Improving on the "beautiful game"

[jimbojohnny56]

The fact that you are looking at ways to drastically cahnge the game just proves the notion of the beautiful game is False. The game is boring and I can't watch it for more than 2 minutes. I have tried just can't do it.

[slightly shotgunned]

1. If Suarez had done this in the 5th minute with the game 0-0, and Gyan missed the penalty, would everyone still call Suarez a cheat, no they'd be calling him a moron for doing that. Bottom line is there's a reason its called a penalty, them team who gets the penalty called in their favor is supossed to make it...end of story.

1.What if, then, the rules just allow the goal and nothing else happens? No send off, no PK, just a goal for the offensive team, similar to goaltending in basketball. It would only apply to a ball that was clearly going into the goal and that might get a little subjective, but hopefully it would solve the bigger problem as I see it; the idea that "any other player would have done the same thing in a similar situation."

I don't know enough about the game to know if that would be a viable solution...

2.It doesn't matter what you do, players will dive. It's part of almost every sport where there's contact. Always has been. Somehow, someway, a player is going to figure out a way to dramatize the contact so that they gain a bit of an edge.

3.I'm a much bigger fan of the sudden death OT after an extra 30' than that idea. As exciting as they are, I'm not big on the idea of PKs determining the winners of a match. or shootouts in hockey for that matter.

4.I'd be in favor of a 0-0 draw awarding no points, forcing each team to actually score a point to get a point, but the rest of that seems a bit overkill. The current set-up is passable for now.

[slightly shotgunned]

The fact that you are looking at ways to drastically cahnge the game just proves the notion of the beautiful game is False. The game is boring and I can't watch it for more than 2 minutes. I have tried just can't do it.

Name a sport. Any sport. I would be willing to bet that people have spent a great deal of time thinking of and debating ways to improve that sport by changing the rules.

[BrySmalls]

Have a "Larissa Riquelme" fan noticeable in the stands.

[tBBP]

Have a Larissa Riquelme fan noticeable in the stands.

And her cellphone too.

[Viper]

Count me among those who think Suarez' actions were both sporting and acceptable. There's a very clear decision that a player must make in such a situation: is my team better off conceding a goal or defending a penalty kick, playing down a man for the rest of the match, and being without me next game? Given the circumstances and the time remaining, Suarez chose the latter. Ghana should have been able to win the match despite Suarez' handball. They blew the penalty kick (statistically, a 70% chance or better of scoring) and then lost in a shootout despite Uruguay missing their best striker. I have no sympathy for Ghana in this case.

I don't blame Suarez one damn bit for doing what he did either - he found a loophole in the rules and exploited it to help his team. The bottom line is though, it is still a loophole in the rules, and for all intents and purposes his team got rewarded for him breaking what is arguably the game's most cardinal rule. Counting such a play as an automatic goal (maybe even charged as an own-goal to the offending player for good measure) would take away that perverse incentive to cheat to win.

And for the record, no, I am not a fan of basketball teams being able to get the ball back late in games by intentionally fouling either.

[A corner-kick "shootout"] is just ridiculous. I think the current system is perfect. If you can't beat your opponent in regular time, you keep playing. If you can't beat them in extra time, it comes down to pure basics: striking and saving. I'd be fine with changing extra time to golden goal format, but going to corners? Weird and silly.

The trouble with penalty kicks is that it's a series of one-on-one contests, which to me is no way to settle a tie in a team sport. Replacing the PK shootout with corner kicks at least gets the entire team involved. I wouldn't mind bringing back the "golden goal" format either (which would accomplish the same effect), but FIFA has made clear that's not going to happen by, well, getting rid of that format in the first place.

Your system doesn't solve the problem of teams playing for draws at all; it just encourages 1-1 draws instead of 0-0 draws. Since the team that's up in a 1-0 game gets the same number of points in your system as if they give up a goal and finish 1-1, there's no motivation to protect the lead.

On the contrary, my system gives teams ahead 1-0 an incentive to keep attacking and scoring more, so they can get 2 or 3 points instead of just the one. Another problem with your argument is that once a team goes up 1-0 there's no guarantee that the other team will be able to tie the game up again. The game could end 1-0, 1-1, 2-0 or whatever. If both teams decide to play for a draw, they don't even have to try to score, which is how we get all these 0-0 draws.

Last but definitely not least, a 1-0 win is still worth more than a 1-1 draw because with a draw, the other team gets a point too. With a 1-0 win your team just gets one point, but your opponent still gets zilch. Remember, in league and group play it's not just about earning points for your own team, but denying points to the opposition. My proposed system adds some new wrinkles to that consideration.

[jkrdevil]

The two clear changes I see the sport needed involve transparency and getting the calls right. That would be the use of replay and goal line technology and making the official time available for all to see during the game (i.e. putting it on the scoreboard). Both have been discusses a lot. For a sport that has concerns about match fixing it seems odd that there isn't a willingness to be more transparent involving the time (as that can be easily manipulated). Put the official time on the scoreboard. Standardize situations when the clock should be stopped (injuries and substitutions). The ref can have discretion to stop it for other time wasting situations. With todays technology the ref can control the clock from the field. Sure the ref still has a lot of control over the clock, but the public sees when he stops it. It would also cut down on the flopping and faking injuries and a lot of that is done late to bleed the clock as the teams know the full time taken for the "injury" to be dealt with is probably not going to be fully "put back on."

As for trying to open up the game I doubt some odd point system based on the goal will be effective without opening up other problems. I think the best way to "open up" the game is to reform the offside rule. Either a minor change or a radical change.

A minor change would be that the entire attacking player has to be past the second to last defender.

A radical change would be to adopt something along the lines of hockey. That once the ball gets past a certain point on the field (say the top of the box) the attacking team can play the ball from a offside position. This would take away goals that are disallowed that occur in tight near the goal because of offside. That is probably changing the sport too much and too radical.

3- I always liked the old golden goal rule. Make extra time sudden death, then to penalties. As original as the corner kick idea is, it sounds like it would take a long time, potentially.

From my understandings of the problem with the golden goal rule, and my familiarity of sudden death in hockey is not golden goal/sudden death itself, it is having a penalty shootout (that amounts to a coin flip probabilities) after it. That leads undermanned teams to just play conservative and defensive and to just hold on through extra time because their chance at the shootout are better. You see this sometimes in regular season NHL game where in the OT the teams seemingly just play for the shootout, and that is with rules in place to encourage teams to go for it in OT (the extra point given means there isn't a risk of losing anything. If say after the 30 minutes extra time you just went with golden goal until every one scores with each side being reduced by 1 man every 15 minutes (and maybe allow extra substitutions at the start of each golden goal session to get fresh bodies out there). There isn't as much reward in just sitting back and defending as you have to score to win. Yes, this format would be extra physically demanding, but such is the punishment for letting the game go this far.

Again that is a radical change. A less radical change would be maybe moving the spot back for shootouts (yes, that would require two dots) to give the goalie more of a chance and favor teams with a stronger striker.

[LMU]

In terms of offsides, why not make it like hockey with a line between the half line and the penalty box where once you pass that point, it's fair game?

Also, like hockey, why can't they have dedicated goal officials to indicate when the ball crosses the plane, similar to lighting the lamp? And then if they get it wrong, allow for booth reviews.

[Viper]

I think Viper has forgotten the most important rule of sports:

You play to win the game!

Except when you don't, which in this sport is all too often, and exactly the problem.

[RedRenesis]

In terms of offsides, why not make it like hockey with a line between the half line and the penalty box where once you pass that point, it's fair game?

My suggestion was along these lines, offsides should be scrapped inside the 18. How many goals in this World Cup have been waved or disputed because of an offsides call low in the box? Once your that close to your own end line being able to defend both in front of you and behind you shouldnt be that big of a deal.

[Saintsfan]

In terms of offsides, why not make it like hockey with a line between the half line and the penalty box where once you pass that point, it's fair game?

My suggestion was along these lines, offsides should be scrapped inside the 18. How many goals in this World Cup have been waved or disputed because of an offsides call low in the box? Once your that close to your own end line being able to defend both in front of you and behind you shouldnt be that big of a deal.

The point of offside is to stop goal hanging. What's to stop a guy hanging out in the box the whole game with this rule? Offside is here to stay and vital for the game.

Incidentally on the Golden Goal rule, my understanding on the reason it was scrapped was similar to peoples complaint against the old NFL overtime, in that it didn't allow a team to comeback. I think that's an even sillier argument in soccer than football. They did briefly bring in a silver goal rule, which said that the first half of extra time would be completed whatever. If someone was ahead then the game finished, if not it went to sudden death, and then penalties. That's just more complicated than it needs to be.

[oddball]

There are two things that would make soccer better. Get rid of the friggin' flopping when someone is within 100 feet of another player. They go down like they've been shot by a sniper. The second thing that absolutely kills the game for me and I can't watch, is this friggin' mysterious "injury" time time after each half. What? You're just adding on random time, that no one knows and 9 times out of 10, it's for one of these idiots who fell down because someone got within 99 feet of him. It's the FIFA sat there one day and saw that a top team was losing and then said, "Oh we can't have that. Why not add "Injury" Time to the game and have only the ref know about it." I don't know about anyone else, but the whole injury time where only the ref knows about it just has a very dirty feel to it. I mean if you're going to fix a game, what a better way than to only have the official know how much time is on the clock and be able to extend the clock as far as he likes or has to. It's an enjoyable game to watch, but I just can't get into a game where players flop (NBA), and there's mysterious time only known by the ref.

[RedRenesis]

In terms of offsides, why not make it like hockey with a line between the half line and the penalty box where once you pass that point, it's fair game?

My suggestion was along these lines, offsides should be scrapped inside the 18. How many goals in this World Cup have been waved or disputed because of an offsides call low in the box? Once your that close to your own end line being able to defend both in front of you and behind you shouldnt be that big of a deal.

The point of offside is to stop goal hanging. What's to stop a guy hanging out in the box the whole game with this rule? Offside is here to stay and vital for the game.

My fault, I didnt clarify that the pass should originate inside the box.

[TFoA]

Why not add "Injury" Time to the game and have only the ref know about it."

This guy makes sure that there is no mystery. He's called the 4th ref, he makes the substitutions & injury time known to everybody.

Then again, when it comes to the EPL, everybody knows that stoppage time goes until Man United wins, so you may have a point there.

[TFoA]

DP

[Saintsfan]

In terms of offsides, why not make it like hockey with a line between the half line and the penalty box where once you pass that point, it's fair game?

My suggestion was along these lines, offsides should be scrapped inside the 18. How many goals in this World Cup have been waved or disputed because of an offsides call low in the box? Once your that close to your own end line being able to defend both in front of you and behind you shouldnt be that big of a deal.

The point of offside is to stop goal hanging. What's to stop a guy hanging out in the box the whole game with this rule? Offside is here to stay and vital for the game.

My fault, I didnt clarify that the pass should originate inside the box.

Hardly any offsides happen from passes inside the box. But even still the goal hanging point still applies, players would just stand on the line to disrupt the defence.

The only way I can think of explaining how bad an idea getting rid of offside is to an American audience is to compare it to a false start penalty in US football, or even offside in Gridiron. Both of those rules are about keeping players on the right side of the ball. The difference is that all plays in US football start from a still position. In soccer the job of keeping players, especially attacking players is less straightforward because the game is less static. I guess from that point of view offside in soccer is more similar to the 3 second rule in basketball.

[Discrim]

5) ban the phrase "the beautiful game"

seconded. True, when played well, soccer can be beautiful. But then, is a perfectly-executed drive that leads to a touchdown inherently uglier than fancy dribbling that leads to a clear shot on goal just because the former didn't happen in soccer? I've felt for some time that the "beautiful game" term tends to imply that soccer is the only sport capable of anything you could call sporting beauty. (Yes, I know that technically, it's only supposed to represent the way Brazil traditionally plays, but it's as inexorably linked to soccer as crackerjacks and baseball.)

Far as offsides goes, I tend to think of it as being like hockey in a way...only this blue line can move around, drink gatorade and whatnot.

[maz]

I'm alright with current overtime rules. Being a huge hockey fan the golden goal idea is appealing, but after watching USA vs. Ghana, I like the idea of second chances. I'm not the biggest fan of shootouts either, but as someone said earlier, goals are so infrequent in soccer that continuous OT would be murder for everyone involved, players and fans alike. We've already seen some terribly long hockey games, even in the "new NHL".

I don't think there is anything that can be done to the offsides rule that would favor offense but not too much. I like the idea of the entire player having to be past the last defender for it to be considered offsides. That's about as good as it could be.

Definitely add goal-line officials. Give them a signal like a red light like hockey. If they cannot clearly determine if it was a goal, they can defer to the booth. And, like football, give each side a limited number of challenges for regular time. And in overtime or close to the end of the game review every goal, but stop the clock to do so in necessary cases (like if its a clear rocket to the back twine then let it go, but if for example it was only clearly visible to the goal judge and not the ref, or vice-versa, review it).

And why not have two refs on the field? Maybe one for one half, one for the other? Just like hockey. Two refs, two linesmen, two goal judges. More officials means one guy has to cover less at one time so, in theory, he can focus more on what he is watching. If hockey has room for four officials on the ice at once, Soccer has room for two on the field and two on the sideline.

And I'd like to see the clock stop for substitutions or injuries requiring stretchers, or if a player is just plain down for a certain amount of time. This could cut down on diving and subbing a guy on the complete opposite end of the field from the bench for the sole purpose of wasting time. This also reduces the amount of time gone by without play, which extra time never adequately covers. And expanding on that, an idea could be to give a player a certain amount of times he can go down long enough to stop the clock before he has to be subbed. If he stops the clock three times, he's gone for delay of game. This cuts down on diving, or at least the excessively embellished ones.

[Jer15]

Change nothing rule wise.

Only changes that should be made and will be made is adding Replay.

I agree. But only goal line replay.

Part of football is that you have 1 ref and 2 linesmen, if they see a call they call it. End of story. This is not the NFL/NHL.

This how the sport is. It has been for over 100 years, save a few slight rule alterations.

The only thing i'd say is that more card handed out to discourage diving.

[Still MIGHTY]

Change nothing rule wise.

Only changes that should be made and will be made is adding Replay.

I agree. But only goal line replay.

Part of football is that you have 1 ref and 2 linesmen, if they see a call they call it. End of story. This is not the NFL/NHL.

This how the sport is. It has been for over 100 years, save a few slight rule alterations.

The only thing i'd say is that more card handed out to discourage diving.

We understand that. That's exactly why we're asking for a change in some of the applications of the rules.

Just because it's been done like this forever doesn't mean it can't be changed for the betterment of the game.