What football rules would you change?

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

Originally Posted by mrbishi

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

this

Originally Posted by MrBishi

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

Yeah, play the £#%&!ing thing or get out of the way

Said this before without too much agreement, but I think a lot more leeway should be given for handballs. I think the spirit of the rule is simply to stop football being a different sport where you can use your hands, so Henry vs. Ireland is clearly against the rules. But when the ball gets smashed into someone's arm at point-blank range and a penalty is given - that's not what the rule is or should be for, imo. Of course refs can't always know whether it was intentional or not, so that's why I think they should more often than not err on the side of not giving it, instead of the opposite case we have now, where handballs are given despite the player clearly having no intention of gaining an advantage.

Originally Posted by Zorg

Said this before without too much agreement, but I think a lot more leeway should be given for handballs. I think the spirit of the rule is simply to stop football being a different sport where you can use your hands, so Henry vs. Ireland is clearly against the rules. But when the ball gets smashed into someone's arm at point-blank range and a penalty is given - that's not what the rule is or should be for, imo. Of course refs can't always know whether it was intentional or not, so that's why I think they should more often than not err on the side of not giving it, instead of the opposite case we have now, where handballs are given despite the player clearly having no intention of gaining an advantage.

They are not given all the time, I'd say a higher percentage aren't given as pens. It does need sorting out its been a grey area for honks.

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

That's what I said....

Wasn't this trialled in America grimson ?

Yeah, it was 5 seconds though. It was used throughout the heyday of the old North American Soccer League, and then at various times in other leagues. I took part in a few, never lost one . MLS had it for a season or two before getting rid of it.

Originally Posted by Grimson

Yeah, it was 5 seconds though. It was used throughout the heyday of the old North American Soccer League, and then at various times in other leagues. I took part in a few, never lost one . MLS had it for a season or two before getting rid of it.

Did it work ?

Originally Posted by MrBishi

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

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.

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

Did it work ?

Technically yes, it settled matches in the same way penalty shootouts do. But it was more problematic, because of disputes over whether the shot was taken within 5 seconds. More trouble than it was worth, in the end.

I'd have a lifetime ban and custodial sentence for players who clutch their face and fall to the floor for nothing, and evening classes for referees who seem to be the only people in the world unaware that someone brushing against a standing person is not enough to make them fall over.

If a blatant foul is committed outside the box to deny a clear goalscoring oppertunity(ole v newcastle/mertersacker vs chelsea) instead of a straight red the player gets a yellow and a penalty awarded.

Originally Posted by rogieop

If a blatant foul is committed outside the box to deny a clear goalscoring oppertunity(ole v newcastle/mertersacker vs chelsea) instead of a straight red the player gets a yellow and a penalty awarded.

So, the penalty box should be bigger, or just not exist?

Unless a player is genuinely £#%&!ed no daft substitutions a few seconds before extra time ends

Originally Posted by Pop

Unless a player is genuinely £#%&!ed no daft substitutions a few seconds before extra time ends

This.

Originally Posted by Pop

Unless a player is genuinely £#%&!ed no daft substitutions a few seconds before extra time ends

how would you know a player is genuinely £#%&!ed?

Originally Posted by Jose

how would you know a player is genuinely £#%&!ed?

Set off a fire alarm.

Originally Posted by Jose

how would you know a player is genuinely £#%&!ed?

Presumably the officials would have to decide if a sub was permissible or not?

Originally Posted by Pop

Unless a player is genuinely £#%&!ed no daft substitutions a few seconds before extra time ends

Independent time keeper who stops the clock..

five minutes of every game you can throw an extra player on
three teams and three goals . triangular pitch.
drinking within pitch view
manager takes the 12 penalty if it gets to it

Instead of penos, each side has five chances to pinpoint the location of a google maps street view drop.
If that ends even, it's bongs and maths.
Following that whoever can fall asleep fastest.

Originally Posted by Grimson

Technically yes, it settled matches in the same way penalty shootouts do. But it was more problematic, because of disputes over whether the shot was taken within 5 seconds. More trouble than it was worth, in the end.

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.