What rule would you change or bring in?

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.

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.

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Risteard

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emmet

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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.

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

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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.

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

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.

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?

I think they're all rules Hamish!