3 things you would change

User avatar
buzzbee
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 11:48
Location: Bracknell

3 things you would change

by buzzbee » 15 Aug 2010 20:02

Warning - War and Peace post :D

If you could change 3 things about football, what would they be? It could be anything, but preferably things that realistically could be changed - i.e. "bombing the whole town of O*ford" is probably not an option :lol: . Perhaps it would be a change to rules, to structure, to grounds, to leagues or governing bodies.

My 3 are rule based. There are lots of things people would like to see different. Perhaps you would like to see a change to the off-side rule. Perhaps you hate the fact that something can be a foul outside the box, but OK in it. Maybe time-wasting gets your back up. My three are all based around the fact that I want to see 11 v 11, with more flowing play and less stoppages...

1) What constitutes a foul?
IMHO, a foul should only be given, regardless of where you are on the pitch, if by way of a deliberate act, or recklessness, your actions cause contact with an opponent which stop him from proceeding.

I don't believe in the theory, "There was contact. Therefore, he was entitled to go down." IMHO, and with the above change, he would only be entitled to go down, if the contact causes him to. I would like to see the onus put on players to continue if they are able to.

Also, it would stop a lot of free-kicks being 'earned' - For instance - A player is running with the ball and a defender is chasing him. Just as the defender catches him, the attacker sees him and cuts across him, knowing the defender will not be able to stop. They make contact and the attacker goes down. IMHO, this should not be a foul by the defender, because the contact was not caused by a deliberate or reckless act on his part. If anything, the free kick should go in his favour, because the forward has deliberately caused the contact.

2) What deserves a red or yellow card?
I want to see 11 v 11. In today's game, players seem to be booked for almost any foul. The punishment for a foul is actually a free kick. Let that be. I don't want to see players making a genuine attempt for the ball get booked, because the attacker just poked it away as they were about to get it. So, for me...

Yellow Card
Only given for challenges that are cynical or reckless or if they are mis-timed and prevent a reasonable goalscoring opportunity or reckless in a way that potentially could be dangerous
An example of cynical - You have a corner and the ball comes out to a player on the edge of their area and they have a chance to break, so you just bring the guy down, to give your team a chance to re-group.
A reckless challenge that prevents a reasonable goalscoring opportunity would be one where the intention seems to be to win the ball. If it isn't reckless and is a pure accident or the contact is initiated by the attacker, then no foul (See above) but if a player simply mis-times his challenge, a Yellow will suffice.
An example of the reckless kind would be where you go into a challenge, intending to win the ball, but failing to do so, but with both feet off of the ground. You are out of control and it could potentially be dangerous

Red Card
Only given for a challenge with apparent intent to injure, genuinely dangerous tackle or a cynical foul that prevents a reasonable goalscoring opportunity.
So, if a player seems to go in, looking to injure his opponent or perhaps accidentally puts studs into his opponents chest, he should be off.
If he prevents a goalscoring opportunity and it seems to be deliberate, bye bye.

3) The Amber Card
No, you didn't mis-read that. I did say 'Amber' Card. It could be amber, blue, green or pink with sky blue polker dots, but I am talking about the introduction of a third type of card. This would be used for offences that are not against the opposing team. Such things as decent (Whether verbal at the ref or perhaps kicking the ball away) or leaving the field of play or removing your shirt, when celebrating a goal.

The idea of the amber card is that it does not count towards a red card. You can get 10 in a game, but never be sent off. The offence isn't against your opponent, so they don't gain an advantage from it.

Instead, you will be subject to supplementary discipline. You would be suspended when you reach a certain amount (I would suggest 3) of amber cards and, in professional football, you would face a fine, every time you got one. In addition, once a team reached a certain number (Suggestion - 10) of amber cards, they would get a large fine and the manager/coach would receive a touchline ban, for failing to control his players.

I would then suggest that these cards are given out at every show of decent, rather than just the worst ones. Every time you talk back to the ref, you get an amber card, a fine and move a step closer to a suspension. I believe players would quickly discover a new found respect for the referees.

The result is that you are punished for these kinds of offences, but the team you are playing against doesn't end up with a man advantage, because of offences that were not against them.

Summary
IMHO, the biggest skill these days is trying to win a free kick. I want to see ball skills instead.
I don't want to see players sent off, because 11 v 10 often ends the game as a contest and creates a more crowded game, where 20 players are all in the same half of the pitch. Before the premiership, it was big news if there was a sending off in the first division. Now, it would be big news if a weekend went by without a sending off. It has become too regular.

You may think they are crazy ideas, especially the last one, but I believe that these three changes would mean much more 11 v 11 play, while not compromising the need to protect the skilful players or the need for respect for officials. Players would still be booked or sent off for dangerous play, but with the onus being on players to try to continue, we would see skilful players carry on, rather than try to win free kicks. Not only would the skilful players be protected, but we would be more likely to see them showing off their skills.



Discuss and give your 3 changes...

</war and peace> :D

User avatar
Dirk Gently
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6575
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 13:54
Location: 1 across, 2 down. Winner - HNA? Death Pool 2007

Re: 3 things you would change

by Dirk Gently » 15 Aug 2010 22:01

The financial structure, the rules on debt and the distribution of wealth.

All else is insignificant in comparison.

User avatar
FiNeRaIn
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 6231
Joined: 22 Jul 2004 17:44
Location: Los Angeles

Re: 3 things you would change

by FiNeRaIn » 16 Aug 2010 03:32

I like the Amber card one. Makes absolutely no sense to book people for taking shirts off and other petty crap that doesn't affect the opposing team.

Barry the bird boggler
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8153
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 08:34
Location: in my bird boggler

Re: 3 things you would change

by Barry the bird boggler » 16 Aug 2010 08:14

Dirk Gently The financial structure, the rules on debt and the distribution of wealth.

All else is insignificant in comparison.


This +100000000000

Also, change the size of the ball. All games should be played with an over sized beach ball. This would make Subbuteo seem more realistic.

User avatar
Skyline
Member
Posts: 841
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 13:50
Location: The squirrel's not important

Re: 3 things you would change

by Skyline » 16 Aug 2010 09:34

If it is anything to do with football, then I've got to add another +1 to Dirk's message.

If we're talking about the rules of the game:

1) Get rid of the shirt-off == yellow card rule. Players should only be carded for celebrations if, in the opinion of the ref, they are deliberately trying to wind-up opposition fans. Examples like Adebayor (I think it was) running the length of the pitch to celebrate in front of the Arsenal fans when he scored for Man City should be punished, but a player diving into a crowd of his own fans should be fine.

2) Bring back the dissent = 10yds rule. The reasons given for getting rid of this rule were absolutely ridiculous (apparently it was because non-rugby playing countries didn't understand it), and once it had started being applied regularly it definitely seemed to reduce dissent at free kicks.

3) Enforce the ungentlemanly conduct rules, especially with regards to players doing things like waving imaginary cards to try and influence the ref to book and opposition player. That should be classed as ungentelmanly conduct and booked accordingly.


havoc

Re: 3 things you would change

by havoc » 16 Aug 2010 10:07

As an alternative to penalty shootouts:

I would instead have dead ball shots at goal from inside the semi circle of the penalty area

Basically the shot taker would be allowed to place the ball anywhere inside that area he wished (like say in pool), the keeper, as with pens, would have to remain on his line, and the taker would get one touch/strike of the ball to score.

The keeper would then be under much more pressure to save it whilst at the same time it would take more skill and less blind luck to score.

User avatar
Hoop Blah
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 13937
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:00
Location: I told you so.....

Re: 3 things you would change

by Hoop Blah » 16 Aug 2010 10:28

I don't think much of the OP is much of a change to be honest, apart from the amber card of course.

I think it's an interesting suggestion to be fair. Why give the opposition an advantage if the offence isn't against them?

The one thing, over and above Dirks suggestion on finanical regulations etc, would be to get away with the interefing with play and 'second phase' rubbish within the offside law. Any player in and around the defensing team is influencing their behaviour because they have to be aware of their position and potential involvement in the play. Therefore they're interfering and contributing to the situation that unfolds.

As part of Dirks overhaul of financial regulations and rules I'd like to see some form of supporter (member) ownership and involvement to help prevent a rogue set of owners/chairmen etc can't get away with screwing a club over.

User avatar
SLAMMED
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7505
Joined: 19 May 2008 16:12
Location: Let's leave before the lights come on

Re: 3 things you would change

by SLAMMED » 16 Aug 2010 11:47

Skyline 2) Bring back the dissent = 10yds rule. The reasons given for getting rid of this rule were absolutely ridiculous (apparently it was because non-rugby playing countries didn't understand it), and once it had started being applied regularly it definitely seemed to reduce dissent at free kicks.


This one is a very good suggestion. Should never have been removed really.

Mr Angry
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4501
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 16:05
Location: Leafy Surrey

Re: 3 things you would change

by Mr Angry » 16 Aug 2010 11:58

In addition to Skylines, my particular bugbears are

1, Trying to keep the ball in the quadrant to waste time; I would give a free kick to the other team for doing that, and a yellow card to the player doing it for ungentlemanly behaviour.

2, Give a free kick when a defender who is making no attempt to play the ball, blocks an opponent from reaching the ball as it rolls out for a goalkick/throw in etc.

3, Sort out the wrestling, holding and judo throws that constitue the penalty area prior to a corner/free kick coming in; it has now got to truly stupid proportions, and players know that they will get away with it.


User avatar
John Madejski's Wallet
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 14858
Joined: 10 Apr 2005 00:22
Location: Anyone who lives within their means shows a serious lack of imagination

Re: 3 things you would change

by John Madejski's Wallet » 16 Aug 2010 12:04

Mr Angry In addition to Skylines, my particular bugbears are

1, Trying to keep the ball in the quadrant to waste time; I would give a free kick to the other team for doing that, and a yellow card to the player doing it for ungentlemanly behaviour.

2, Give a free kick when a defender who is making no attempt to play the ball, blocks an opponent from reaching the ball as it rolls out for a goalkick/throw in etc.

3, Sort out the wrestling, holding and judo throws that constitue the penalty area prior to a corner/free kick coming in; it has now got to truly stupid proportions, and players know that they will get away with it.


^^^ My biggest budbear in football. Blatant, blatant fouling that is somehow acceptible :evil: :evil:

//Oh and keepers having so much protection, that when they are impeded a foul is automatically given....the refs don't even bother to note who impeded them (i.e. often their own f*cking team)

User avatar
soggy biscuit
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8524
Joined: 04 Nov 2004 20:29
Location: BURNING VARIOUS NATIONAL FLAGS

Re: 3 things you would change

by soggy biscuit » 16 Aug 2010 12:21

Introduce a 5 minute spell in each half where 3 balls are on the pitch at once. 2 normal balls for which goals scored count as 1 goal and a golden ball for which a goal scored counts as 3 goals and a goal against you takes off a goal.

During these 5 minute spells players on each team have to work in pairs and so must hold hands with their partner at all times.

User avatar
Ferris
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1510
Joined: 26 Sep 2008 10:58

Re: 3 things you would change

by Ferris » 16 Aug 2010 13:29

soggy biscuit Introduce a 5 minute spell in each half where 3 balls are on the pitch at once. 2 normal balls for which goals scored count as 1 goal and a golden ball for which a goal scored counts as 3 goals and a goal against you takes off a goal.

During these 5 minute spells players on each team have to work in pairs and so must hold hands with their partner at all times.


This +100000000000

User avatar
soggy biscuit
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8524
Joined: 04 Nov 2004 20:29
Location: BURNING VARIOUS NATIONAL FLAGS

Re: 3 things you would change

by soggy biscuit » 16 Aug 2010 13:33

Ferris
soggy biscuit Introduce a 5 minute spell in each half where 3 balls are on the pitch at once. 2 normal balls for which goals scored count as 1 goal and a golden ball for which a goal scored counts as 3 goals and a goal against you takes off a goal.

During these 5 minute spells players on each team have to work in pairs and so must hold hands with their partner at all times.


This +100000000000


oh and during these 5 minute spells the ref has to try and 'tag' a many players as he can, when tagged a player must remain still and can only be brought back into play when an untagged player from the same team touches them (*no homo*)


User avatar
Skyline
Member
Posts: 841
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 13:50
Location: The squirrel's not important

Re: 3 things you would change

by Skyline » 16 Aug 2010 13:39

soggy biscuit Introduce a 5 minute spell in each half where 3 balls are on the pitch at once. 2 normal balls for which goals scored count as 1 goal and a golden ball for which a goal scored counts as 3 goals and a goal against you takes off a goal.

During these 5 minute spells players on each team have to work in pairs and so must hold hands with their partner at all times.


Given the way FIFA work, I can see this being the only suggestion that would have a chance of being accepted...

NR_Royal
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1488
Joined: 20 Dec 2008 14:14
Location: Northampton/Sheffield

Re: 3 things you would change

by NR_Royal » 16 Aug 2010 14:02

I got so confused when you said "decent". Took me ages to realise you mean dissent! :lol:

User avatar
Dirk Gently
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6575
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 13:54
Location: 1 across, 2 down. Winner - HNA? Death Pool 2007

Re: 3 things you would change

by Dirk Gently » 16 Aug 2010 14:15

SLAMMED
Skyline 2) Bring back the dissent = 10yds rule. The reasons given for getting rid of this rule were absolutely ridiculous (apparently it was because non-rugby playing countries didn't understand it), and once it had started being applied regularly it definitely seemed to reduce dissent at free kicks.


This one is a very good suggestion. Should never have been removed really.


It was actually removed because some teams were deliberately dissenting in order to get the kick moved closer, so as the make them less vulnerable to Beckhamesque free-kicks - too close and there's no way to get the ball to go over the wall and dip down low enough to go under the bar.

The obvious suggestion was to give the attacking team the option of whether to go forward or not, but that was deemed to be too complicated and to telegraph that a shot on goal would be the result, making it less effective still.

User avatar
Wax Jacket
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 14548
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 16:40
Location: getting my Twitter end away with Wendy Hurrell

Re: 3 things you would change

by Wax Jacket » 16 Aug 2010 14:19

tbh it works superbly in rugby because every inch of ground is fought over, in football territory is more easily gained

Barry the bird boggler
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8153
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 08:34
Location: in my bird boggler

Re: 3 things you would change

by Barry the bird boggler » 16 Aug 2010 14:20

Seriously I think the idiot law dictating that a player injured has to go off the field after being treated should be done away with.

More entertainingly I think there should be "spotlight" keepers and the captain should dress up in the club's mascot's gear to make him more easily identifiable.

User avatar
buzzbee
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 11:48
Location: Bracknell

Re: 3 things you would change

by buzzbee » 16 Aug 2010 14:32

NR_Royal I got so confused when you said "decent". Took me ages to realise you mean dissent! :lol:

lol. Even as I wrote it, I thought, "Thatt just dozen't look write" :lol:

User avatar
Skyline
Member
Posts: 841
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 13:50
Location: The squirrel's not important

Re: 3 things you would change

by Skyline » 16 Aug 2010 14:35

Dirk Gently
SLAMMED
Skyline 2) Bring back the dissent = 10yds rule. The reasons given for getting rid of this rule were absolutely ridiculous (apparently it was because non-rugby playing countries didn't understand it), and once it had started being applied regularly it definitely seemed to reduce dissent at free kicks.


This one is a very good suggestion. Should never have been removed really.


It was actually removed because some teams were deliberately dissenting in order to get the kick moved closer, so as the make them less vulnerable to Beckhamesque free-kicks - too close and there's no way to get the ball to go over the wall and dip down low enough to go under the bar.


Not according to Keith Hackett:
Premiership referees' chief Keith Hackett has expressed his regret at Fifa scrapping the '10-yard' rule.

The rule, which moves play 10-yards towards the offending team's goal if players show dissent, has been used in English football for four seasons.

"It is a disappointing decision because while the law was not used a lot, it did have an impact on the behaviour of players," said Hackett.

"The referees over here found it acted as a deterrent."

He added: "The problem, as I understand it, is the countries who do not have any familiarity with the concept couldn't get their heads around the process."


Dirk Gently The obvious suggestion was to give the attacking team the option of whether to go forward or not, but that was deemed to be too complicated and to telegraph that a shot on goal would be the result, making it less effective still.


Indeed, but rather than tweaking it to make it better, FIFA decided to just ditch the whole thing, which probably says more about them than it does about the effectiveness of the rule.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Royality creeps In and 18 guests

It is currently 09 Jul 2020 18:59