What rule would you change or bring in?

[Risteard]

Try keep it to do with the playing of a match on-field and preferably simple.
I considered tv referee and red for diving but

I'd introduce a kick in instead of a throw in.

Reason
1. Imo, a throw in is usually not an advantageous position to restart a match
2. Would discourage the hoof and encourage good football, keeping the ball in play.

Disadvantages.
1. Could do the opposite and actually slow the game down as a 'kick-in' in the oppositions half is essentially a set piece which teams would take ages to organise.
2. Might be considered too drastic.

[Junior]

Thats a good one Risteard.

I liked the 10 yard rule when players arguing with the refs decision would be penalised by having the freekick moved 10 yards closer to their own goal. They introduced this half heartedly and it seemed to fall by the wayside after one season. It works effectively in Rugby and GAA and if enforced properly alot of this whingeing at, and man handling of refs would soon disappear.

[Emmet]

I would change the rule where play has to stop if a player (except a goalkeeper of course) is injured. Too many players feign injury to slow play ... if it was to just carry on around them they'd soon get up again!

[Seano]

Its not exactly a rule change but I'd be happy to see the end of the practice of a team returning the ball to the opposition after a stoppage in play while a player is treated. It's hypocrital for a player to do this and get a round of applause, yet moments later get involved in incidents of diving, holding jerseys on corners, time wasting and numerous other cheating tactics. If a player is injured the referee should stop the game, its just as effective as a player kicking the ball out of play and it would get rid of this sort of crap.

[CollegeTillIDie]

Its not exactly a rule change but I'd be happy to see the end of the practice of a team returning the ball to the opposition after a stoppage in play while a player is treated. It's hypocrital for a player to do this and get a round of applause, yet moments later get involved in incidents of diving, holding jerseys on corners, time wasting and numerous other cheating tactics. If a player is injured the referee should stop the game, its just as effective as a player kicking the ball out of play and it would get rid of this sort of crap.

This has been a relatively new practice. I say relatively cause it only seemed to come into being in the mid-late 1980's. It was largely unknown before then.
It does slow the game up considerably. But was meant to show " fair play" which as you know UEFA are very big on .

[pineapple stu]

I'd introduce a kick in instead of a throw in.

Reason
2. Would discourage the hoof and encourage good football, keeping the ball in play.
This was tried at non-league level in England - it actually encouraged hoofing, because you can kick much farther than you can throw. It was dropped after a couple of months.

There isn't a need for radical rule-changing. Video replays, etc., are just plain stupid. I wouldn't mind seeing players penalised for diving after the game - i.e. a game reviewed and if there's a blatant case of diving, give a one-game ban. Probably too time-consuming to enforce in reality though.

[Poor Student]

I'd be all for an extra 10 yards for dissention and also that gamesmanship time wasting crap of picking up the ball and preventing the opposition from taking thier free kick or throw.

Also, what is the current rule for keepers wasting time holding the ball? There's far too much of that too.

Keeping an eye on these two things would contribute to a free flowing game more than anything.

Another peeve of mine is when returning the ball after it was put out of play by the opposition for your injured player a team sends the ball out for a throw in down in your corner and challenges you for it immediately. I don't know how to avoid this but it should really be convention to kick it out for a goal kick or else do not challenge such a throw in.

[pineapple stu]

Keepers can hold the ball for 6 seconds before conceding an indirect free-kick.


I would change the rule where play has to stop if a player (except a goalkeeper of course) is injured.
There is no such rule. That's why the players kick the ball out of play or (occasionally) play on. The ref has the power to stop play and restart with a hop-ball if he feels the injury warrants it.

Oh, and I'd make all commentators, managers, players, etc. undertake an extensive refereeing course before getting behind a mic.

[Poor Student]

Keepers can hold the ball for 6 seconds before conceding an indirect free-kick.




I wondered if that was still the case. It's rarely implemented if even. I remember clearly counting Devine breaking this rule several times when Cork came to Belfield this season before it turned into a rout.

[pineapple stu]

Conceded a goal myself for that exact reason in Superleague years ago...!

[ken foree]

pineapple stu has a good one in penalizing players for diving with video post-match. refs/linies should also be held more accountable in this regard, some offside decsions beggar belief. the one thing i think should be changed is the 'all or nothing' approach refs take to penalties. whatever happened to the indirect free in the box?? if a defending player unintentionally fouls - and this is of course the major decision for the ref - sometimes a free should be awarded as opposed to nothing at all. ball to hand is sometimes given a peno these days so i think there's ample room for a middle ground.

but that said: BAN/SHAME ALL DIVERS AND CHEATS!

[pineapple stu]

Ball to hand is clearly defined - either the player deliberately (avoidably) brings his hand to the ball or deliberately (avoidably) fails to move his hand out of the ball's path. Either way - penalty or accidental. Unintentional fouls (though there aren't many really) aren't fouls, I think.

[Closed Account 2]

I wouldn't mind seeing players penalised for diving after the game - i.e. a game reviewed and if there's a blatant case of diving, give a one-game ban. Probably too time-consuming to enforce in reality though.

Agree with that one.

[Donegalcelt]

instead of all this crap about video replays, there should be an offical behind either goal like in GAA. He (or she) could have a say on goalline incidents as well as keeping an eye on the tussles that occur say, for example,when a corner is coming in. It keeps things simple and could be operated at grass roots level, which is the most important factor.
Video replays are helpful, but ultimatley, inconclusive. Remember the Peter Enkleman incident in the Birmingham derby a few years back. I know David Ellary (sp?) gave the goal because he assumed there was a touch on the throw in judging from his (Enkleman's) reaction, but no matter how many times everyone watched the replays, it was impossible to establish. Every game you watch there are contentious issues and the replay does not always solve debates.

One thing that should be done, especially on Sky, is to teach Andy Gray about offsides. Granted the constant tweks make it difficult, but when an assistant flags, he holds the flag in an upward direction if it is against a player on the far side, holds it down if someone on the near side and straight out if it's the middle. Yet all you hear is, again for example, "maybe it's Henry, but Reyes is also possibly off but Ven Persie is off." Also, is it not true that the assistant must flag (except when a player is "going back") and it's down to the referee to decide whether or not the person is active or interfering.

[Donegalcelt]

The ten yards is a good idea too, but the team with the free should have a choice whether or not to avail of it - sometimes in the trial in Div 1 it proved a disadvantage when a free was, say, 30 yards out.

I'd also like to see the advantage rule applied like rugby, where the ref might leave it for 5 seconds maybe and then call it back. Some of the better refs do this anyhow.

And the rule about not letting a player back on til the play restarts is plan stupid imo

[finlma]

2 rules I'd bring in or at least try:

1. Some sort of sin-bin ala rugby. Opposition teams recieve zero benefit from a yellow card - its teams that you play a few weeks later (if there is a suspension) that gain the advantage. A 10 minute spell in a sin-bin would reduce diving I think.

2. Instead of penalties teams should have to take a player from the pitch every 3-5 minutes or so during extra-time until a goal is scored. Much more exciting and the game is won by playing football and not pot luck.

[ken foree]

Ball to hand is clearly defined - either the player deliberately (avoidably) brings his hand to the ball or deliberately (avoidably) fails to move his hand out of the ball's path. Either way - penalty or accidental.

sorry probably bein thick here but isn't that "hand to ball"?? ball to hand i always thought was when the ball strikes the hand accidentally, for which penos (shouldn't be but) are given sometimes. i guess you're right in the implication that the latter should not be a peno but if a ref's unsure (speed of play, obstructed view) then there's a middle ground no?

[Lionel Ritchie]

As Half Man Half Biscuit sang "wouldn't it be fun/ if they gave the ref a gun".

Whatever about a gun I think an electric cattle prod would be an excellent piece of kit for referees. Wall wont move back to 10 yards? no problem - here have a lie-down Wall.:cool:

I once saw a nuerologist interviewed (on a program about the dangers of Boxing) and he said if he only had the power he'd like to "get rid of the Association Football header" which he felt was a bizarre and lethally dangerous manouver to be allowing people -including children -to perform.

He wasn't in favour of helmets or forehead guards or anything -simply said there was no safe way to use the neck and head as a limb and mallet to redirect an object that might collide with the housing of your brain at speeds up to 80 miles an hour and with the force of a breeze block dropped from 3 feet above.

As for me - I'd widen the goals - I think there's merit to the argument for it. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to sell the game to a US market that simply aren't going to be allowed get any more into it by various interests anyway. One of the things that makes football the greatest game in the world is the rarety of goals -I firmly believe that - but I do believe that over generations a "natural selection" of sorts has made 6ft+ beanpoles into 'keepers and this has distorted the original spec for the size of the goal relative to the size of the player.

So if they're currently 16ft x 8ft I'd say there's a case for 18ft x 9ft at this stage.

[hamish]

There was a chat on Radio 5 a few days ago and one chap suggested that when a player fouls an opponent and the opponet has to be taken off the field for treatment the fouler also has to stay off the pitch for the time the treatment lasts thus not penalising one team because of injury.

Another suggested a point foe every goal scored so that if a team loses 6-1 they get a point for the goal they scored.

Reminds me of the 80s when the LOI had 4 pts for an away win, 2 points for an away draw, 3 pts for a home win and 1 pt for a home draw.

Didn't make any difference in terms of more goals scored or attacking play as far as I can remember and was soon dropped.

Here's my suggestion.
1. Player who dives - yellow card for ungentlemanly conduct.
2. Player who makes a yellow card gesture - yellow card for ungentlemanly conduct.
3. Player who commits a "professional" on an attacking player who is heading for goal with only the keeper to beat - red card and a penalty - even if the foul was committed outside the box.

1 and 2 are already covered by the ungentlemanly conduct rule so why aren't referees applying the rule?

[Risteard]

I think they're all rules Hamish!

[Thunderblaster]

That all womens soccer should be kitted out in kit like womens beach volleyball. That will get the male hormones aroused at womens football and evryone would want to go. Yum yum yummy!!!:D Ooh la la!!:D plenty of sexy curves!!!!:D

[Redtop]

i think that anyone found diving should be sent off..i would hate if a video ref was brought because football is a lot more interesting when the ref has to make a split second decision

[hamish]

I think they're all rules Hamish!

That's what I said............eh............I think.:o
Just a pity the rules aren't applied.

[crc]

I hate when defenders 'shepherd' the ball out of play for a goal kick. If I had the power (lovely power!), I'd call that obstruction unless the defender actually touched the ball (in which case he wouldn't let the ball just roll out of play!)

This rule would be similar in its ethos to the back-pass rule - the idea being to keep the ball in play.

[CollegeTillIDie]

What about players robbing yards/metres taking throw ins?

[pineapple stu]

sorry probably bein thick here but isn't that "hand to ball"?? ball to hand i always thought was when the ball strikes the hand accidentally, for which penos (shouldn't be but) are given sometimes. i guess you're right in the implication that the latter should not be a peno but if a ref's unsure (speed of play, obstructed view) then there's a middle ground no?
Yeah, think you're right on ball to hand...

The middle ground you mention is only when the ref's unsighted - not really a middle ground per se. The distinction between the ball striking the hand accidentally and handball being awarded is whether the ref decides the player had time to move his hand out of the way. Either way, the ref has to make a call and we're left with no middle ground.

A free in the box can only be given for an indirect free-kick offence - backpass and obstruction being the main ones. I don't think there are many "unintentional fouls" as you define them - they may fall under the heading of "He was stupid to dive in like that", in which case penalty.

[mypost]

3 rule changes:


I want a rule brought in where "injured" players who leave the field, are made to wait a full 60 seconds before being allowed back on the pitch. Too many players abuse the rule, and anyone who is genuinely injured doesn't just leave the field, and return immediately. That would clean up that aspect of time-wasting.


As it's also time-wasting, I would like something done about that personal bugbear of mine, of players keeping the ball at the corner flag in injury time, e.g. ref adding on more time on top of the allotted injury time, at the end of the game. That would clean that up. This particular time-wasting virus, seems to be only prevalent in Irish and British football. You rarely see it in other countries.


To revive "interest" in the rubbish pit that is Women's football, a rule should be brought in that insists the players wear skirts rather than shorts, like in hockey and tennis. Now that would be a welcome change. :D

[Poor Student]

To revive "interest" in the rubbish pit that is Women's football, a rule should be brought in that insists the players wear skirts rather than shorts, like in hockey and tennis. Now that would be a welcome change. :D


That's the second type of post like this. Leave the sexism outside of this forum lads.:rolleyes:

[Emmet]

Keepers can hold the ball for 6 seconds before conceding an indirect free-kick.


There is no such rule. That's why the players kick the ball out of play or (occasionally) play on. The ref has the power to stop play and restart with a hop-ball if he feels the injury warrants it.

Oh, and I'd make all commentators, managers, players, etc. undertake an extensive refereeing course before getting behind a mic.

What I meant was that when a player is injured or rolling around on the floor pretending to be injured (!) the trainer can come on and treat him while play continues ... everyone else just plays on around him.

[pineapple stu]

Meh. Could well end up getting in the way. I remember treating some rugger player on the pitch one time - didn't know that was the rule and the next thing, the match kicks off again and I've got a hoarde or rugger buggers running right in my direction after the ball! Legged it fairly quickly... Not an ideal rule for treating genuinely injured players!

It raises other problems though. Does an injured player affect the offside? If a clearance comes off the physio and out for a throw, who's throw is it? Don't think there's much of an advantage in it, to be honest.

[Block G Raptor]

Think its ridiculous when a player is treated on the pitch for five mins and then has to walk of after receiving treatment only to walk back on. the rule is that a player can not be treated on the field of play but must leave the pitch for treatment except in extreme circumstances(broken leg, head injury etc). it is totally pointless at the moment the way a player goes down the physio comes on applies the magic sponge and the player and physio walk off for the player to walk back on.

[Macy]

I'd introduce citing rules like they have in rugby.

A citing commisioner who can make judgements himself, and both teams can cite opposition players. Possible also include the ref - like in Rugby League where they can refer an incident their not sure about. Any diving, off the ball incidents etc. I know it is some times done, but there's no formal way that the opposition can cite people to the video panel - only if the media kick up enough about it.

[Schumi]

A citing commisioner who can make judgements himself, and both teams can cite opposition players.
Allowing teams to cite opposition players would lead to widespread abuse and tit-for-tat citings. It's best left to an independant person.

[shedite]

That all womens soccer should be kitted out in kit like womens beach volleyball. That will get the male hormones aroused at womens football and evryone would want to go. Yum yum yummy!!!Ooh la la!!plenty of sexy curves!!!!:D

Yeah but I'd say even those beach volleyballers would look a lot worse in the rain. A tan does a lot for ladies ;)

As for rules, here's something I always wondered. 2 scenarios (with examples)

1) John O'Flynn breaks through on goal and is one on one with Dean Delaney. Hawkins makes a last gasp tackle and misses the ball but O'Flynn is brought down. City get penalty, and Hawkins is sent off as he is the "last man".

2) Again flynn breaks through on goal and Hawkins is gone so nobody can catch him. He is one on one with the keeper, and goes around him. He knocks the ball past Delaney and is taken down. This time, Hearey has got back on the line as a "covering defender". Delaney gets a yellow card.

Surely both tackles denied a one-on-one, but most of the time, the keeper will get off with a yellow because there was a "covering defender", but the defender will get a red even though there is a "covering keeper".

Seem weird? :confused:

[ciaran76]

Not sure if it has been mentioned but would like to see 4 linesmen instead of the normal 2. So that all sides of the pitch can be covered and more involved with the ref.

[Hither green]

I hate when defenders 'shepherd' the ball out of play for a goal kick. If I had the power (lovely power!), I'd call that obstruction unless the defender actually touched the ball (in which case he wouldn't let the ball just roll out of play!)

This rule would be similar in its ethos to the back-pass rule - the idea being to keep the ball in play.

At last, someone else who gets annoyed by defenders obstructing play. After diving, "shepherding the ball out of play" is my biggest bugbear. I'm sure there's already a rule on obstructing, it's just never used for those instances and bl00dy well should be. It's supposed to be entertainment afterall, so the rules should give the attackers the advantage.

The one thing I wouldn't introduce is the sin-bin. It smacks of a minority sport to me, we'll be having time-outs next.

[Bald Student]

Linesmen in football are only ever linesmen.
Touch judges in rugby are also referees and they alternate between the jobs. The touch judges have much more influence in rugby than linesmen in football and much more off the ball incidents are dealt with.

[Hither green]

Linesmen in football are only ever linesmen.

Except for when they're "assistant referees" :)

[geysir]

Top of my list, is an easy one.
From an experiment in the Brasilian league.
The Ref carries a white spray can in his back pocket, used after a free kick is awarded to mark the distance a defense wall should line up behind and in one stroke :) eliminate all that farce of a ref lining up the wall the required distance, the wall transgressing etc. Gives unquestioned authority to the ref. I only saw it used in two games, it worked superbly.

[ken foree]

A free in the box can only be given for an indirect free-kick offence - backpass and obstruction being the main ones. I don't think there are many "unintentional fouls" as you define them - they may fall under the heading of "He was stupid to dive in like that", in which case penalty.

hear you re: handball. funny i was thinking about this only yesterday watching psg-marseille (dire). there was a big shout at the end for a peno where a psg forward had dribbled just inside the area and pushed the ball to one side of a defender.. it looked as if he might lose control and the defender stood his ground when they collided. it was a real 6 of one situation; the forward's path to goal was impeded (crashed to the ground, chance lost), but the defender had his hands in the air as if to say "he's barging into me, i'm not at fault!" no peno given obviously, which woulda been very harsh. but as you put it, "obstruction" could perhaps be more widely applied in these in-between cases?

[$Leon$]

The one's i'd choose would be
1) some kind of citing commisioner as in rugby. especially to be used in the case of players diving.
2) sin bin players for say 10 minutes after yellow card
3) more a free kick forward 10m when players complain. it would hopefully shut them up moaning.

[ken foree]

a totally unrealistic one but something that annoys the hell out of me: any player who touches the ball after it goes out for a throw has to take the throw. there's so much handing the ball off to the next fella to throw in it's like there's some other game going on on the sideline

[Bald Student]

a totally unrealistic one but something that annoys the hell out of me: any player who touches the ball after it goes out for a throw has to take the throw. there's so much handing the ball off to the next fella to throw in it's like there's some other game going on on the sidelineThat'd create more problems than it would solve. What if a ball boy throws the ball to the wrong player? If the ball travelles down the sideline after it goes out can a player near where the ball ends up kick it to his team mate or does the player taking the throw have to run down and back again?

[ken foree]

That'd create more problems than it would solve. What if a ball boy throws the ball to the wrong player? If the ball travelles down the sideline after it goes out can a player near where the ball ends up kick it to his team mate or does the player taking the throw have to run down and back again?

i shoulda added about a hundred winky emoticons to that post - no way am i serious about this rule, just a pet peeve i can't stand! it gets like rugby on the sidelines sometimes

[hamish]

One thing that p!sses me off is when players herd around the ball at the corner flag to kill off a game when it's in the last few moments. Is there any way this could be dealt with??

[pineapple stu]

Nope - not breaking any rules. Ball's in play and they're prfectly entitled to do what they do (obviously unless obstruction comes into it). Part of the game.

[hamish]

Nope - not breaking any rules. Ball's in play and they're prfectly entitled to do what they do (obviously unless obstruction comes into it). Part of the game.

True but still annoying.

[pineapple stu]

Yep, but to out-law it would be farcical in implementation. How long can a player hold on to the ball for? From what minute or score do you deem he's time-wasting? etc. etc.

Anyway, if it falls under the time-wasting category, the ref is within his rights to allow for it in injury-time.

[The Stars]

The only rule I would change isn't so much a rule as an authority for Refs.
When you watch rugby you rarely see the players complain to the ref and never surround him looking for frees.
this policy should be in soccer aswell.If any player complains he should get an automatic yellow card.
We all know that The International Rules series between Ireland and Australia is a bit of a boxing match but it still has some good points. ie The 3rd man rule.If 2 player are in a tackle or arguement,the next player who gets involved gets sent off.
Adopting these styles of refereeing would cut out all the complaining and let us focus on the football rather than who started what.
Lets just imagine Chelsea if these rules existed.

[hamish]

Yep, but to out-law it would be farcical in implementation. How long can a player hold on to the ball for? From what minute or score do you deem he's time-wasting? etc. etc.

Anyway, if it falls under the time-wasting category, the ref is within his rights to allow for it in injury-time.

Yeah, I can see what you mean PS - it's just so bloody annoying to see three or four players scrambling around the ball at the corner flag for ehat seems like ages. Obviously, there's nothing that can be done about it.