New Rules

[grecianstew]

Lots of really good suggestions already here, though as many have said, the proper enforcement of existing rules would be a good start.
However i suggest 2.
Trainer allowed to come on and treat an injured player without waiting for the game to stop. If the game is obstructed by the trainer, free kick to other side. This is already used in Rugby and would stop at a stroke the odious practice of faking injury to break up the game and blackmailing the oppo intokicking the ball out.

Scrap offside altogether. Radical i know, but Hockey had an almost identical rule and when they scrapped it most predicted the end of the game. There is now not a soul left in Hockey who would consider bringing it back. Teams have adapted their formations and strategies accordingly, the game is now played in the whole of the pitch and most importantly 75% of the controversy has been removed. Too many games are settled on a rule that is totaly and physicaly impossible for a human being to judge accurately.

 

[PeteUSA]

An indirect free kick should be awarded to the attacking team where a defender deliberately shields the ball out of play for a goal kick. This is obstruction anywhere else on the pitch so why not in these circumstances.

A little known fact is that an attacking player has a perfect right to push a defender in the back to gain possesion, if he's deliberately shielding the ball out for a goal kick. I know you never see that happen, but its quite legitimate. Chances are the referee will give a free kick to the defender who got pushed in the back, but strictly speaking it shouldnt be that way.

Regarding the farcical offside rule, I think its ridiculous to expect so much of the linesman, where he has to take so many factors into account, and very often get it wrong. Jimmy Hill had the best idea many years ago, where another line whould be marked out across the pitch halfway between the goal-line and the half-way line. The plan was that there would be no offside beyond the newly introduced line. It was tried out experimentally in several matches abroad, but it was never adopted unfortunately.

 

[Stuffy]

...where a defender deliberately shields the ball out of play for a goal kick. This is obstruction anywhere else on the pitch so why not in these circumstances.

This has always irritated me. Some years ago the Australian Cricket Team complained bitterly when the England bowlers deliberately disfigured one side of the ball by scouring it across the hard earth, their argument being that the ball belongs to BOTH teams in equal measure and to tamper with the ball in that fashion was unfair to the batsman.

By the same token, the football also belongs to both teams, obviously the attacker wants the ball and so the defender should be made to play it or get out of the bl**dy way.

 

[NilesCrane]

Seeing the thread about the change in rules for penalty kicks got me thinking on what rules would you like to see introduced/changed?

I will start with:

An indirect free kick should be awarded to the attacking team where a defender deliberately shields the ball out of play for a goal kick. This is obstruction anywhere else on the pitch so why not in these circumstances.

If the player shields the ball within a yard of the ball he is effectively playing it and it is within his control. What's the problem with that? Why does he have to kick it? Obstruction is where a player has no intention of playing the ball. Shielding the ball is as much playing the ball as kicking it. It would become obstruction if the player shielding the ball out of play suddenly stopped to prevent the opposing player reaching it. That's obstruction. I have no problem with this

 

[NilesCrane]

A little known fact is that an attacking player has a perfect right to push a defender in the back to gain possesion, if he's deliberately shielding the ball out for a goal kick. I know you never see that happen, but its quite legitimate. Chances are the referee will give a free kick to the defender who got pushed in the back, but strictly speaking it shouldnt be that way.
.

Where in the Laws of the Game does it say this Pete ? Pushing is never allowed. The shoulder barge is the nearest that is allowed.

 

[crocks]

If the player shields the ball within a yard of the ball he is effectively playing it and it is within his control. What's the problem with that? Why does he have to kick it? Obstruction is where a player has no intention of playing the ball. Shielding the ball is as much playing the ball as kicking it. It would become obstruction if the player shielding the ball out of play suddenly stopped to prevent the opposing player reaching it. That's obstruction. I have no problem with this

Hmmm, I think that there is a very fine line there. In lots of cases, the defender deliberately puts his body in the way and backs into the forward (especially if there is no pace on the ball). To me, that is obstruction.

 

[The Emperor]

Obstruction is where a player has no intention of playing the ball

Like shielding it out for a goal kick you mean?

 

[spanky]

I've had another thought to add to the list...

If a player fouls another denying a goalscoring opportunity, it's an automatic red card.

After watching Suarez for Uruguay constantly throwing himself to the floor yesterday at any given opportunity I'd now like to forward a furthering of the idea...

Anyone diving to gain a significant advantage, as in yesterday's game (and in the same way a defender commits a professional foul), I'd like to see the player given an automatic red card. None of this booking nonsense...

 

[EX4 6PX]

Bring on the Jabulani ball.

 

[paperclip]

Scrap offside altogether. Radical i know, but Hockey had an almost identical rule and when they scrapped it most predicted the end of the game. There is now not a soul left in Hockey who would consider bringing it back. Teams have adapted their formations and strategies accordingly, the game is now played in the whole of the pitch and most importantly 75% of the controversy has been removed. Too many games are settled on a rule that is totaly and physicaly impossible for a human being to judge accurately.

I think football could learn a lot from hockeys rules. I agree with scrapping offside, it makes for a really quick and end to end game. In addition, I think hockey's the three card disciplinary system (green as a warning, then yellow which means a spell in the sin-bin, and finally red) would work in football. It would certainly mean fewer players being dismissed for two petty bookable offences.

Just a thought like...