What rules changes would you like to see?

[mypost]

If this is true (and it probably isn't) it's absolutely fcuking rediculous. With respect, i couldn't give a sh!te if Muslim's don't like it. Lots of people don't like lots of things but, much like positive discrimination, ruling someone or something out to suit a minority group is a disgrace. Don't even try giving me the anti-religious aurgument here cos if it turned out SFC or CHF fans or 'Concerned Mothers Against Naked Man Chests' were complaining that they didnt like it i'd say the exact same thing.

Yes, it is true. Uefa created the rule for the Muslims. It's mad, but that's UEFA. Much easier to create rules for insignificant things like that, than create a rule where the winners of one of their European competitions have the right to defend their title, whether they finish in 5th, 15th, or bottom of their national league. That would require some thought, you see!!!!!

Cheats, and time-wasters should be punished. Players who dive should receive bans, and time-wasters (e.g. corner-flag players) should have the amount of time taken to get the ball out of there included in stoppage time, just like other methods of time-wasting.

[noby]

and time-wasters (e.g. corner-flag players) should have the amount of time taken to get the ball out of there included in stoppage time, just like other methods of time-wasting.

Last time I checked, down by the corner flag was still part of the playing field, so you can't punish someone for bringing the ball down there.

[Dotsy]

Dissent by players should be punished by a yellow card and foul and abusive language should be a straight red. Players have always moaned at refs as long as I can remember but it's got out of hand now. I watch my nephew playing schoolboys quite alot and some of the abuse given to the refs even at that level shocks me. It's just over twenty years since I played schoolboy soccer but we wouldn't have got away with that then. Whatever about the ref my dad was involved in the club and would have battered me for swearing on the pitch.

I played as a center forward and defenders sheperding the ball out while blocking you always ****ed me off . It's obstruction plain and simple.

[Macy]

Enforcement of the obstruction rule, as everyone else has said. Actually, allow old style 2 foot tackles from behind in those situations instead

Again, as per others, only allow the captain to talk to the ref, and moving of free's if anyone else does. Not convinced if it has to be automatic cards though.

Along with that, I would make it that you can move free kicks back if you want (similar to rugby). Often free's moved forward for disent actually leave the attacking team in a worse position in terms of getting a short - ditto free's that were very nearly pens....

[Bald Student]

I posted this in another thread but I'd like to see the 'Third Man into a Melee' rule that the GAA have but never enforce brought into soccer.

If two players are having a go at each other, it should stay between two players. The referee and linesman would have a clear view of what's happening. There's no need for the rest of the teams to run in.

[Aberdonian Stu]

Said rule isn't so much a rule as a common practice. Having reffed both codes I find that most players ignore it, not because of a lack of respect but because if there is a melee they're going to lack the mental capacity to understand the implications of their actions. That's a nice PC way of saying they're thick and they jump in anyway.

Anyway if you raise your hands/foot to an opponent or strike them in any way, even in self defence, it's red simple as that.

[Karlos]

Have to say I understand the annoyance in relation to the shepparding the ball out of play in some cases where it is obvious the shepparding player plays the man and not the ball. However it is almost impossible to enforce the obstruction rule in a general sence in this instance under the Laws of the Game.

For example, obstruction is deemed as being a deliberate attempt to block an opponent. There is no law that states you must pass, clear or kick the ball at all times - if there was then a player who dummyies a ball in the box would have to be deemed as obstructing, as he has intentionally looked to not play the ball for his teams benefit and in the process obstructing a defender from clearing.

In the case of a ball over the top of a defender running towards his own goal-line. The defender is perfectly within his rights to follow a ball out (provided his main focus is following the ball). The defender is entitiled to slow down his run as he approches the ball as he is deemed as the closest player to the ball and in effect, 'in possession'. The forward is entitled to go around the player to intercept the ball. It is deemed the same as a player who shields a ball in the centre circle. Anyone who has ever played two touch football in training for example will understand the concept of shielding the ball without touching the ball in an attempt to stop your opponent from intercepting - that is not obstruction. There is no foul here in that instance, under the existing Laws of the Game and that implies the same to the case of defenders. The advantage the defenders have is they have the extra safetly net of allowing the ball 'in their possession' to go out of play if they cannot play it safely, just like a goalkeeper, midfielder or forward can do if he wishes

I know we are probably talking about clear cut instances of players deliberating blocking off players but just thought I'd highlight that when done properly, defenders are perfectly untiled to do this under the existing laws of the game.

p.s. I'll dig out my oul referee's journal when i get home to clarify this but it's a damn tricky situation to enforce if the defender acts or seems to act according to the rules.

[Karlos]

I'd like to see a return of the old offside law with the inclusion of the 'if your level your on' part. The existing law is ridiculous - if your on the pitch your interfereing with play, in my eyes.

[Troy.McClure]

In the GAA? Are you sure?. They recently brought in the blood sub, like in rugby, but not as you put it.

Anyway I wouldn't agree with it. It would turn into a case of having a free kick specialist on the bench, only to be brought on and off as required.
.

The GAA rule on subs is that you have a set number of subs (5 is it?) that you can bring on. Basically you have your entire panel of players to choose from, regardless of if they have been involved in the game already or not, so in "saw-ker" you have a squad of 16 - 11 on the pitch and 5 on the bench (duh!)- and you are alowed 3 subs, so if you bring off a player, he is then regarded as one of the subs, but you can then only make 2 more changes. You wouldnt have the case like in hockey where a specialest player is brought on and off all the time for a corner, free, or whatever.