Rules you'd like to see introduced into the game.

[Pyro Pete 1,902]

Change VAR to a Decision Review System, like in cricket.

Where the head coach can challenge any decision. And VAR acts like the third umpire, making the decision in real time, with the review audio & video available for TV viewers.

Each head coach gets only three challenges per match. You lose a challenge if you're wrong. Keep it if you're right.

The Video Assistance Referee makes the review, not the referee. Acting like the third umpire in cricket, as mentioned above.

This way, clear and obvious errors get challenged. Grey area decisions are let go. And we can all get on with our lives.

[RobJames 881]

1 hour ago, Pyro Pete said:

Change VAR to a Decision Review System, like in cricket.

Where the head coach can challenge any decision. And VAR acts like the third umpire, making the decision in real time, with the review audio & video available for TV viewers.

Each head coach gets only three challenges per match. You lose a challenge if you're wrong. Keep it if you're right.

The Video Assistance Referee makes the review, not the referee. Acting like the third umpire in cricket, as mentioned above.

This way, clear and obvious errors get challenged. Grey area decisions are let go. And we can all get on with our lives.

That is ridiculous, to put in bluntly. It would push the game further towards some US style 'sport'. In cricket there is always time to review a decision as the ball is considered dead between each ball bowled, so no play is interfered with.

So what happens if a goal is scored by the opposition during that review period ? These supposed obvious errors are the judgement of the referee. Where does that leave him if managers have almost unlimited chances to challenge these subjective decisions - and others can overrule him ? How do you compensate for something that happened minutes ago ? With VAR, currently, the game is stopped. Is that what would happen here ?

Will this allow the manager to stop the game, so a referee's decision can be challenged. That would never work as not only would it be open to abuse, but reduce the game to a farce. As said earlier, what might be 'let go' after the first time may well be penalised the 4th time, later on in the game. The argument would be the 'tackle' was not penalised before. Where then the thought that managers would use this facility to target certain opposition players.

Player A is on a yellow card, so demand a review. Unlike cricket, it still comes down to an opinion. Why then have a referrer. Games can be refereed from some distant place as VAR now. Perhaps that VAR could be challenged as they are also making a subjective decision.

Edited February 9 by RobJames

[wr4sb 33]

Agree with no offside.

Also a handball is a handball if it hits your hand/arm <full stop>. Takes away all the ambiguity of was it deliberate, was his hand in an unnatural position etc.

[Fen Canary 848]

I’ve never met anybody who actually goes to any sporting events that thinks any kind of video ref makes watching the game more entertaining. In football it’s a shambles, in rugby you have minutes on end where nothing happens and the ref is too scared to make a decision, and in cricket it takes away the initial euphoria of an LBW. Do away with it all! 

[A K Narey 86]

Football is essentially a simple game. I am not sure it needs more rules. The beauty of the sport is that anyone can quickly understand the object of the game, to score more than the opposition.

The Premier League will not allow it to happen but I would look to make changes to Football's administration and finance to close the gaps between the Leagues. 

[Robert N. LiM 4,421]

12 hours ago, Keyneton Canary said:

I'd like no offside rule.

 

11 hours ago, Google Bot said:

It'd certainly give the game a kick up the rear and force managers to rethink their approach. 

I'd be interested to know if a change like this would aid the likes of Man City's dominance, or hinder it, you can only imagine what a player like Haaland could do if he had total freedom to extend into the space behind defenders.

I'd tweak this and have no offside once the ball is in the final third. You'd have to paint two new lines on the pitch, but it would take out ridiculous marginal offsides in most situations, but prevent absurd goalhanging, which is presumably what the rule is for.

And yes to the timer clock. I think I'm right in saying that the ball is rarely in play for more than 30 mins in a half of football, so you'd have to 'reduce' the length of each half, but there's no reason why the actual length of time of the game shouldn't be clearly visible to everyone. No idea why this rule hasn't been introduced. It could easily be like rugby where once the time has elapsed, you play on until the ball goes out of play. Love the idea of a Guardiola team keeping possession for ten minutes after the 'final' whistle, in search of that one perfect chance...

[If wed kept Howie.. 208]

all throw-ins to be taken blindfolded... spicy!

blue card - spell on the sidelines? nahhhhh, make them do that thing where they look down and rotate around a broom - dizzy spell on the pitch... 

maybe an eye-patch for dissent?

 

[Capt. Pants 4,261]

13 minutes ago, If wed kept Howie.. said:

all throw-ins to be taken blindfolded... spicy!

blue card - spell on the sidelines? nahhhhh, make them do that thing where they look down and rotate around a broom - dizzy spell on the pitch... 

maybe an eye-patch for dissent?

 

I think Stacey was practicing that last week!

 

50 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

 

I'd tweak this and have no offside once the ball is in the final third. You'd have to paint two new lines on the pitch, but it would take out ridiculous marginal offsides in most situations, but prevent absurd goalhanging, which is presumably what the rule is for.

Yes I agree. An offside zone prevents goal hanging but at the same time stretches the game a bit. 

[Badger 2,407]

13 hours ago, Hairy Canary said:

Have an off field timekeeper who stops the clock when the ball is not in play - reduce the length of the halves to compensate.

There would be no point time wasting any more nor this silly arbitrary minimum injury time on the refs discretion. The off field clock shown so the crowd know exactly how long there is left.

You've said it for me! Nothing spoils a game more than a team "running down the clock" from the second they take the lead.

[Walcombe canary 69]

1 / Bring back Tackling, proper Challenges.

I struggle to watch Football anymore. Too much Diving, Screaming & Cheating

No wonder The Refs are totally baffled...................yet get blamed for spoiling a match

And 2 / get rid of Pundits

 

[GenerationA47 758]

14 hours ago, Keyneton Canary said:

 

No talking back to, or touching any official. Instant yellow card.

 

 

13 hours ago, Morph said:

How about the rule from rugby where dissent against an awarded infringement gets the ball moved forward five yards.

 

More generally, another good thing from rugby - no player but the captain to address the match officials, on pain of carding

[shefcanary 2,426]

2 minutes ago, GenerationA47 said:

 

More generally, another good thing from rugby - no player but the captain to address the match officials, on pain of carding

In theory that is already in place this season - just that some ref's don't enforce it enough. Generally however it does seem to be applied and has reduced the number of times you see a ref being hounded by all of one side. 

[GenerationA47 758]

15 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

0-0 means nil points for both teams.

15 hours ago, RobJames said:

Whereby both teams would conspire to score against each other in the last few minutes

A. Facetious reply: isn't that just called... football

B. I realise you're suggesting they could gift each other a free goal. Interesting application for 'game theory'... and I think not.

Even if there weren't (rightly) immediate and ongoing penalties for unsporting conduct and/or bringing game into disrepute - because it would be so obvious - don't you think this practice would cease rapidly after the first occasion a team broke the gentlemen's agreement, and changed their mind about conceding having received their freebie.

 

[GenerationA47 758]

5 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

In theory that is already in place this season - just that some ref's don't enforce it enough. Generally however it does seem to be applied and has reduced the number of times you see a ref being hounded by all of one side. 

I thought it was something different, ie just no card waving or other appeal to the ref to get an opponent sent off. But I'm probably out of date

Edited February 9 by GenerationA47

[shefcanary 2,426]

5 minutes ago, GenerationA47 said:

I thought it was something different, ie just no card waving or other appeal to the ref to get an opponent sent off. But I'm probably out of date

Thinking of it again it may be one of those guidance "rules" that are issued at the beginning of each season by the PGMOL and FA. Certainly when watching Norwich this season Kenny is very demonstrative (ain't he always) that it is his responsibility to discuss debateable decisions alone with the ref. Whatever, it does seem to be true of most team captains as well.

[Mason 47 1,388]

I'd change red cards. In the case of a red, the offended-against teams manager chooses between either the player coming off or taking a penalty (regardless of where it happens on the pitch).

In the same vein, I'd bin off in-play penalties. 

[Pyro Pete 1,902]

9 hours ago, RobJames said:

That is ridiculous, to put in bluntly. It would push the game further towards some US style 'sport'. In cricket there is always time to review a decision as the ball is considered dead between each ball bowled, so no play is interfered with.

So what happens if a goal is scored by the opposition during that review period ? These supposed obvious errors are the judgement of the referee. Where does that leave him if managers have almost unlimited chances to challenge these subjective decisions - and others can overrule him ? How do you compensate for something that happened minutes ago ? With VAR, currently, the game is stopped. Is that what would happen here ?

Will this allow the manager to stop the game, so a referee's decision can be challenged. That would never work as not only would it be open to abuse, but reduce the game to a farce. As said earlier, what might be 'let go' after the first time may well be penalised the 4th time, later on in the game. The argument would be the 'tackle' was not penalised before. Where then the thought that managers would use this facility to target certain opposition players.

Player A is on a yellow card, so demand a review. Unlike cricket, it still comes down to an opinion. Why then have a referrer. Games can be refereed from some distant place as VAR now. Perhaps that VAR could be challenged as they are also making a subjective decision.

It would be no different to how VAR currently operates. Except it would limit its involvement considerably.

That is, when the referee blows his whistle, VAR can stop the game while it reviews a decision.

Or, if the offence takes plsce during play, VAR stops play at the next break in play to review a suspected offence. For example, goals are already ruled out if there is an offence in the build-up.

By reducing it to three challenges per manager, means the referee will actually have more authority. As not every decision gets reviewed.

Instead, only big calls like obviousoy incorrect penalty decisions, incorrect offsides leading to goals or dangerous tackles would end up being challenged.

Managers won't then challenge these stupid 1mm offside decisions, because they're not obvious.

Plus, making the decision process transparent, as they do in cricket, allows viewers to understand how the decision has been made.

Edited February 9 by Pyro Pete

[Google Bot 3,294]

41 minutes ago, Pyro Pete said:

Managers won't then challenge these stupid 1mm offside decisions, because they're not obvious.

Farke would, he'd save up all the challenges and trigger them one-by-one from the 85th minute onwards.

Edited February 9 by Google Bot

[Flying Dutchman 744]

ADDED TIME MULTIBALL

[Google Bot 3,294]

Howabout the offside rule remains, but if both teams are drawing then on the next break in play from the 80th minute it's retracted so the game gets an exciting conclusion? 

In cup fixtures this could extend into ET hopefully reducing the need for pens.

Edited February 9 by Google Bot

[Yobocop 1,104]

18 hours ago, The Raptor said:

Blue cards and sin bins has been threatened today. 

Any rules you'd like to see brought into the game or changed?

I'm going for the player fouled for the free kick/penalty is the one who has to take it. Might encourage a few players to stay on their feet more if they know they're rubbish at free kicks.

I think they could revolutionise the sudden death in penalty shoot outs, if it’s level after 5 pens each then a game of slapsies ensues. 

for those that don’t know what slapsies is, essentially a player would stand on the goal line with his ar5è out bent over and the opposition player would shoot to try and hit him in the derrière 

I also think on a more serious note that the art of a throw in at Amateur level has gone out of the game and needs to be either changed to allow roll or kick ons or the referees need to take it more seriously. 

I don’t know for sure as I haven’t read the thread yet but there is bound to be some smart Alec who has said that goals and pitches need to be smaller in the womens game, not for me. They don’t make a tennis court smaller do they? 

[essex canary 497]

Can we give a Blue Card to Ui Jo Hwang?

Edited February 9 by essex canary

[Corbs1 90]

In game and society, a form of wealth tax from premiership to league 1,2 and below to support infrastructure. Maybe top sliced from transfer fees over a certain amount such as 15 million additionally. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,947]

Offside should be judged on the feet of the players only and not any other part of the body. It would speed things up and who cares if someone's armpit is offside. 

[RobJames 881]

5 hours ago, Pyro Pete said:

It would be no different to how VAR currently operates. Except it would limit its involvement considerably.

That is, when the referee blows his whistle, VAR can stop the game while it reviews a decision.

Or, if the offence takes plsce during play, VAR stops play at the next break in play to review a suspected offence. For example, goals are already ruled out if there is an offence in the build-up.

By reducing it to three challenges per manager, means the referee will actually have more authority. As not every decision gets reviewed.

Instead, only big calls like obviousoy incorrect penalty decisions, incorrect offsides leading to goals or dangerous tackles would end up being challenged.

Managers won't then challenge these stupid 1mm offside decisions, because they're not obvious.

Plus, making the decision process transparent, as they do in cricket, allows viewers to understand how the decision has been made.

You seem to be tying yourself in knots with this. Supposedly having managers deciding when the game stops, and then having others over ruling the ref, err.............................gives him/her more authority ?

Who decides what is an incorrect penalty decisions, incorrect offside, dangerous tackle ? . Whoever does, it is still a subjective decision.  Would a manager be able to stop the game if his player was judged and penalised for a supposed dangerous tackle ?  Is the appeal only allowed for a decision not given ? Rather defeats the object of supposed 'better decision making' it that was to be the case.

Even the logistics of this nonsense rule it out, as assuming a minium of 2 minutes for each appeal it could add 10 mins plus to the game.

As stated, in cricket the game has already 'stopped' when a review is asked for. The review proves without doubt whether it was LBW or whether the ball hit the bat etc. Nothing subjective, either out or not. Whereas in football whether a tackle is dangerous, or it's a handball is subjective ie what the referee decides.

What underpins this guff is the thought that there is always a clear yes or no, and it only needs the right amount of technology and enough time, and it will be decided conclusively. A flawed delusion.

 

[Big O 225]

I’d go for:

1. teams having to make a decision on whether to keep a youth player by 21 in a first team squad of 30 or have to enable them to go to a different club on free

2. Youth players remain on youth contracts until they either get into first team squad or released and picked up. Stop silly salaries pricing lower pyramid clubs out and keeping talent in the game

3. Max 5 loans out of a club a season, stop them stock piling talent and stealing smaller clubs talents when they have no intention of ever actually playing them.

4. salary budgets capped at a flat rate plus a small percentage of turnover. Think it’s fair that bigger richer clubs should get an advantage but not such a massive one

5. Not allowed to poach a manger mid season, you would have to appoint someone out of work when the season started or within if you wanted to get rid of your manager. Stop some of the short-termism.

6. Roll it back to 3 subs, More than ample. Happy with a concussion sub if needed.

7. technology rolled back to goal line tech and offsides.

8. Red cards only for serious serious foul play and should be used in extremis not the norm.

9. weekly review of this people diving. Week ban for every instance until players get the message, upto 3 weeks to get a penalty if player sent off. For example the grant Hanley special… that’s a week 

10. Simon Hooper to allow all overhead kicks 

 

[Besthorpe-48 103]

How about having a green card then they can all go to America at the end of their European career.

[ridgeman 132]

Offside should only be when there is daylight between attacker and defender otherwise you are level.

[Nexus_Canary 1,024]

3 goals instead of 1 across the line.

Middle one is a a hockey goal with a little person in place, you get 3 points hitting that one.

The other two are regular size but have a rush goalie who has to tend to both of them.

 

This will increase diversity in football and also require goal keepers to actually keep their fitness up.

Also will be 12 men on the pitch as you have the rush goalie and the central little person.

Obs the two goalies have to tend their goals and can't help each other out.

 

Also before kick off each team gets to designate one opposition player to wear size 20 clown shoes rather than boots.

If the player wearing clown shoes scores it's worth 5 points.

I think these rules would liven the game up it would also entertain the Americans who seem to be slowly destroying our culture and taking over the gsme 

Edited February 10 by Nexus_Canary