What football rules would you change?

Originally Posted by itisme_panaflex

Following that whoever can fall asleep fastest.

great idea for a game show that

the million pound drop off

Make the players wear tight fitting skirts that go just over the knee.

The half way line, 6 and 18 yard boxes to be projected onto the pitch with lasers which make waving motions every now and then.

The ball to be replaced with the oldest half time orange in the national football museum

Goalkeepers have to hang in their goals upside down attached by a curtain rail

Two players from each team must have shoulder length hair and they are tied to each other.

Dig up Princess Diana and whittle her largest bones into a shovel shape so mines can be planted in the pitch

Goal difference instead of head to head records in World Cup, EUROS, etc.

Originally Posted by Tiberian

Too messy, not sure how it is in anyway fairer than a penalty shootout. What happens if the attacker tries to go round the keeper in the 5 seconds and is fouled? Is it a red card, does he get a penalty, do we have tv replays to adjudicate?

Pens are the best way to do it, they are cruel but better than gimmicks.

You mean in the event someone first invents a time machine?

Real answer for how it was back then - yes it would be a penalty, no red card, ref is in complete control so no TV replays.

all players wear full gimpsuits so that a sponsor cant just award MOTM to the most famous name on the pitch

For the price that people pay, the ball should probably be in play for 90 £#%&!ing minutes The average must be well short of that, surely?

Originally Posted by Coracao

For the price that people pay, the ball should probably be in play for 90 £#%&!ing minutes The average must be well short of that, surely?

I've just had a quick look and figures from 2011 and 2012 have the ball in play for 62-64 minutes.

So, a third of the match is pretty much 'lost'.

Originally Posted by Grimson

Then you'd need to change the law for obstruction, which would cause a few problems - dummying the ball would be obstruction if you added a requirement to play the ball.

If my dummying involved leaning my shoulder back into someone trying to get it, while I'm not even bothering to touch it, then yeah that'd be a foul. In fact it is a foul. Frankly the rule doesn't need changing, just the usage. And I say that as someone who's played more than my fair share of games at full back.

3 points for 0-0s

Originally Posted by Coracao

I've just had a quick look and figures from 2011 and 2012 have the ball in play for 62-64 minutes.

So, a third of the match is pretty much 'lost'.

see more of the ball at Sudo's house

isnt NFL ball in play about 10 mins ?

Originally Posted by MrBishi

Treat 'shielding the ball out of play' as it really is, obstruction

Yes. This. Ball five yards away from the defender, who is just barging backwards into the chest of the forward.

Handball law changed to 'avoidable' instead of 'deliberate'. Because that's what most penalties are anyway. Very rarely does a player intentionally handle the ball. Only ever really on the goal line to literally stop a goal.

Originally Posted by Billy Redface

Yes. This. Ball five yards away from the defender, who is just barging backwards into the chest of the forward.

Handball law changed to 'avoidable' instead of 'deliberate'. Because that's what most penalties are anyway. Very rarely does a player intentionally handle the ball. Only ever really on the goal line to literally stop a goal.

Disagree. If a player is blocking a shot with arms in the air- they deserve to have a penalty given against them, as they're making themselves as big as possible- meaning it's intentional.

Originally Posted by dragflick

Disagree. If a player is blocking a shot with arms in the air- they deserve to have a penalty given against them, as they're making themselves as big as possible- meaning it's intentional.

Well, yeah, that's kind of what I mean. That should count as deliberate, but most of the time it doesn't. If you're spreading your span to block and block with your hand, it should be a penalty. The defence will always be 'but is it deliberate?'

Who cares?


Players generally don't deliberately commit offences in their own area. They don't deliberately do anything wrong but we still award decisions, goals regardless of intention.

If you could have avoided handling, it should be a penalty.

Originally Posted by MrBishi

If my dummying involved leaning my shoulder back into someone trying to get it, while I'm not even bothering to touch it, then yeah that'd be a foul. In fact it is a foul. Frankly the rule doesn't need changing, just the usage. And I say that as someone who's played more than my fair share of games at full back.

Well you wouldn't be if you're dummying it. That part is irrelevant anyway; it's a foul for putting your shoulder into the fella (if the ref thinks so, at least). There is no requirement to play the ball.

Here's how it's written:

'Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offense as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body.'

So if you want it to be a foul for shielding the ball out of play, then you've got to change that law, or the refs have to give more fouls when they think the defender is using his arms/body improperly.

But why do so many people want overhit passes rewarded? Just get on with the goal kick.

Originally Posted by Billy Redface

Players generally don't deliberately commit offences in their own area.

Apart from at every single corner and free kick, you mean?

It's a numbers game. They do it expecting/hoping to get away with it, since they do in the vast majority of cases.

Originally Posted by Grimson

Well you wouldn't be if you're dummying it. That part is irrelevant anyway; it's a foul for putting your shoulder into the fella (if the ref thinks so, at least). There is no requirement to play the ball.

Here's how it's written:

'Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offense as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body.'

So if you want it to be a foul for shielding the ball out of play, then you've got to change that law, or the refs have to give more fouls when they think the defender is using his arms/body improperly.

But why do so many people want overhit passes rewarded? Just get on with the goal kick.



Apart from at every single corner and free kick, you mean?

It's a numbers game. They do it expecting/hoping to get away with it, since they do in the vast majority of cases.

Exactly. They only do it because it's not really an offence. Technically it is, but realistically they know they'll get away it.

Handball should be handball (unless literally unavoidable) any block or shirt pull that impedes a player should be a foul.

Another one that pisses me off is when a defender jumps with an attacker for a header and does 'just enough' to make them miss. Right, so they didn't get the ball and their contact with the striker stopped him scoring? .....that would be a penalty then.

Originally Posted by est.1878

see more of the ball at Sudo's house

isnt NFL ball in play about 10 mins ?

Yep. Believe the average is 11 mins.

Makes me laugh when people shit on NBA for being stop start, despite the fact that the ball is in play the whole 48 minutes and it's as physically demanding as any sport I can think of.

Originally Posted by Billy Redface

Well, yeah, that's kind of what I mean. That should count as deliberate, but most of the time it doesn't. If you're spreading your span to block and block with your hand, it should be a penalty. The defence will always be 'but is it deliberate?'

Who cares?


Players generally don't deliberately commit offences in their own area. They don't deliberately do anything wrong but we still award decisions, goals regardless of intention.

If you could have avoided handling, it should be a penalty.

Spot on, William.

Originally Posted by Ethers

Yep. Believe the average is 11 mins.

Makes me laugh when people shit on NBA for being stop start, despite the fact that the ball is in play the whole 48 minutes and it's as physically demanding as any sport I can think of.

Ridiculous amount of stamina required for basketball tbh.

No subs in the last 10 minutes .
Bringing players on for a few seconds to waste time is just ridiculous

The ball can't be continually in play in tennis, in cricket, in American football, or any number of other sports. Yet someone they have millions and millions of fans. Amazing.

I'm £#%&!ing angry today.

Originally Posted by Grimson

Well you wouldn't be if you're dummying it. That part is irrelevant anyway; it's a foul for putting your shoulder into the fella (if the ref thinks so, at least). There is no requirement to play the ball.

Here's how it's written:

'Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offense as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body.'

So if you want it to be a foul for shielding the ball out of play, then you've got to change that law, or the refs have to give more fouls when they think the defender is using his arms/body improperly.

But why do so many people want overhit passes rewarded? Just get on with the goal kick.

Yeah it's the "or body" that gets me. If I think someone's going for it then I get in their way and have to lean somewhat otherwise I'll get sent flying. I can't reconcile the concept of 'shielding' without holding them off with my body, and find it incongruous with all the other rules about physicality.