You can change one rule, what would it be?

smileyj1987

Corholio wrote: »

Players picking up the ball after giving away a free kick and running off with it only to throw it back when back in position. Should be a yellow card for touching the ball after a free kick has been given against you.

I would also include players who handle the ball on the ground after they have been fouled as a yellow card offense so many players grab the ball before a whistle has been blown and to me its a cheap way of getting a free kick.

namloc1980

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

They weren't offside as the rule stands

I just can't stand the rule. There is no art or skill in goal hatching

How often does it happen and by having that you would reward crap defending. A defender in trouble could just pass the ball to an opponent behind him and get a free out. That would be bizarre.

The_Kew_Tour

Away Goal, get rid of it. Not needed anymore

Gbear

cdeb wrote: »

Would destroy the game with all the delays.

I hate arguments like this.
It's not thinking about solving a problem. It's just a dismissal.

You could implement video replays any way you liked.

For example, you could put a 20 second limit on how long they have to return a verdict. If they don't by then you use whatever your original decision was going to be.

To avoid breaking up play the ref could signal during play that he wants an incident looked at, then the video ref is given x amount of time to look at the decisions and if the video ref decides it was a red card or whatever the play is brought back, or advantage is played (if a goal was scored for example) and any appropriate punishement is handed out after.

You could have a video ref watching the game on a short delay and the ability to pause, rewind or slow it down, so he'd already have his decision in hand by the time the ref stops the game, drags the players apart and decideds to give him a call.

You could have a limited number of challenges made, although I don't favour this at all - proper refereeing shouldn't be something tactical - I think it should just be done.

The sky's the limit.

Even in Rugby where the game is quite stop start I think it's gone too far, but that's just a question of firming up what circumstances are allowed to be video reffed or changing the format. And seeing the grounding of a try is more of a pain in the arse to figure out than nearly anything that happens on a football pitch anyway, so it's unlikely to pose the same issue.

I'd only allow captains to address the ref, like in Rugby. It's a farce how much intimidation sides are allowed to get away with. The lack of civility with officials is shameful.

It'd probably foster a better atmosphere towards officials from the fans as well. You'll pile on if all your players are ****ing the ref out of it, but if they're having a dignified conversation you'd feel a bit like a dickhead if you stepped out of line.

Gbear

Deleted User wrote: »

Only allow two substitutes from a bench of three. Even out the rich and less clubs a lot

I think all that would do would be to make the fitness issues around football worse.

There are a lot of injuries during games. There would be more if players can't be subbed when they're tired.

Maybe you could reduce the intensity of the football but I can't imagine that being a popular outcome.

LeinsterDub

Bassboxxx wrote: »

I'd love to see injuries treated like in rugby as in the physio treats while the play goes on.

Game moves around too quickly. Works in Rugby as the injured player can be behind play while being treated

DerekDGoldfish

Gbear wrote: »

I'd only allow captains to address the ref, like in Rugby. .

That a lot easier in rugby where all the players are close enough to the play, if you have a keeper or striker as captain they may have to run the length of the pitch to discuss a situation at the other box.

Gbear

DerekDGoldfish wrote: »

That a lot easier in rugby where all the players are close enough to the play, if you have a keeper or striker as captain they may have to run the length of the pitch to discuss a situation at the other box.

While that's true, there's very little footballers need to discuss with refs.

They're trying to unduly influence them. Nothing of value is generally exchanged.

It's not like in rugby where teams sometimes need to get to grips with the style of reffing at the breakdown to avoid getting someone carded for repeated infringement.

If this rule would in practice cause nobody talking to the ref during the game then I see no problem with that.

Fear Ciarrai

A penalty may be awarded when the ball is not in play... i.e. for all the wrestling before a corner kick is taken.

BorneTobyWilde

Free kicks for ushering the ball out of play while not playing the ball, just fulling concentrated on stopping the opposing player getting to ball before it goes out.

Skylinehead

jester77 wrote: »

Goalkeepers are over protected, they only have to run into someone to get a free. They should have to battle for the ball as well.

Yeah this one - goalkeepers already have an advantage at set pieces - they can use their hands. No need to make football a non-contact sport when it comes to keepers as well.

pgj2015

if you are caught diving in the penalty area = red card, a yellow card is not punishment enough.

Mr.Crinklewood

Players should have the option of moving a free kick awarded to them back (eg for those frees right on the edge of the area that are hard to get over the wall and on target )

Rothko

There's three things that I would change:

Straight red and 10 match ban for anyone caught diving. The only hope you have of getting rid of it. Yellow cards do nothing.

The offside rule would be put back to the way it was. If any player is in an offside position then it's given as an offside, no matter as to whether they're "interfering" with play or not.

No yellow cards for anyone who takes their shirt off during a goal celebration. Just seems silly to me.

Rothko

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Away Goal, get rid of it. Not needed anymore

I don't think it should have ever been introduced. I always thought it was unfair when a tie ends 0-0 in one leg and 1-1 in the other and one team goes through just because they scored away from home.

citytillidie

ShaneU wrote: »

Booking players for taking off shirt / celebrating with fans - I feel like this was only introduced to please shirt sponsors.

Change offside to there being daylight between forward and last defender.

Red Card and a penalty for goal scoring opportunity foul is too harsh, change it to yellow card if it's in the penalty area.

Just realised you asked for one rule. Just the first one then because it annoys me every time it happens.

That is changed now to that

ArmaniJeanss

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I'd also like to see the return of the golden goal as I think they gave up on it too soon. I think it was claimed that teams were too nervous to go for the goal and ended up playing for penalties but I can recall games where the teams did go for it, and I felt it was an exciting rule.

Fairly sure it was ultimately police/stewarding issues that caused them to get rid of golden goal. You can't do a 'stewards to exit position' call when no-one knows whether there's 40 seconds or 40 minutes left.

Clampdown

the groutch wrote: »

@ Clampdown

Doubt that would work, as players are already exhausted towards the end of the season, often playing 50+ matches.
If you go make every draw a potential 120 minutes, you'd need huge squad depth to deal with player fatigue, and would end up with nearly complete 2nd elevens far too often.

I don't but that. They already play a full 30 mins extra time in plenty of cup/league finals played near the end of the season. NBA and NHL players play 82 games a season and all games can go to extra time, and they have to fly huge distances around the US and Canada as well.

They're hugely paid professional athletes ffs, another fifteen minutes would hardly kill them especially when so many teams seem to just faff about for the last quarter of a game when a draw seems likely. If they don't like it then they may try and win in normal time. If doctors can work 24 hour shifts on a fraction of the pay, footballers can handle another fifteen minutes!

Clampdown

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Free kicks for ushering the ball out of play while not playing the ball, just fulling concentrated on stopping the opposing player getting to ball before it goes out.

Someone else said something similar as well but I don't see the sense in that. Players could fire any type of pass doen the pitch then and it wouldn't matter if a teammate could get to it or not.

keano_afc

McDave wrote: »

Players shielding ball over endline without touching it. Player should only be judged to be in possession if he touches the ball. Otherwise it should be obstruction if he shields it from an advancing attacker.

Rationale: To keep pkay moving and give advantage to attacker.

* * *

PS: Similar rule for attacker shielding bal for corner.

Rationale: To keep ball moving.

The rule is already in place for this, its obstruction. For some reason referees have allowed this ridiculous practice to creep in to the game and its been accepted.

ectoraige

Yellow card for speaking to the ref without invitation, except for captains or if calling for medical assistance.

Morzadec

Indirect freekick inside the box for accidental handballs.

Penalty is too harsh for many of these "ball to hand" incidents but we often see them given. However, sometimes an attacking team can be impeded by a flailing hand so it seems harsh not to give anything. This would be a good compromise.

If not the above, then just a more consistent interpretation of the current rule. The current rule states that a handball must be absolutely deliberate to be considered an infringement. Yet in Spain you get booked for any handball it seems, even when there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Should only be given for wildly reckless ball to hand body positions (e.g. John terry style charge blocks) or nailed on deliberate handballs.

Having to see the likes of Ivanovic and Moreno defend with their hands behind their backs is very frustrating

gosplan

ectoraige wrote: »

Yellow card for speaking to the ref without invitation, except for captains or if calling for medical assistance.

I'd go for this.

Also retrospective bans for diving.

Change 3 game ban for 'violent conduct' to 'gross misconduct' and lump diving in there.

It's really hard for a ref to police that in-game especially with the lines blurred between 'diving' and 'anticipating contact' etc. Basically go with the rule that you must attempt to stay on your feet.

Then just send the incidents to a review panel.

People may still get away with it in-game but an almost guaranteed retrospective ban would deter nearly everyone.

Harry Palmr

End yellow cards, introduce 15m sin bin. Obviously this wouldn't work in Spain.

GavRedKing

It's impossible, in real time to introduce a change to diving or simulation guidelines, I wouldnt trust half the refs in the premier league to get the call right without assistance.

To do so, you'd need a TMO or retrospective punishment and even at that theres more instances of players going down easy than there is of blatant diving, IMO.

Its impossible to cut out going down to easy, as in most cases, players will go down under any contact anywhere, its not a dive but it is a soft foul to give and bloody frustrating to watch.

the_pen_turner

I would like to hear what the ref is saying like in rugby. the ref often make a decision and we have no idea whats its for

Flint Fredstone

citytillidie wrote: »

That is changed now to that

Can't wait for all the arguing on here when players aren't getting sent off anymore.

raze_them_all_

A different take on TMO's, make it like american football challenge system, start with 3 subs, you get 2 challenges, if you make 2 and lose 1, you lose a sub, miss two you only lose 1 sub, but get both correct and you get a third challenge, would really change the game and give managers who always say the ref ****ed up the ability to challenge it

Kirby

Skylinehead wrote: »

Yeah this one - goalkeepers already have an advantage at set pieces - they can use their hands. No need to make football a non-contact sport when it comes to keepers as well.

This is a terrible idea. Keepers need the protection they get for a reason. They aren't outfielders. You know the wrestling and grappling that goes on at set pieces? Suddenly that happens with the keeper. Somebody just tries to wrestle the keeper in the goal at every set piece and it becomes a farce.

Outjumping a keeper or shoulder to shoulder is fine and is often viewed as fine during a game. Anything else, elbows into them before the ball comes in, wrestling, arms flying into them, kicking them etc. should rightfully be judged a foul.

raze_them_all_

Kirby wrote: »

This is a terrible idea. Keepers need the protection they get for a reason. They aren't outfielders. You know the wrestling and grappling that goes on at set pieces? Suddenly that happens with the keeper. Somebody just tries to wrestle the keeper in the goal at every set piece and it becomes a farce.

Outjumping a keeper or shoulder to shoulder is fine and is often viewed as fine during a game. Anything else, elbows into them before the ball comes in, wrestling, arms flying into them, kicking them etc. should rightfully be judged a foul.

I don't think you're watching soccer tbh!

Skylinehead

Kirby wrote: »

This is a terrible idea. Keepers need the protection they get for a reason. They aren't outfielders. You know the wrestling and grappling that goes on at set pieces? Suddenly that happens with the keeper. Somebody just tries to wrestle the keeper in the goal at every set piece and it becomes a farce.

Outjumping a keeper or shoulder to shoulder is fine and is often viewed as fine during a game. Anything else, elbows into them before the ball comes in, wrestling, arms flying into them, kicking them etc. should rightfully be judged a foul.

There's nothing in your post that I disagree with, but in reality, shoulder to shoulder with a keeper is rarely allowed. Of course if the keeper is pushed or elbowed, that should be a foul, but right now, it's pretty much non-contact at all. They shouldn't have rights above and beyond anyone else on the pitch.

Foxx92

One Rule? Stopped clock when the ball is out of play. Cuts out a lot of the ****e that goes on. Not all, but a lot of it.

Bandana boy

Yellow card for any player other than the captain who talks to the ref

Pepe LeFrits

Not really one rule but I'd restructure the cards system. Get rid of the 2 yellow = red rule, and have a yellow = sin bin instead. It could in theory be scalable depending on severity, e.g. 5 mins for persistent fouling, 15 mins for a professional foul.

A red would remain more or less the same, but I’d reduce the number of situations where it is mandatory. A non-deliberate last man foul for example.

Actually on last man, refs should be allowed to give penalties for last man fouls outside the box. In fact the box makes little sense in general. You can be through on goal, no keeper, an inch outside the box in the center of the D, and if you get taken out deliberately it’s only a free kick, yet if you’re just shielding the ball in the corner of the box, have 11 opposition players behind you and an opponent accidentally stumbles into your back, you get a penalty. Makes no sense in terms of punishment/crime. Maybe replace the box with a semi circle and allow refs to award penalties for what are presently considered straight-red last man situations.

3DataModem

Clampdown wrote: »

I would change the way they handle draws for ordinary matches to a system more like what the do in NHL hockey. If a game ends in a draw I'd give award each team 1 point. Then I'd do one 15 minute extra time. If either team scores, the game immediately ends and the scoring team is awarded an extra point. If neither team scores at the end of extra time, it would be a penalty shootout and the winner of that would get the point.

That way teams would be really go for it in the extra time, they'd have nothing to lose, and you wouldn't have dreadful 0-0 draws where neither team puts the ball in the net and neither team wins which is crap for the fans. This way fans are always guaranteed to see at least one goal or an exciting shootout to make it worth the price of admission.

That's awesome

Mec27

In the Ireland game, the ref got a clear indication that it was a penalty from someone ''upstairs'', he should have been able to blow it up and award the penalty kick.

Paully D

8 goal head start for any team playing against Newcastle.

Footoo

Neither team gets any points for a 0-0 draw. Would avoid teams parking the bus and allow for more attacking games in general

OwaynOTT

Football isn't all about having high scoring games. A lot of the suggestions here would get rid of a lot of what is great about the sport.
There's a lot to be said for having a solid defensive performance against a better side and still nicking a one goal win in the last few minutes against the odds.
Or scoring within a few minutes of the start and hanging on for dear life.
There's more to football than having plenty of scores. If anything making it easier to score and chastising solid defensive teams, would take a lot of the joy out of it.
Plenty of goals cheapens the joy of a an occasional Spurs-City 5-4, Liverpool Milan 3-3 (imagine if that wen straight to penos?!), and punishing defensive displays from weaker teams means the England Iceland games don't happen.


Grabbing the ball on the ground after feeling 'some' contact, is a straight red for me.

cj maxx

Mec27 wrote: »

In the Ireland game, the ref got a clear indication that it was a penalty from someone ''upstairs'', he should have been able to blow it up and award the penalty kick.

I think he did have smeone speak to him.
You see him hold the the ear piece . Whether he was told 'no penalty' or just ignored the call we'll never know. Some sort of citing ref might help in these calls

Sirsok

Personally id like to talk about fight club but nooooooo, cant be changing that rule.

****ing tyler

TCDStudent1

Physios should be allowed onto the pitch to treat an injured player when play is going on like in rugby. This "kick the ball out of play to show sportmanship" is one of the most abused things in the game and should be eliminated. Let play continue. Only if the physio / injured player get in the way of play should it be stopped. I suspect we might not see them lying on the ground as long if play continues.

Laois_Man

Throw ins replaced by kick ins

Defenders won't be so keen to whack it into Row Z then.

Will also be a good leveller between top teams and their weaker opponents.

Fr Tod Umptious

No more extra time in 2 legged ties that are tied after 90 mins.

It gives the away team 30 extra minutes to score an away goal.

Go straight to penalties.

Laois_Man

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

No more extra time in 2 legged ties that are tied after 90 mins.

It gives the away team 30 extra minutes to score an away goal.

Go straight to penalties.

On the other hand, it gives the home team 30 extra minutes of home advantage
.
Away goal should only count in 90 minutes and penalty shootout should always take place at the away end

Nerdlingr

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

Physios should be allowed onto the pitch to treat an injured player when play is going on like in rugby. This "kick the ball out of play to show sportmanship" is one of the most abused things in the game and should be eliminated. Let play continue. Only if the physio / injured player get in the way of play should it be stopped. I suspect we might not see them lying on the ground as long if play continues.

That could work actually, would cut down on the playacting for a few cases. Would love to see them try it out anyway.

raze_them_all_

Laois_Man wrote: »

Throw ins replaced by kick ins

Defenders won't be so keen to whack it into Row Z then.

Will also be a good leveller between top teams and their weaker opponents.

So defenders defending is a bad part of the game?
It's not as if the attacking team have to go fetch the ball

duffman3833

im pretty sure its a rule but certainly abused, is goalkeepers taking half a min or so to kick a ball out, slows up a game so much

Laois_Man

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

So defenders defending is a bad part of the game?
It's not as if the attacking team have to go fetch the ball

Does it have to be explained how keeping the ball in play more is good for the game?

Or presenting more goal scoring opportunities even to limited teams where a throw in becomes more useful than a corner kick

Whacking the ball out for a throw in isn't defending anyway. In my day, I was pretty hopeless defensively....but I could still put the ball out.....like any gob****e can!

Potential Underachiever

citytillidie wrote: »

That is changed now to that

Nice, I didn't know that, I fully agree with it though, it would have been a rule I'd have suggested be looked at. 10 men and a penalty was overkill and ruined many a game.