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

[Daniel Forsyth]

Have not really thought this the whole way through have we Bill? Got to be about rule five and thought oh dear got to fill up the remaining five what else can I whack in for the sake of controversy.
Let's go through them considering you obviously wrote this on deadline and didn't have the time to think about what you were writing.
No.6 So any player who rolls around crying in mock agony will halt the passage of a potential attack....That rule would be all good and dandy unless football teams aren't a bunch of cynical mercenaries who will try to exploit every advantage. So the referee has to decide if they are 'really' injured. What does that mean? Will only a Craig Fagan-esque injury count as a propery one?
No.7 Again a rule that would be all too readily exploited by players. All they would have to do is look around to see which players were too slow to react - or were jogging back in the opposite direction and hey presto they have gained an advantage. Akin to the morally unfair rule in hockey where if an opponent strikes your ankle with the ball, you are penalised.
No.8 Yes it is something that needs to be enforced but that has to be left to the common sense of the officials not a measurement. If you have ever played football to any sort of level, you will know keepers dive forward to save any shot. If a penalty taker stutters in his run up, they have to adjust their position with their feet. If your rule came into play you would get the ridiculous scenario where all penalty takers stagger their run up to try and catch the goalie encroaching from his line.
No.9 No it wouldn't.
No.10 That suggestion is too ridiculous to even merit a debate. Just because Americans like sports which are high scoring does not mean we want that sort of thing over here. Anyone who suggests offside should be abolished is clearly an imbecile, the like of which listen to Andy Gray on Last Word each week, without ever attending a game themselves.

[pete]

some good - mostly bad ideas there. Scrapping the offside rule is a ridiculas suggestion. If you ever watch a game of football without offiside, it quickly becomes disjointed, slow, and revolves around long ball tactics. The "book players for any dissent" is already a law of the game - so no worries there too. Goalkeepers are not allowed off there line before a penalty is taken - that is already in place too. However, I do like the idea of scrapping away goals - as I do think they can ruin cup ties. Two ideas I would add though are the sin bin rule for yellow cards (as others have suggested) as it gives you an imediate punishment for big offences, and also I would give each side three "disputes" to decisions in a match - as in tennis - where they can go to a "video ref" and have the decision verified/overturned. if they are correct, then they keep there dispute. other than that, I think the rest of the idea's would ruin the game...

[lescrooge]

Scrapping offside would destroy pub arguements but would make the game faster and result in more goals.
Hark back to your youth when multiple orgasms were a physical reality. Where did it leave you. Well it left me truly knackered after 3 in 20 minutes.
So we get 8 goals in 90 instead of 1 or none in 90. That leaves the crowd sated and drained and safe to travel home. Crowd violence - 0. I'd also have at least 6 linesman, instant replays and a 2nd ref up with the multiple cameras. The one on the field would be there soley to coney what was going on to the players.

[Brian]

Refs who actually enforce the rules are prone to be demoted (Mark Halsey) or banished altogether (the Russian who did the Portugal-Holland kickfast in WC06). Why bother changing the rules when the suits are just going to stab in the back refs who insist rules are followed.

[Charles]

I wouldn't scrap offside altogether I would just tell linesman to stop flagging for it instead and use replays to determine the outcome.

If a player scores then it will take a few seconds (of the celebration time) to get the replay and allow or disallow the goal depending on the final pass to the goal scorer. The offside law isn't changed it's just enforced fairly and accurately.

If they don't score then play continues. No one is any the wiser and linesmen can keep an eye on foul play.
The linesman's job judging offside is virtually impossible anyway and it is a miracle that they get it right at all but we are talking about the whole point of the game (to score goals) so every help should be given to the referee and the players. I don't accept the 'it all evens out in the end' argument until you prove it.

[Michael]

Give 1.5 points for an away draw in league games. If you draw against Man U away thats worth a win. Or have penalty shoot outs at the end of every drawn game.

Both of these would mean no more draws. Would make the sport more popular in the US as well where they cant understand a tied game.

[JamesR]

Scrapping the offside rule is truly ridiculous.

Perhaps we should take some inspiration from our American chums and their end-to-end game of basketball. Once the attacking side has taken the ball over the halfway line, they are not allowed to pass it back over the line towards their goal.

This would ensure no tedious and time-wasting passing between midfielders and defenders, allowing for a more attacking and exciting game of football.

However, if this rule was to be put in place, surely Frank Lampard, our favourite exponent of the art of hardly ever actually passing forwards, would be out of a job.

[harry pugh_bikbushe]

I think that all the suggestions are fine however, what i would really like to see would be for players having to remove elements of clothing in extra time at the discretion of the opposing manager in a rotation basis. this would make the players hurry up and get on with it and afford us the chance, perhaps, to get a fleeting glimpse of frank lampard's breathtakingly perfect buttocks.

[Paul Williams]

I'm confused, all these posts and nobody has pointed out what a fantastic game it already is - why does it need changing?
And the first post re netball? Netball isn't very popular or exciting is it. That's why we all love to play, watch and argue about football!

[Steven]

Introduce player zones as in netball and get rid of offside - each half becomes a five a side game with only one offensive and defensive player allowed in the box apart from the keeper.

[Rod]

Larger goals, say a foot either side to account for the increased athleticism and size of goalkeepers since the standard goal size was introduced.
Also ban all substitutions in the last 10 mins and injury time. They are only ever utilised in this timeframe to break up the attacking sides rhythm and waste time.

[Fab]

The best rule change would be to stop the clock when the ball is out of play. Its a farce that it hasn't happened already.
Not as obvious, but I would also have 2 referees, one in each half as English referees are the worst in the world and need all the help they can get (video technology would be too time consuming for smaller decisions).

[jkeinonen]

Some good ideas. These have been on my mind for a long time.

1) Sin bins and different times for different fouls. Immediately. Two minutes, ten minutes, rest of game.

2) The not-so-clear "second penalty from the edge of the D". For fouls committed inside the box but ones that not immediately threatened a goal, and for unclear situations. Gives the referee a chance to take take the middle road.

[Will]

as for number 10 you might as well let the goalkeeper handle out side of the box and give players the ability to kick the ball to the goalkeeper and have him pick up, it will never happen. FIFA and UEFA are already frustrated with the FA enough

[ss]

there should be an advantage for high scoring teams as well.

if a team scores 3 goals, they should get an extra point. if they score another 4, another point, another 5, then another point.

for an example, if team A beats team B 7-0, they will get 3 points for the win, they've scored 3+, thats an extra point, and they have an extra 4; so that is 5 points total.

this will make teams who are battling for points play even harder for goals knowing that they can reap the benefits in their league.

now you wont only win for 3 points, but for more goals to get your more points.

[Frank Upton]

Abolish shoot-outs and instead, in extra time, progressively reduce the number of players on each side. At seven-a-side, abolish to offside rule also.

[Ken Smith]

Reduce team size to 10 players. I saw such a game when each side had a player sent off. It was transformed from mediocre to exciting. (Palace v Liverpool). Think of the cost savings!

[Graeme]

Let play continue around an injured player? Come on, do me a favour. Have you thought this through. Imagine theses scenarios - your goalie has injured his hand and is receiving treatment. The oposition go foward and bang in a goal! Or your captain and erstwhile most trustworthy centre-half is lying injured on the ground following a reckless challenge from the oppostion's centre-forward. You can't just let play go on around him as though nothing has happened!

[Jon]

How about to combat time wasting, the clock is stopped each time the ball is out of play, from the time a free kick is given and taken and also whilst someone is injured? Remove the "added on time" after each half as that is no longer required and many times confusing as to how they decide if it is 3 mins or 5 mins. Actual playing time will be 90 mins.

[AlexG]

i agree with 3, 6 (although 5 seconds of inmobility from the ground and display of pain should be a better time frame), 7 (although with 10 seconds), 8 and 9 (which will be difficult to implement as it isn't easy for a ref to count the fouls every player makes). 4 is too extreme, 5 would encourage 'acting' to waste time, like the croatian national team very often does and 10 would encourage attackers to just stay near the goal and not move waiting for a pass (making the game less athletic and interesting)

[Clive Britcher]

Suggestions 1-5; 7 & 10 - OK. I agree.
6 - no; there are too many actresses on the field to make that effective.
8 - no; 12 yds is almost nothing; if the goalie bounces around a bit, it's probably not going to make much difference. If he's completely out of order, let the Ref give him a card.
9 - no; it's just far too complicated!

I'd add another new rule. Anyone seen spitting will be given a yellow card. Why do footballers have to spit all the time? You don't see olympic athletes, rugby players, cricketers, boxers, tennis players or swimmers spitting, so why should footballers do it? It's absolutely disgusting and brings the game into disrepute even more than a wild tackle, in my opinion.Stop the spitters!!

[Will]

Instead of penalties, I would have golden goal extra time where every five minutes, each team loses a player. I doubt it would get too silly, with a goal likely to be scored before it gets to six a side. At least it's still the same game that was originally going to decide the match.

[colin]

offside only possible from a pass within opponents half

[André E. Carrington]

I have no problem with most of your rules suggestions. However, there are two rules that I would vehemently oppose.

In my opinion, rules 6 and 10 would be detrimental to the sport.

Rule 6 would allow players to stop certain goals against their team simply by pretending to be injured. It would be very similar to the last man hacking down a player that is about to break through on goal.

If we're going to introduce rule 6 then there must be an automatic red card if play is stopped with one or no defenders between the (opposing) player with the ball and the goal.

10) The offside rule prevent 'goaltending'. Without it strikers could simply patrol the 18 yard box waiting for long balls to be hoofed up the pitch. Send enough long balls and some of them will get through. Overall, this is a terrible idea.

There are not enough goals in the modern game - largely due to good organisation, tactics ,fitness, video analysis , etc. Goalkeepers are now 6 foot +.Therefore , the size of the goals should be increased to redress the advantages that defending teams have acquired since the goal size was determined ( probably 100 years ago )