
There are others but I will keep to three.
The game must overall remain a spectacle of excitement and controversy. Regimenting the game too much could remove those elements that keep people talking about the game for days/weeks/years and with it a loss to our wonderful game.

Regards Robin Reynolds

[Danny Callaghan]

Number 10 is perhaps the worst idea I have ever heard of. It would make football unwatchable. Teams would just leave a couple of big lumps hanging around the opposition penalty area then whenever they got the ball in their own half, launch it torwards to them. There would be no premium at all on pace, skill, movement, counter-attacks - any of the things that make football so watchable. I'm really frustrated at the number of wrong offside decisions (English football is really poorly served by its generally apalling match officials - a point that's got lost in the "respect" agenda), but this is not the answer.

[ino]

most your changes make a lot of sense. the yellow card for a player taking of his shirt in celebration is an insult to any fan who enjoys the emotions of the game. the only reason for this recent change by fifa is that shirt sponsors were unhappy that their brand name could not be seen in all the jubilation (often the most televised and photographed moment of a game).
but what a pitty you want to see the offside rule changed. it is such a vital part of football, not only as a strategy, but also as a (often emotional) subject of discussion. rather than changing the rule, maybe you should consider becoming a fan of AMERICAN football. it uses instant replays so that the referees never make a mistake. it is also a game that, in my eyes at least, is clinically dead

[Mark]

Problems with these ideas:

Rule 1) That is an awful idea.....it would mean that whoever got the away leg first could potentially lose purely because of that fact....how is that fair?
Rule 3) What if someone dosn't want to celebrate for an entire minute? What if they celebrate their goal for 30 seconds which is probably about average....do they have to do 30 seconds pretend celebrating to fill time??
Rule 4) Seriously? Booked for waving your arms or showing any small level of aggravation at a poor decision...have you ever played football?
Rule 6) That is the single worst idea I have ever heard. I mean I can't even begin to descibe how fundamentally flawed that idea is.
Rule 7) 5 seconds is not long enough...simple as
Rule 8) Yellow maybe..not red
Rule 10) You admit yourself that this wouldn't work and you are right...it absolutely would not

[Paul]

Football would be a different sport without the offside rule. There would be plenty of goals, sure, but it wouldn't be football any more.

I would adjust the rule to say that the benefit of the doubt must go to the attacker - only a 100% clear offside should be flagged. When there are inches between a decision one way or the other it would be nice to see play continue.

[Damilotun]

Some of these rule changes are plainly laughable. It started off admiraable enough, trying to improve some of the actually important 'problem' rules in modern football, but quickly descended to ridiculous micro-management. Have you ever even played the game? Some of these ideas are completely unenforceable (suspensions for 30 fouls in a season?), indeed I suggest you take these rules into some real football matches. Take the role of the man in the middle yourself and see just how far you get trying to send off goalkeepers for wandering, book players for having the temerity not to agree with you, and for that matter anyone at all within 10 yards of you at a freekick. I doubt most of your rules will last much longer than Amir Khan. Celebration time? Do you expect referees to pack stop-watches now along with their cards? Whip 'em out whenever play stops?

[Harry Boulton]

I agree with Mark. A number of these rules are flawed. I would suggest that these rules are only wholly condoned by those who have either never played the sport, or have some sort of vendetta against it.

Other than the respect towards refereeing, football is fine the way it is. All that needs possibly addressing is the possibility of using technoloy to ASSIST referee's, not undermine them.

[Adam Michie]

Ive always thought it unfair that away goals apply after extra time. It gives the 2nd leg away side, 30 more minutes than their opponents over the whole tie to score a valuable away goal.

Get rid of them completely, but keep penalties. There is nothing wrong with them.

Football needs controversy in decisions. It's a human game, and mistakes can be made by players and officials. Rule changes like some of those suggested take the character out of the game. Yes, in some instances they may make the game fairer, but wouldnt that just play into the hands of the elite clubs? Throwing an element of luck and good fortune into a game allows for shocks, upsets and anything beyond the status quo!

[DR]

Rule 1 is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. How about away goals take effect after extra time as a better way of solving tied games

Rule 4 only makes sense if you bring in video replays and allow managers to challenge a set amount of decisions per game. Otherwise you are asking teams in often very high stake games to swallow atrocious decisions with no form of recourse. If a decisions ges against you which could send you down, deny you the title etc, then why should you stay quiet?

Let the manager throw a flag and declare he refuses to accept the decision given and give a video ref 20 seconds to see if the replays conclusively prove the ref to be wrong. If not the on field decision stands and the challenging team loses a substitution. You would have to have subs 'in hand' to be able to challenge a decision in the first place. But much fairer and gives teams a sense of justice.

Use the Rugby League 'on report' for serious incidents that the ref hasn't seen. So the governing body are empowered to act with impunity and free from FIFA'a edict tat the ref has acted.

Rule 8 is madness

Rule 10 is madness.

A lot of nonsense had been brought up, but debate has been stimulated, so fair play

[Dave M]

Practically every idea you have contradicts itself. Some are ok but you seem to be forgetting the reasons the rules are there in the first place. No.1 if you do that you then encourage the person who plays away in the second leg to be defensive away and potentially at home aswell and just leaves the other team to do all the work. You talk about not wasting time but then say stop the game if someone falls over. Do you honestly think someone like Ronaldo would think twice about falling over for 3 seconds if someone was clean through on goal once they'd gone past him. That would waste ages and by the end of the game with time added on its a different game.No 5 if a player is that injured that he had to be down on the floor rolling around and needed treatment what good is he at a set piece anyway. It stops people just running down the clock unfortunately the refs just dont add enough time on at the end for it.

All thats really needed is more support for refs and a less biased FA. Look at last year when Mashcarano, A. Cole, J Terry and Lampard were getting let off after an appeal for lashing out and dissent but Aladiere got an extension to his ban.

The FA are hypocrits they come out with a respect campaign for refs then authorise someone to make the worse culprit in the league England Captain. Says it all really.

[MvB]

All looks fine until "10 - scrap offside".

Although it would be fun to see it tested in a friendly, I believe the offside rule is something special and gives teams and players tactical possibilities.Without the rule it would be a bit like hockey.

Who ever came up with the offside rule is a genius !

[Nathan]

I agree with most people that they are very flawed, but a great debate non the less.

Rule 1) There is nothing wrong with penalties unless your team loses, I often feel cheated when I have watched a awful game to be cheated out of penalties by a extra time away goal.
In agreement scrap away goals, but keep Pens.

Rule 2, 5 and 9) These are great ideas, and should and could be implemented.

Rule 3) Half of this is good. Celebration time is silly because if you have a bigger ground like the Emirates and you have a slow player score, run into the crowd and stroll back because he is out of breath in 2 minutes, do you book him then?
However, taking away punishments for celebrations is a good idea.

Rule 7) Is workable, but more than 5 seconds is needed.

I'll like to add Rule 11 (at this is football, better number)

Rule 11) The fourth offical keeps time completely and tells the referee when to end each half.

Ever time the ball is out of play the watch stops and resumes again once play resumes. Therefore 45minutes is 45 minutes and added time would only be needed if there is a problem at the end of a half.

This works in other sports and can work in football just as easily.

[David Hughes]

How about giving free kicks / bookings for "shielding" the ball from an attacker and letting it run out of play for goal kicks. In any other area of the pitch this is obstruction but because the ball is heading out, nothing is ever done. Stop defenders doing this and they will have to play the ball away or risk a free kick around their area.

[Ian]

I would suggest the referee have the power to move a free kick up 10 yards for each instance of dissent or player preventing a quick free kick from being taken.

This rule is currently employed in hockey and is one of the most effective ways of reducing dissent I have seen.

[Steve]

RULE 10: i played in an amateur league that decided to abolish offside as it was impossible to get enough linesmen. i thought it was a ridiculous idea and expected what most people on here fear i.e. a big lump hanging around the goal waiting on a hoof upfield.strange thing was that never materialised. quite the opposite in fact. the one or two teams that tried it realised quickly it didnt work as the centre half that ordinarily would have been marking them had free reign to stride out with the ball into midfield unopposed. very quickly the "big lump" was told to move himself back up to the half way line to close down the defenders. after about 6 weeks not one team complained that the offside rule had disappeared, it didnt make the game much different but just removed frustrating decisions from officials and improved the flow/attacking element of the game by stopping the mad rush of defenders to "Get out get out". as a centre half i saw the game become less about organisation and more about pure defending.

[Alex M]

I think we have to take notes on other sports where they have got it right.

Hawkeye is used effectively for cricket and tennis for any goal-line 'was it over?' disputes. In Rugby Union, the relationship between the players to the captain, and the captain to the ref is excellent - both parties are respected, and I cannot remember a situation where a live voice link from the ref has had any issues.

I think in order to curb the problem with dissent in the game - and the issue of respect for the officials, is to establish the role of the captain as a players' representative on the pitch. The ref's decision should be final, the game should never be slowed down by aggressive dissent from the complaining team, and if players are not under control - the captain should be booked.

If the captain's team mates do not respect the officials, he is directly responsible. He can be tying his shoelace facing the opposite direction, but if the louts on the pitch wish to protest (which, lets face it, never gets anyone anywhere) then they must consider that it's their captain who suffers.

John Terry will probably have the worst disciplinary record in UK history if that rule was introduced, but so be it.

[Windy Miller]

Scrap the 2 legs for European matches, just draw the home team first and more surprise results will happen. The underdog will stand a better chance of dishing up an upset. Great for all neutrals, frightening for sponsors, TV company’s, Newspaper Owners and fans of the favoured few. Brilliant.

[12th Monkey]

"If the scores are level after 120 minutes (irrespective of which team have scored the more away goals) then the away side in the second leg should advance because, over the course of the tie, they have played an extra 30 minutes away from home"

How is this different to the away goal rule. If you are home on your first leg, then you can just paly for the extra time draw in the second leg

[Turbo]

Point 10 would turn the game into basketball ... the offside rule helps make the game what it is. It's a bit silly, awfully complicated, but football needs it.

All the other points just need referee's to enforce the existing rules properly - with the full support of the FA, LMA and PFA. Just a season of that would improve the game immensely and rout many of the really annoying habits.

Also, what about obstructions by defenders trying to run the ball out in the final few yeards of the field? You've not mentioned it. It's a huge annoyance and extremely negative. If it happened anywhere else on the pitch it would lead to a free-kick.

[holly]

These are the rules which would transforn football:

1. central timing - none of this "there should be 4 mins added on instead of 3" rubbish and time-wasting goes out the window. What's the point rolling round on the ground for 2 mins when the clock has stopped?

2. yellow card means "go sit down for at least 5 mins".

3. No off-side. It's a silly rule that no-one understands - even the refs assistants.

4. No deliberately blocking the player to allow the ball to run out of play. It's obstruction anywhere else on the pitch, except when it is being "shepherded out" off the backline.

[Ian Stalvies]

I reckon Matthew has the best one, especially with regard to diving:
5. Post game video review for serious offences not spotted at the time - diving, violent conduct, etc. - with view to handing out suspensions to guilty parties.

Would be interesting to see how long the practice lasts with a few 3 or 5 game suspensions ...

As for "football is supposed to be a mans game" - fair point regarding the Maradona goal but looking at the EPL, do real men gang up on a referee 10 against 1 as seems to be the case most times?!?

[Pip]

For number 6 -- why can't we just do away with the whole idea that a player going down injured merits an automatic stoppage? Too often it's used as a delaying tactic or to break up a promising attack. The days when play only got stopped for head injuries seemed about right.

For when players are genuinely seriously injured (leg-breaks and the like), other players tend to know. A pulled hamstring or a turned ankle, though...that can wait til the ball goes out. Let the players self-regulate on this one.

[Joe]

Eliminate intentional time wasting and interruptions in the flow of the game.
The player nearest to the ball when it goes out of play to take the throw-in, none of this throwing the ball around between players before a throw-in actually occurs.
A stipulated amount of time for a goalkeeper to return the ball into play.(Note the difference between how the goalkeepers perform this function based on whether they are winning or losing ).
No substitutions permitted within the last ten minutes of a game. (How absurd it is when a substitution is made after two or three minutes into stoppage time.)
A yellow to be awarded against defending players who continue to stand over the ball when a free kick has been awarded against them.
No 'stutter' approaches to the ball be permitted in penalty kicks. Goalkeepers are already at a distinct disadvantage.

[Peter]

Just two comments I'd like to make,
1. Goal line technology should be brought in to confirm whether the ball has crossed the line or not, to be administered by fourth official.
2. A 'Dissent' card to be introduced with the same on pitch value as a yellow card. It could be half red half yellow. However, 5 (?) dissent cards would earn an automatic 5 match ban with 50% of the players wages earned during the ban automatically paid into an FA charity fund ( to be used for coaching sessions for school kids ?). I do feel this would focus players minds a little more.

[Steve]

With regard to offsides, I think it's necessary to prevent cherry picking ... but the rule should be within a certain number of yards of the last defender. Like, say, five yards of distance between the striker and last defender is an on-sides play.

Yes, they could still get it wrong, but I think the instances would be far less because the linesman would not have to judge offsides on whether the players are lined up. It provides some wriggle room.

[Nigel]

In the case of players being injured (Or faking injury), have players removed from the field of play for a period of 5 minutes, in which they can recieve treatment, this would benefit the recovery of truly injured players, or have a substitute prepared to take his place - let's see how many would feign injury then.

[Chuck]

I'd like to see some other change.

0-0 draws are worth 0 points. It would end the all too common "park the bus in front of goal, secure the draw and hope for a goal from a set piece" that we see whenever a mid table team goes up against one of the better clubs. This change would really help international football when it seems most sides play too conservative away.

Victory with a 3+ goal difference should be worth 4 points. Reward teams the attack even while ahead.

Goalkeepers can always be replaced by the keeper on the bench even after use of the third sub. A little change but it would end the farce of an outfield player donning the gloves and make it slight more likely for managers to use their subs fully and earlier.

All refs should use that disappearing spray paint stuff to mark where freekicks should be taken.

Keep the offside rule but only call it if the attacking player is about 2m past the last defender. Any even close decision should be judged in favor of the attacking player.

Their should be playoffs for the third and fourth Champions League places in the Prem. Teams that finish 3-6 play eachother with the top two going to CL and the losers in the UEFA cup. I'd like to see a playoff for the relegation spot as well with 17 and 18 playing to survive.

[Simon]

1. get rid of offside. defenders may go deeper in which case there is more space outside the box. more long shots, more attacking football at both ends and more space in midfield. what could possibly go wrong. why is it bad that the game might end up like hockey? the players will have to be incredibly fit to keep that up all game.

2. sheilding the ball IS not obstruction. how exactly would you make a rule that allows players to put their body between the ball and the opponant but stops players from shielding the ball out of play? what will the rule say? thou must not let the ball cross the white line?

3. referees need to start disciplining players propperly for a) timewasting esp by feigning injury and b) diving. the rules are already there but refs are scared to make the right decisions.

[Harry]

I thinik the best chage would be to play stop time rather than allowing the time to run down and be added on at the end.
Then all the time wasting activities and rules to curb it become mute.
When play is stoped, the clock is stopped.

[Davey]

Ever play a pickup game without offside? It's dire.
The strikers stand in the box, forcing the defenders to stay with them. It then becomes two games of strikers v defenders.
Midfield becomes non existent.

[Jim]

I'd like to see an end to the automatic red card for illegally denying a so-called goalscoring opportunity. It does precisely the opposite of what it should. If the goalscoring opportunity is not denied and a goal is scored, the conceding team are encouraged to attack and get the goal back. If the goalscoring opportunity is denied, the defending team are reduced to ten men and encouraged to defend to preserve what they have.

Far better to award a penalty *even if the offence occurs outside the penalty area*, thus giving the attacking team the goalscoring opportunity the defending teams illegal play denied them. You would see far fewer games ruined by having one side reduced to ten men too early, and illegal play would be punished much more appropriately.

[Alan]

As usual, anyone with radical ideas is declared mad by those who are experienced in madness themselves.
I, too, have advanced many radical ideas such as making all players wear shin-pads (1970's) Can't be done said the hierarchy. Making all grass roots managers become qualified (1980's) Can't be done said the hierarchy. All because it wasn't their idea.
There will always be Luddites who will put obstacles in the way of change. They will be swept aside as will their outdated, meaningless and self-serving interests.

[Richard]

Regarding "shepherding out", a simple rule change would fix this. If a player shields the ball and it goes out of play, either he is deemed to be in control of the ball or he is not. In the former case, treat it as if he had touched the ball last (eg, corner instead of goal kick). The latter case is simple obstruction, already dealt with in the laws.

[Louis]

"Celebration time" isn't a very good idea, it'd make every Stoke game look like the superbowl.

[joseph]

I thought this was going to be a load of outrageous ideas, pleasantly delighted they are all good ideas. I would say a red card for goal keeper infringement at penalities is a tad harsh, maybe say that a goal is awarded if the goalkeeper is in advance of the line before the kick is taken?

Offside > surely some computer whizzkid can come up with a program that analyses play and can tell without doubt that a player was offside. This would mean reverting back to the traditional offside rule > ie if you are offside, you are indeed offside, none of this active/inactive business.

Player celebrations > why are referees so strict? is there really a valid reason? tv schedules? let them celebrate and embrace the crowd, it is a game after all.

good article.

[jack mckillop]

Most of these ideas seem, although well intentioned, to come from someone with little experience or knowledge of playing the game at a decent level. The majority simply wouldn't work in practice, or would never be implemented by the powers that be.
With regards to Robin Reynolds' suggestion of an offside line other than the half way line, this was actually a system trialed by fifa in the mid 90's, with the line being around 20 yards out from the goal-line. If you watch this video of a young Torres playing for Athletico against Milan you can see it being used.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkxkoj16pzk&feature=related

You will also notice the joy that the players feel when they score a goal, not because it's their job, but because football is a passionate game and scoring a goal is an often beautiful and emotionally charged achievement. To suggest footballers should not celebrate goals because "that's what they're meant to do" is ridiculous. It would suggest that football fans should never be more than calmly satisfied while witnessing even the greatest of their teams victories because "well that's what they're meant to do".

jack

[charles]

For 0-0 draws over 2 legs, play extra time with 10 men each to open up play. Other variations of this are 9 men each for 2nd period of extra time, or even 10 men each for 2nd half in normal time. Results are more space to play, likely more goals, less penalty shoot-outs, and better entertainment for fans.

[Lawrence, New Delhi]

here's a suggestion:
to stop all these major finals ending in penalty shoot-outs and to ensure goals in the game, why not have the penalty shoot-out before the game starts?
Thinks about it!

[Tom Murray]

With some pulsating exceptions, most football matches don't offer 90 mins of action. I doubt whether the ball is in play for more than 50%. Any changes should serve to increase that to nearer 85% and give the paying spectator more action per buck. Anything that makes the game quicker and provides more entertainment, and favours attack minded players. Hockey scrapped the offside rule 20 years ago and never looked back. Witness the fast paced games at the olympics (only safety concerns at corners slowed things down) I estimate that of the 70 mins allowed, ball is in play around 60 mins. Football could profit enormously from 1. scrapping offside decisions, 2. allowing free kicks to be taken from where the ball is and not where the offence took place, 3. 10 yard punishments for abuse, 4. time limit to take corners (cut out the wait for centre halves lumbering forward), 5. Video reviews by 4th official while play is continuing and then relayed to referee by radio (sky can do it in 5 secs after all), 6. Ref should be mic'd up so that we can all hear his comments (like rugby) 7. No need to stop play for a substitition, let the 4th official manage it, 8. agree with central timing idea and 9. stopping clock whenever ball goes out of play or ball is dead., 10. if players want to celebrate a goal fine, but let the opposition restart straight away. That will soon curtail the celebrations. Basketballers don't dive into the crowd and go overboard.

[Colin]

Agree will most except 10. Offside should remain but only within the actual penalty area

[martin o'neill]

Retrospective administration of bans for players that so obviously cheat: three games for a dive, one game for feigning injury or wasting time, rolling scale for acts of gamesmanship. Too much pre-meditated cheating going on in European football

[JVS]

Back to Basics ??

If you swear at or harass the officials, you get a yellow card each and every time.... when the manager is down to an available squad of 10 for the next game the penny may drop.

Trainers/medics should be allowed on the pitch during play and accordingly if you kick the ball out, it's time wasting... yellow card

If you block a player trying to play the ball when you have no intention of playing it yourself, it is called obstruction, not "shielding", and it adds nothing to the game.... it is addressed in Rule 11.... have a look... yellow card

Timekeeping to be taken away from the ref and the clock stopped and started by an extra official and the "game " clock to be visible to all as in rugby league. As a result, timewasting no longer an issue.

It's a pipedream to hope for replays of offsides, ball across the line etcetc as those who apparently count say human error is part of the game, but what they mean is ineptitude is excusable and frankly it isn't so lets have some cameras and a few more officials so we can be grown up about the fact that this is a professional sport and this is 2008. If the players can't "play to the whistle" (remember that anyone ?) whilst the matter is adjuducated, then a short delay for a decision is excusable as it does not detract from the spectacle and the interests of justice will be served rather that of the cheats and inept.

More generally, there should be a maximum salary of £ 10 000 per week with no limits on win bonuses. Nothing if sent off. I'm sure we are all tired of watching prima donnas who clearly don't cars trouse millions.

Clubs should not be allowed to "buy" players unless they actually have the cash.... no HP or tick or borrowing against the next 5 years income... it's just a recipe for disaster.

[martin o'neill]

The last comments from will is spot on. Why don't we let the refs use a little 'judgement' to decide things rather than aspire to robotic reffing. Why doesn't the ref just stop the clock when people are time-wasting, even if it is in a period of added/stoppage/injury time. If it were me I'd add on double if I saw some sod obviously taking the p""s. Goal line teachnology unnecessary: three maybe four instances in a season when it happens. When do you stop the game after such an incident? When the balls out of play? could be thirty seconds later during which time a goal could've bben scored, or ared-card offense committed or somebody gets their leg broken, all in a passage of play that didn't count after the video ref decides a goal had been scored. Stupid. Anybody who wants to get rid of offside is stupid, too: result= strung out football where the most athletic win, football is about the brain as well as the brawn, though judging by some of these comments, grey matter in short supply.

[martin o'neill]

why is everyone jumping on the bandwagon about dissent. Yes its not good, but what about diving, cheating, dangerous play? Tantamount to a crackdown on shoplifters whilst forgetting the murderers.

[Robin Sawyer]

I don't agree with the referee stopping play after a player goes down for three seconds ... that would be an easy way for a player to stop play unnecessarily. What I would propose is if a player goes down and is supposedly so seriously hurt that play has to stop and a trainer has to enter the field, then he should have to leave the field for a minimum time of three minutes. I guarantee that if a team knew it would have to play one man short for any length of time, far fewer players would fake an injury. I get so tired of seeing a player act like he's been poleaxed, receives treatment and all of a sudden he's sprinting down the field like an Olympic athlete ... please! This situation seems to happen every five minute in the World Cup ... if someone is so badly injured that he needs to lay on the ground for several minutes then he clearly needs a rest on the side of the pitch ... but my guess is, with this rule he would never stay down in the first place.

[Ray Edwards]

This is a game we all love as it is.
Terry Venables once said: ' If the game was perfect , it wouldn't be perfect'.

[Nick]

I don't think you could book people for dissent of any kind, including throwing arms up in the air. There would be so many cases of unfair bookings where players are gesturing to their team mates, shouting for the ball etc, that it would be ridiculous.

There is no way the offside rule should be abolished, but I do think it should just revert to how it used to be, any player in an offside position should be flagged, regardless of whether he is active or not. It would encourage more skillful attacking play with all players trying to stay onside, and would be a lot less confusing for everyone.

I do think the most ridiculous football rule is bookings for 'excessive' celebrations, particularly when the player removes their shirt. Most players are in very good shape, so aren't exactly offensive to people, anyone of any age can see men without a top on at the beach, beer-bellied men in the crowd are often shown on tv, and lots of players in England wear undertops now anyway. Stupid stupid rule, particularly considering Sepp Blatter was all for female players wearing tighter and shorter kits!

[Laura]

I don't agree with all of those, but some of them. I agree with scrapping the need for players to go off after being down injured, I agree with removing the punishment for celebrating with fans or removing shirts. Penalties etc are part of the game so they should stay. I think the offside rule should remain, but stages of play and all that removed and return to the original offside rule, if you're in front of the defender when the ball is played you're off.

I agree with Matthew's suggestions above, there are plenty of rules that can improve the running of the game without spoiling it's essence. Video refs and clock stopping being two of my personal favourites.

As far as the game as a whole, I'd like to see something put in place to inject more local passion and pride into each team. Perhaps a rule that each team on match day must include at least 3 home grown/academy players and maybe even rewards for the teams who blood local talent as opposed to looking elsewhere. I think that it would give the local areas a boost and perhaps level the playing field a little bit between the big money clubs and the rest.

[Tomas]

I'm not sure about the offside issue.
I remember watching a trial match many years ago (this is not a new issue) in the old Scottish 1st. Division; 1st. half with no offside rules, score 0-0: 2nd. half, normal offside rules, score 4-0.

Players retreating from a free kick.
It works in Rugby League and the ref. and players have no problem with the interpretation of this law. If the don't retreat quickly enough the ball position is moved forward, that makes offenders react. In the English Premiership the very opposite happens, players intentionally move in on the ball to delay it going into play.

How about a sin bin?
It can be applied for any infringement that does not warrant a sending off. 5 to 10 minutes without a player will also make them a bit more responsive and p*** the manager & fans off.

[colin blues]

The Head to Head is the fairest way to separate two tied sides. Much fairer than who scored most against San Marino!!

In place of penalties why not try the 25 yard 1 - 1 requires skill, and goal keepers leaving their line will not be an issue.

Finally stop all BBC commentators from speaking about England's World Cup win in 1966, whilst watching World Cup games that do not include England!! Oh and also Clive Tilsley is to have his memory of Man Utd's Nou Camp victory wiped!!

[Ward van der Woude]

I agree with some of the changes. especially the offside rule change.

But I wanted to add a change. I play field hockey. In Field hockey there is the rule of ´´inter change´´. This means that a player who has been substituted can be used again. In other words, you can change as many times as you like with the same player.

this would benefit the pace of the game. it also helps the manager to change the way of playing significantly for the duration of the match or maybe for 10 minutes.

[Vytas]

Here in North America, we were used by Fifa as the "experimental petri dish of football" for the past thirty years or so. We have long had some rules and others tried out on us.
What worked:
Respect. Only the captain speaks to the ref. The captain does not 'diss' the ref, but he speaks to him about the technical aspects of the call regarding the rules. (players may grumble in the distance).Touch the ref, red card, four match ban, maybe more.Home team must protect the referree. Also, the captain may point out to the referee a particularily violent opponent that should be kept an eye on. It works, at all levels of the game.
A modified offsides rule. We had the 35 yards offside line. Very effective, opened up the game without changing the character of it at all. More goals and it wasn't necessary to have ref's making decisions about who was involved or not.(as a personal aside, if I could make a snap judgement to cross a ball to a near post player or a far post player, you're going to tell me a world class passer of the ball cannot?- that somehow the other player wasn't offside?) Implement the thirty-five yard, anyone offside after that deserves the call.
Pet peeves: ENFORCE the Rules,
Yes Virginia, there is a stopwatch in the ref's hands, use it!
Throw-ins where the ball goes out.
Ten yards when the ball is kicked, ten seconds to get away. Remember when everyone would throw or kick the ball away? That's stopped hasn't it?
Instant free kick allowed, wether the other team is ready or not.(also the ref) Anywhere in the rules about the ref ensuring that the offending team should have a proper and fair amount of time to defend their infraction?'
OBSTRUCTION!!!!! A fullback should be allowed to shield the ball out of play,(nothing in the rules about having to kick a ball near you) but when there is plenty of time and space to play the ball and the fullback does nothing but obstruct the attacking players path to the ball with his body, arms, legs, etc., that is obstruction, no if ands or butts(sic), enforce the rule.
Have thought about the diving and rolling about and agree with the above writer: if a player needs medical attention on the field and has to be carried off the pitch, he or she may not be allowed back on until a complete medical evaluation has been made as to the seriousness of the injury-three minutes?-Five anyone?
P.K.-Goalie encroaches-automatic goal,no card, play resumes.
On set pieces, delay, encroach, add ten yards (good idea from above)
I HATE P.K.'S TO DETERMINE GAMES.
That said, if you pay attention to the above writers, there were a couple of suggestions as to taking them before the game. My feelings exactly.Take them before the game then go home, what's the point of playing the game of football if your going to determine it by p.k.'s? How about the golden goal-again? Fitness is part of the game after all, it encourages offence. After two extra times, why not allow (as field hockey suggested) revolving sub's, including those taken out earlier, maybe this would invoke a little devious coaching strategy, no?
Like the man said above, don't penalize teams for celebrating, taking off shirts,etc., doesn't take much time and so long as they can defend their goal when the other team has kicked off already what's the harm?
League review of every game to assess off the ball fouls and dirty play.(can't change results) Forget offsides,diving and time wasting, tactical calculations and such, the ref should address these on the field and the rules committee off, but if a player goes two legs over the ball on purpose or ten players on one team "spread out the fouls' on one opposing player, they should be fined and penalized, nuff said.

[Steve]

Regarding the suggestion to do away with the offsides rule, I think a better idea would be to delay the whistle. Players should be forced to play the ball until either a goal is scorer, the ball goes out of touch, or the ball is cleared.

If there is a goal, or if a corner kick results, immediate camera review should be done to confirm that the goal or corner was not the result of a player in an offside position. Otherwise, if the ball was cleared, or if a goal kick results, play will continue uninterrupted.

Linesmen will still be needed, and should still call offsides by signaling with their flag. However, players on the pitch should be instructed to continue play. If a goal or corner results, the offsides call will be reviewed to confirm its accuracy. If no goal or corner kick results, play will continue. Furthermore, any goal should automatically receive offsides review.

[Jim Dyer]

I think offside at the half-way line is ridiculous. A player should be allowed to have a shot at goal from outside the penalty area without being offside, so the penalty area line should be extended across the pitch. What happened to the rule punishing ground pinched excessively at throws-in? The idea was to give the throw-in to the other side, but now either the throw-in is re-taken at the right spot, or ground pinching is being allowed again. Rugby time-keeping is controlled off-pitch, why cannot football do the same? The ref has enough to think about.

[Brian]

Scrapping offside would just make for even more kick and rush than English football is alreadyinfamous for. I wonder if any consideration should be given to an ice hockey style fixed offside line on the pitch about 30 or 35 yards from each goal.

[Pat O'Hare]

A few years ago the Tranmere Rovers penalty taker was fouled and injured in the penalty area and a penalty was awarded. He had to receive treatment and so had to leave the field of play. This meant he was unable to take the penalty, which was missed by the replacement taker. Players who are injured as a result of a foul should not be required to leave the field.

[John]

A simple rule change that would speed up the game and create space for an attacking team would be to prohibit the goalkeeper from touching the ball outside the penalty area. The goalkeeper has special privileges which are confined to the penalty area. It would be sensible and logical and easily enforceable to confine all his participation to that area

[peter]

I think the offside law should be amended so that a player can only be offside if the ball was played from the defending half. ie a player cannot be offside when the ball is played from within the attacking half of the pitch. Also remove the notion of passive offside. A player should be offside or not.
This would eliminate nearly all those close offside calls when a 'goal' is scored but at the same time prevent 'goal-hanging'. Any offside calls as a result of a ball played from the defensive half would mainly occur far enough from goal that the assistant would flag before a 'goal' was cored thus reducing controversial incidents.

[Graham Brack]

I don't have a strong view on away goals, but a lot of penalty shootouts take place after one-off matches on neutral ground (World Cup, for example). We could reduce these by a simple idea my eight year old daughter had. Let the first goal count double - then as soon as someone scores they have an advantage and it should encourage attacking play from the start. Whether it should be double after 90 minutes or 120, I'm not sure.

[eddie robinson]

Looks like the editor had asked for ten and the writer struggled to reach five.
What a load of tripe.

[James Thornley]

Not convinced that many of these are beneficial - some such as "celebration time" are fairly marginal.
The best way to deal with the encroachment problem at free kicks is for the referee to quickly indicate ten yards, then blow his whistle. The free kick can then be taken, If a goal results, it stands. If no goal results and the defenders were encroaching the kick is retaken until either a goal is sciored or the defenders stop encroaching.

Oh and please allow tackling in the Premiership. Even the most innocuous-looking challenges get penalised these days.

[Adam Webb]

DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT scrap the offside rule. A truly foolish and frankly absurd suggestion. How many teams would play with a single striker who simply parks up 5 meters from the edge of the penalty area and just wait for long balls? It would kill football as an attacking game, it would be all about the right pass, as opposed to the right shot. Can you imagine a game decided by the lottery of who managed to hoof it up to an unmarked striker who has no competition for the ball. What a stupid suggestion. Keep the offside rule and bring in the technology to help officials make the right decisions.

[Steve]

I agree with the eliminating the offside rule.
Also, how about sending off a player (nominated by the sent off team) after 5 or 6 normal fouls? This would eliminate the professional foul.

[Michael Hastings]

The idea of scrapping the off side rule is a nonsense.

So too the idea of 'the side who plays more away minutes should go through'.

Let me put it like this, would you be happy your side went out of the Champions League because they got drawn to play away in the first leg?

Dismissing a GK for encroachment is a little excessive, a booking would be fine and if he did it again, then a second booking. But referees knowing the rules and showing yellows would be enough to stop the practice, probably one area of many where referees need to learn the rules.

In general, I think you're mad.

[Saul]

1. Technical offences (time wasting, dissent, celebrations, not retreating) to be dealt with by a 'technical card'. From the second technical offence onwards, players on technicals get 3-5 minutes sin bin - it'll reduce niggles without disrupting the whole match like yellow and red do and refs will feel more comfortable handing them out.

2. Players can be cited for diving, handball and violent play (not merely fouls) after the game

3. Injured players requiring treatment must leave the field for 3 minutes being replaced by an 'injury' sub (aka 12th man) during that time.

4. Players may not ask for a referee to card an opponent - technical offence for point 1.

5. Chat back on a ref's decision can move the free kick forwards 5m. If it's in the last 23 metres of the field it can be moved to a marked point 10m diagonal from either corner of the penalty area at the attackers choice.

[Joakim Lof]

Of all the comments to the article, I think two ideas really shine out;

1) Only the captain of the team is allowed to adress or approach the referee.
2) Add an extra off-side-line between the penalty area and the middle of the pitch.

Nr 1 would make the referee's job much easier in heated situations. Nr 2 would make play more open and you would have more goals scored, although not as extreme as abolishing off-side altogether!

[Bill Fitzpatrick]

As for those who suggested moving the free-kick 10 yards further forward if there was further dissent etc. Err didn't we have that rule a few seasons ago and referee's seemingly oblivious to it. So the refs were to blame for that.

I would say

1) To reduce the chance of penalties and away goals. Say that the team who scores the first goal in a tie goes through if it ends up level. So take your chances on sitting back if you want to but you know the consequences.

2) Offside - once 2 defenders (including the keeper) are in the 18 yard box then offside does not apply.

3) Stop the clock. When the ball is not in play stop the clock. Stops all this time wasting. You'd only have to play 30 mins each way and we'd still be at the match for 90 mins plus.

4) In extra time goalkeepers can only catch the ball in the 6 yard area and punch or use a hand to fiver the ball in the rest of the area. That would liven things up.

5) Use a foul count like basketball. 5 fouls and you get a card ....

[Paul]

The Head to head rule is rubbish. Why should a team benefit from having beaten Andorra 5-0 at home instead of 4-0 having won just one point out of a potential six in the games played against their nearest rival.

[Vaughan Clarke]

The very best rule change in football would be this:

If you dive in the penalty area then a penalty is awarded at the opposite end.

If you dive outside of the penalty area, then a free kick is awarded at the equivalent position at the other end.

Anyone who's played rugby knows how hard it is to bring somebody down. Players should be penalised for not making enough effort to stay on their feet.

[Sean]

What's wrong with the game is that FIFA bureaucrats keep picking it apart and changing the rules. I'd like to see 10 years in which the rules don't change.

[C.S.LEE]

I think football should make some revolutionary changes ad people in charge shd not be so arrogant. There are some fair suggestions:
a) there shd be a 35-metre off-side line,
b) players given a yellow card should be put on the bench for ten minutes, like ice-hockey;
c) when the match stays at a goalless draw at 70 minutes, each team should take one player off the pitch, same result at 80 minutes, another player off. This would test the judgement of the manager, and open up the field for goals. This would also make the game more exciting towards the end.
d) draw results should be scrapped. If the match is at a draw after 90 minutes, it shd continue to play on golden goals basis.
e) consideration shd be given to use electronic aid to review some decisions(like tennis) based on appeals from the team captain. The game is getting faster and faster, and more money is involved. It is reasonably to assume that the human eye is not perfect, and why not take help. Stop being bloody arrogant. This would also prevent the referees from manipulating the results.
Time has come for the game to move on and be modernised.

[Pete]

Lots of good ideas in the list but I would in short have 1. Scrap Away goals and stick with penalties after extra time. 2. Goal line technology for checking if the balls crosses the line. 3. 4th Referee (TV) - giving the option for penalty area referals similar to Rugby League if the ref is unsure 4. Official time keeper 5. Seven subs yes - but in the premier league an unofficial agreement between clubs that the seventh sub should be a home national under the age of 23. 6. Last man fouls in the penalty area should result in a yellow card only - outside to remain red

[Jake]

No yellow cards. No red cards. Eye patches.

First offence gets you one eye patch, playing havoc with depth perception in ways that not even Paul Robinson knows.

Second offence gets you a second eye patch, but you stay on the pitch for entertainment value.

[refs are rubbish]

All we need to improve the game is for the 4th official to sit behind a TV monitor to watch replays (if requested) and relay it back to the referee rather than babysitting the managers and holding up the digital board for subs and extra time to be played.
This will stop the arguments on 'ball crossing the line' 'diving' 'offside' etc.
This would take 30 seconds to sort out rather than players surrounding the officials for 1-2mins complaining.

[Tom Agnew]

Wh...what? The whole problem with PKs is that it prevents there being a winner crowned from the run of play. This solves absolutely nothing.

I've always thought a novel idea would be to have the two sides play for a golden goal for however many 15 minute periods of extra time are needed to produce a winner, and have each team remove one player from the field after the end of each period, to increase the likelihood of a score.

[Tom Agnew]

The concept of an offsides rule is all well and good, but football's offsides rule is too subjective and requires too much scrutiny to enforce. Maybe they should simply replace the old rule with one that stipulates that the ball must cross midfield before any attacking players.

Also, I've always found the limitations on substitutions baffling. More relaxed substitution rules would keep the tempo of the game quicker and thus discourage playing conservatively to save energy.

[Tom Agnew]

Revolving subs. That's the phrase. Here in the States the concept is so taken for granted in sports that it doesn't even have a name.

So, revolving subs, and you can substitute an unlimited number of times during regular stoppages of play (except for injuries).

[Tom Agnew]

Anyway, I think it's pretty immediately obvious to all but those who have been inundated with the sport since birth that officiating is in desperate need of an overhaul, starting with the fact that the officials are woefully undermanned to be expected to properly officiate a game with 22 players.

The whole system of discipline is fundamentally flawed because it gives referees immense, virtually unchecked authority over the outcome of a game. Penalty kicks should not be given for things so innocuous as a sloppy challenge in the box. And while we're at it, awarding a virtually guaranteed goal in a game that places such a high premium on them is just too extreme a punishment and often robs the teams of the chance of being able to decide the game in the run of play. Assuming that they should keep PKs at all, they should at least move the spot farther back.

Red cards are even more outrageous because they essentially destroy the competitive balance of the game. Ejection should be the absolute last resort for officials wanting to stop dangerous play, and even when the orders are given, the offending player's team should not have to play with one arm tied behind its back for the rest of the game. Perhaps they should be forced to play a man down for a certain amount of time, after which they can send in a replacement, as they do in ice hockey.

Now that I think about it, a lot of the suggestions in the comments for improving the game are rooted in ice hockey. This is perhaps because ice hockey is the single most thrilling spectator sport on earth, and no matter what sport you are most partial to, you are not allowed to argue this. It is unassailable truth.

[mp]

Rather than changing the offsides rule, just make the goal bigger (how about a foot higher and a foot wider. The size of the goal has not changed in ages while players are taller, and more angile than ever.

A larger goal would make defending more difficult making it less likely that teams could "park the bus".

[Graham]

Simon on 9th Sept defends shielding the ball out of play by defenders claiming it is fair play and how could you legislate it any other way? Simple, a player should not be allowed to use his body to shield the ball until he is deemed to be in control of it by having touched it. That way the defender must seek to clear the ball rather than just impede the attacker.

[Graham]

I can see a big problem arising in the stopping of the clock for the ball being out of play as advocated by many. The money men! Suddenly we will see adverts being inserted into games "as play has stopped already" and that is the thin end of the wedge.

[Chris]

If a player is injured by a foul, the offending player should also be sent off the field ... and not allowed back until 1 minute after the injured player returns or is substituted. ...

this will put a stop to cynical fouls ...

[mike king]

Point 6 about stopping play immediately for injured players is ridiculous Every manager worth his salt would tell his players to do go down every time the opposition counter-attacked.
The fair play idea of the opposition kicking the ball out was tried, and it failed for the same reason - managers like Mourinho told his players to pretend they were injured to stop play when the opposition were in a good position. The pressure would all be on the ref with you absurd suggestion.

Why can't a trainer just come on and treat while play continues as in rugby. If the guy is feigning, then his team are a man short. If he's not, he gets faster treatment.

Yes, this might allow a bit of coaching, but the dubious value of a few words of wisdom would be offset by the loss of a player for a few moments. And all the uncertainty of the present ad hoc system would be taken away.

[Chris Adams]

There is one rule change that would remove the need to have 3,5,6, and 7 rule changes and also remove a lot of the frustrations of modern football. Ball in play timings taken these days indicate that in most games between 40 and 50 minutes is the actual 'play' time. If the game was put on the clock while the ball was in play and the clock stopped when out of play; say for throw-ins, injuries, free kicks, goal kicks etc; it would remove all the time wasting that is so irritating. The game should be 30 minutes each way. The players (and coaches) would no that no amount of time wasting, over free kicks, goal kickes, injuries and even substititions, would affect the game! No further debates over an unfair length of injury time 'where did that come from!' being a commonly heard commentators statement as the board goes up. The professional game would find it easy to implement, but perhaps with technology giving a start / stop watch to all referees would not be too taxing for the FA. Perhaps with this change the players and coaches would start to think of playing the game to make the most of the time they have; to entertain us that pay their wages, whether at the pitch or on telly.

[Steven McKay]

If you want to end time wasting tactics and ensure that the full 90 minutes is dedicated to playing then why not introduce rugby-style time keeping. Take the responsibility away from the referee, he has too much to do. The ball goes out, time stops, foul committed, time stops, etc. This is not like what was mentioned above where you'd have a situation of 3 seconds to score. Once time expires, the game doesn't end until the next dead ball situation.

This also ends the complaints about multi-ball & ball boys taking longer to return to one team.

1,2 and especially 7 are quite good. 7 is fantastic, because you are right - dont commit the foul in the first place.

4,5,6 are rubbish though. You should be allowed to react, just not to take out on the ref. Injuries are dealth with pretty well. We do not however deal with the fakers - (any continental /LATIN player)

As for 8, it should be the opposite. As soon as the run up is started, the keeper should be allowed to move inside the 6 yard box.

[David Matthews]

The guys who drafted football's rules are absolute geniuses. With only small modifications these rules have stood the test of time and made football the greatest game in the world. Changing rules willy nilly is not something to be embarked on lightly. Otherwise we will end up with a game like Aussie Rules footy where they keep changing rules every season causing 101 interpretations. What I would like to see is:
1. Video evidence used retrospectively to punish players with suspensions for fouls or play acting that the referee doesn't pick up at the time.
2. Time keeping by the 4th official with time being properly added on for unlawful time wasting. Lets face it the 4th official doesn't have anything else to do other than cop abuse.
3. More observers adjacent to the goal line to rule on whether the ball has legitimately crossed the line. Was it Bulgaria that had a perfectly good goal disallowed in Euro 96 because the ref thought the ball hit the stanchion outside the goal?
I certainly do not want video replays. They would ruin the game.
For a radical suggestion that I cannot see elsewhere, we could increase the size of the goals by say 1 inch all round. That will give us more goals. Lets face it the players are way fitter and stronger than they were in 1880.

[Shadey]

I think 5 & 6 are rubbish. Here's the perfect solution - keep the current rule that an injured player needs to leave the field for treatment, but having left the field let the fourth official enforce a 3 or 4 minute mandatory treatment period. It means the players are less likely to feign injury. If the injury is genuine then a 3 minute break is not an unreasonably long or short period to diagnose/treat the injury. If the treatment is feigned then they are suitable punished for the timewasting/attention seeking that their actions deserve.