What would you do to try to prevent a repetition of Saturday's garbage ?

I'm thinking along the lines of changing the rules to make it easier to score.

I'd scrap the offside rule, or at least modify it to something like a player being offside only inside the penalty area.

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

Answers

Refuse to let any team that routinely plays 5-3-2 get into the latter stages of the Cup. John Gregory was saying before Cup that no Villa team would ever turn on the style and lose 4-3. However, a very good friend of mine, a Villa supporter, tells me that the reason their fans haven't been turning up is because they are playing like the Arse did ten years ago. However, I'm reminded of how the Toon apparently used to cheer the artistry of Billy McCracken's defensive skills. Who'd have thought it?

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

Get rid of the Goalkeepers in Extra Time which should produce a lot more goal attempts but I guess you would have hoped the Golden Goal would produce the same results!

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

Get two decent teams to play next season?

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

Make it easier to score - clone David James and make all teams play with him in the nets (or as it turned out on numerous occasions half way up the pitch).
If he even turns up at Heathrow come the beginning of June....

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

I believe the offside rule, and it's present interpretation, is a major contributor to sterile games. I'd actually like to see the off-side rule scrapped, perhaps on an experimental basis. I've never really understood it's value. It was apparently introduced to prevent teams leaving a forward in a very advance position, ie. goal mooching. So what?
The main problem today is that play is invariably compressed into to narrow band ca. 40yds deep, in which you will generally find all 20 outfield players. Accordingly, the players simply don't have the space in which to play attractive footy. It is the offside rule that facilitates this approach.
Teams are coached to play in three lines, advancing and retreating as such, with no more than 40 yds between the front and back lines. This approach demands high fitness levels, and the play only spreads out when fatigue sets in, and the players are unable to maintain the original discipline. This is why the second half of games is usually better than the first these days.
I would hope that scrapping the offside rule would tend to spread play out and give the better players more space in which to apply their skills.
A more simple thing that could be done is to insist that match officials change the current approach of invariably giving the benefit of the doubt to the defending team on tight offside decisions. In the FAC Final for example, a good number of highly marginal decisions went in favour of the defending team, nullifying good atacking moves and stopping the flow of the game.
Officials are still even not applying the change in the rule that provides for a player who is level with the last defender to be viewed as 'onside'. Far too many marginal decisions are still going for the defence - IMO to avoid controversy - and I feel the attacking player should be classed as onside unless he is CLEARLY offside.

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

Another that occurred to me would be to prevent defenders going into the opposition's half of the pitch, and attackers from going into their own half, apart from a band say 5 meters wide, either side of the halfway line, for kick offs at the start and after goals etc. . That would at least keep the numbers down in the defending goal area.

The new laws would need to include the necessity for managers to nominate in advance which 6 players were classed as defenders, and which 5 were attackers.

To keep the possibility of a defender picking up the ball in his own half and running the length of the pitch to score, the defender would be allowed to continue as far as he could without another of his side touching the ball, the outcome being either a shot or a pass to one of his forwards. If he lost the ball, the defender wouldn't be allowed to try to win it back.

That last looks like the most obvious drawback although there are bound to be others that haven't occurred to me.

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

I once wrote a very witty, and modest, article for The Mag on this very issue.

The obvious answer is to turn the pitch sideways.

Instead of having the goals 100 yards apart they would only be 50 yards apart.

The role of the goalie would be greatly enhanced as a someone with a really strong clearance could be getting shots in on goal at all time.

The role of dribbling wingers would return to pre-emininence as they would have 50 yards to dribble in from the touch line ot the goal area.

Crowds would be ecstatic as suddenly all those people who have had to suffer being on the side of the pitch would be behind the goals.

The guys who paint the lines would have more work to do.

Linesmen would only have 25 yeards to run in each half.

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

The modesty shines through Mac :-))

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

A similarly useful contribution was once made to increasing the excitement in Grand Prix racing. This was to have the even numbered qualifiers on the grid going clockwise round the course, and the even qualifiers going anticlockwise.

No longer would there be such a procession and there would an exceleent turnover in drivers meaning fresh talent would be seen each season.

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

Assuming you meant the odd qualifiers going in the opposite direction, the sooner the better as far as I'm concerned, cos grand prix is even more boring than horse racing.

On second thoughts, keep it like you wrote it. Chase the odd qualifiers, and let the even qualifiers try to go in both directions at once. -)

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

Looks more attractive the more I think about it. The courses could be greatly reduced in size because with an engine at both ends and presumably drivers sitting back to back controlling each engine they'd be lucky to get away from the grid. :-))

And as for boxing - the noble art of brain liquidising.

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

Scrapping the offside law would have the effect of spreading the play considerably but it would almost certainly result in a long ball game which might not be welcome.

Another alternative I would like relates closely to Pit Bill's idea of no offsides in the penalty area. I'd like a line across the pitch about 40 yards out (somewhat akin to the "shooting area" in the noble game of Subbuteo, the game from which football was originally developed, I understand). Once the ball is played by an attacker from goalside of this line no player can be offside. Dr Bill also has a version of this. No offsides when the ball is played in the opponent's half. There is a clear logic here. It prevents a forward from just camping in the oppposition penalty area waiting for a huge punt from his defenders, but once the ball has crossed half-way then anything goes. The attacking options would be so much greater and a more exciting game should ensue.

Personally, I'd like to see ideas like this experimented with. Perhaps a single season with ammended (or no) offsides or a major cup competition just to see how it goes.

Pit Bill also wants to limit the number of defenders. I'm against this but a related idea I do have is to limit defenders at free kicks. We've all seen a player brought down when clean through but still short of the penalty area. (Rob Lee at OT anyone? Give Softie a vallium there someone) Instead of allowing a one-on-one with the keeper or something similar, the laws, incredibly in my view, reward the perpetrators of the offence by allowing them to place their entire team between ball and goal. I find this the most grotesque error in the Laws and am still dumbfounded that it is rarely discussed let alone put right.

Pit Bill makes a good point about the current state of the game. I find the game less exciting these days and don't bother to watch many games which don't involve United. Supporting United, however, remains as exciting as it ever was. (-;

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

IMHO, there's only one way to go to improve the interest factor. First of all, keep the gae in two halves, but change the number of players on the pitch at any one tie.

- In the first half, only 2 players fro "Team A! are allowed on the picth at any one time, tho they don't have to be the same two players all the time.

- If one of these 2 players i forced to leave the pitch, he may not come back in the same half of the game.

- To even things out, the team with only 2 players on the pitch is allowed two sticks of wood to attach (or defend) with.

- Make the ball smaller. It is too easy to defend when you only have to hit a bit ball

- With a smaller ball, you can make the target smaller too

- Handball to be allowed

- If you are really sad, increase the length of the game to 3 days instead of 90 minutes. On rare occasions, this can be extended even further - let's say 5 days. That should guarantee a result.

- Change the name from Football........any ideas??

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

Jonno,

The idea of offside only applying when the ball is played from the defensive half into the attacking half is an interesting one and could be a worthwhile evolutionary improvement on the present situation, and one that is perhaps less risky than the more revolutionary approach of scrapping offside altogether.
It seems there is general agreement on here that there needs to be a change in the offside rule to spread play, and hopefully produce a overall improvement in the standard of games.
Who else do we need to convince?

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

How about taking/effectively sending everyone with a yellow card off in the last 15 minutes if it is a draw.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

The more I think about, the more I like the idea of the 40yd off-side line. How would it be monitored though, because the linesman would have to be in line with the originator of the pass and, if the ball was passed from behind the line, also with the last outfield player. Football can't be needing more officials - the existing good one's are too thinly spread already. I suppose the ref could adjudicate on where the play started from, and the linesman could deal with the potential offside. In fact the linesman would be pretty redundant once play was inside the 40yd line. Just thinking aloud, could linesmen be done away with, and instead have two referees on the pitch? The positioning of the ref for the potential offsie would be a problem though.

We should have a brainstorm on this one. How would it effect tactics? Could the law be abused?

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

If the authorities are going to continue and insist that finals like that (and Wednesday's EUFA Cup Final) are going to be decided by a penalty shoot out, if the score is level at 90 minutes and there is no golden goal....then why not have the penalty shoot out FIRST.

It is difficult enough to run around for 120 minutes, but to then have the pressure of a penalty shoot out is ridiculous.

Have the penalty shoot out first when the players are fresh, same format, five penalties per side and then sudden death. So for example, on Saturday Chelsea win the shoot out, it is then down to Aston Villa to come out and try and win the game, as they know if they sit back for the draw, they have lost it. Given that Villa then have to push forward, it allows space behind for Chelsea to get into and possibly score and I would suggest open the game right up.

Blend this with Jonno's(?) idea of not being offside in the penalty area, and you would have a much more attack minded format.

I must admit, I don't like the idea of scrapping the offside altogether as I think this would allow players of the ilk of Gary Lineker to simply camp out on the six yard line waiting for the ball to come to them.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

I think the idea of having the penalty shoot-out first is crap. One side then knows they only need a draw...> negative play!!! How about this: No offside.
To counter the long ball game you have lines marked 25yds from goal (effectively dividing the pitch into quarters). The offence is the "2 line pass" (as in ice hockey), i.e. any pass that crosses 2 lines concedes a free kick. You have to play short(ish) passing football to get the ball from one end of the field to the other!

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

Again based on the offside rule; why not have a lap-over line extending the teams "half" a further 10 yards into the opposition "half" that way defenders will be forced to defend further back couple this with bigger goals and strikers will be encouraged to have a dig. I also think players with pace will come to the fore with this scenario.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

Not sure I follow the reasoning behind offside applying only outside the penalty area. Looks to me like that would only result in the attacking side crowding the penalty area.

My reasoning was to get the play up the other end as quickly as possible, and to make it easier to make a run by not having to watch that you don't go too early and get caught offside. It would make it more difficult for the defense to move as a unit, deliberately to put attackers in an offside position. Hence offside ONLY in the penalty area.

As I understand it, offside was to help defenders, not attackers, so I reckon that whatever we use to make scoring easier has to make the defense's job more difficult.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

Bliddy clever stuff this.
I don't like too many extra lines on the pitch and extra workload for the officials - more mistakes.
My tanner's worth:
Scrap the offside laws

No ball over head high when kicked from your own half into the other half (indirect free kick if so)
This will force teams to play through the mid-field/wings and try to get forward

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

How about making it that the goal is a bit bigger - more shots that are currently defeated by the post would go in.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

How about being awarded a goal for every ten shots on target. This would possibly induce a large number of forty yarders straight to the goalkeeper but you could offset some of this by saying if a ball kicked from inside the attacking teams half goes over the goal line then the other team would be awarded a corner.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

I think a lot of the uncertainty in introducing new legislation, from the point of view of refs and assistants, would be removed when they bite the bullet and start using electronic aids - cameras in the goal etc.

You don't have to look any further than tennis. When that all seeing eye thing was first introduced, just about everybody was against it, Now they'd be lost without it.

I personally can't see what the problem is and the sooner they start using them the better. At least it would take the onus off officials in tricky situations - I don't believe that the refs are any worse now than they've always been.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

Many suggestions would be open to abuse..shots on goal for instance. You could set the whole side up to get in loads of shots on goal with absolutrely no attempt to hit the target. Defenders couldn't cover all areas, so it would be easy to set up regular shots 10 yards off target.

Scrapping offside altogether would be a nightmare, resulting in ping pong within penalty areas, and not much action elsewhere.

The 40 yard ofside line is still interesting. I could see a regular long distance one-two being a key move, where a player runs into an offside area, but the ball is played to someone just over the 40yd line, who passes it on to the previously offside player. Defences would have a tough time...

Enlarging the goals is a simple but probably effective measure..after all people are a lot taller now than even 60 years ago. Wouldn'y dramatically change the game, but it would encourage more shots on goal.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

The offside rule is difficult to judge as it requires someone to watch 2 points on the pitch (the passer and the reciever) at exactly the same moment.

Abolishing this rule will lead to long ball football (so everyone says! ... I personally don't believe this).
I still like my idea of a 2 line pass rule as it encourages a pasing game and is simple to determine if the rule is broken. One person can easily watch where the ball is played from and also watch where it is next played from. Yep.... I admit it. I'm a genius and am now going to email FIFA with my suggestion.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

Enlarging the goals was mooted by FIFA not so long ago and the idea was greeted with much derision.

As Windy points out, players are taller than when the laws were drawn up and I feel that goals could be increased in size to improve scoring chances. I'd like to see only a marginal increase here, such that any shots currently hitting the woodwork would go in. The problem with the present game is that defence is just too easy and a team of no-hopers can hold a team of all talents by dogged, 11-man defensive tactics.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

Having participated in this fascinating debate and given it some thought, I feel two worthwhile and viable suggestions have comeo ut of it.
Making the goals marginally bigger wouldn't dramatically change the nature of the game, but there's something about it that I don't like - call me a traditionalist.
The other positive idea is to scrap offside completely if the ball is played from within the attacking half - this avoids adding another "line" which I instinctively feel could cause problems/confusion both for players and officials. However, it would still allow defenders to push the opposition m/f and forwards back up the pitch while they were in possession, prevent an increase in the longball game that might be a consequence of completely scrapping offside, and eliminate the really annoying offside decisions in and around the penalty area which work strongly against attacking players.
I really like this second idea.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

>>>>>>Enlarging the goals was mooted by FIFA not so long ago and the idea was greeted with much derision<<<<<<

Sorry Jonno, I may end up in court again on this one, but the FIFA idea of enlarging the goal was the result of a confused ruse started by a few of our lads in the Grandstand office.

A couple of years back, when April the 1st fell on a Saturday, we ran an item in Football Focus saying that the FA were looking at this idea to try and make games more interesting and it had been partially sanctioned by EUFA.

We even got QPR in on the act and they allowed us to film over there with specially adapted goal posts that were 30 yards apart and was ten feet from pitch to bar.

Someone at the FA then sent the tape to EUFA stating that they knew nothing about it, and someone in EUFA, thinking it must have been dealt with by FIFA sent it off to them. Everyone started getting very confused (a bit like everyone reading this) and when it hit the papers and the brown stuff started flying around, we just kept our heads down, and then low and behold, about eight months later, FIFA announced that they had looked at the idea, and had basically dismissed it for the time being.

Shall I get into the dock now.....or wait till charged?

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

ITK,
Looking at the Geordie Marra court shenanigans, you'd be better off just slipping the noose round your neck now.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

Enlarging goals was one of a few ideas the americans had when they were due to host the World Cup. The thinking was that americans would take the whole "soccer" concept on-board if it were more exciting.

I am not surprised FIFA dismissed ITK's increased goal size. You would probably need two goalies for something that size.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

Exactly Tony....that's why it was so off the wall that they actually belived it and gave the idea any creedence (as in Clearwater Revival - Pit Bill)- but such is the way of FIFA/EUFA/FA

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

Quite happy with most of the rules. The only time changes should be made is when people fail to follow the spirit of the game. The bane of football a few years back was the dullness of the passback to the keeper and defenders tackling through players ostensibly to get the ball...yeah, right!

They sensibly stopped keepers from handling a ball passed back to them, and I think this has met with universal approval. Sadly, when they brought in the tougher regime on tackling to free up the forwards to play more openly (difficult before when you were in constant danger of being clattered), people started diving to bring this sanction into use.

This means that we now get the play constantly broken up by players throwing themselves to the floor with minimal contact (at best) looking for freekicks and cards for their opponents. That's not what the rules on tackling were brought in to encourage. Referees MUST book everyone who dives - simple as that. A player who feels it necessary to roll around in agony should be forcibly substituted. This will sort out the men from the boys, because at present, whole squads are being encouraged to do it and yet by insisting that a player leaves the field permanently, anyone who does it will be doing it against the wishes of his coach.

An example of how our game will improve is when Lebouef collapsed in the Chelsea penalty area after 'contact' with Shearer during the Semi. He was simply slowing the game down to try to win a respite from constant Toon pressure - we ALL know that, even the bloody commentators knew that. The most the ref could have done at present is show the little bastard a yellow card, yet he would STILL have to stand there as Lebouef received 'treatment' for his 'injury'. No more waiting for the player to be stretchered off, simply indicate that the 'injured' player is to be subbed. We would still have lost the initiative and a chance to keep the pressure up, but THEY would have lost a tactical substitution through the gamesmanship of one of their players. Their coach would have been furious and their crowd apoplectic, but we would have seen justice being done.

The obvious outcry would be that players would be subbed when they had legitimate reasons to fall over, but that ignores the fact that it would encourage the fairies to do what they could to stay upright to AVOID being subbed unfairly, and that is exactly what we want. Do you remember the outrage when Klinsmann first came over as a high profile diver? Now we have almost got used to it, but it's pernicious, unsporting, painful to watch and slows our bloody game down! Sod widening goals and the like, just make the buggers stay on their feet and play football. I don't want to watch a sequence of free kicks, I want to watch FOOTBALL.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

I've never heard of "enforced substitution" as a concept before, but it could be extremely useful. At the moment the Ref only has one further sanction after booking a player. Far too often someone gets sent off for a highly marginal second offence - often ruining the game as a spectacle for paying spectators, both in the stadium and on TV.
I would agree with using this as a punishment that could provide a disincentive for diving. This idea could also have other potential application.
Terrific idea Softie.

13:25 GMT

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

I prefer a sin-bin concept, rather than an enforced substitution. Just think of the refereeing decisions this season, and imagine your blood pressure levels should Shearer be forced to be substituted after being clattered from behind and climbed all over by a defender, because the referee deemed him to be 'backing in'.

13:40 BST

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

I'm reminded of the ref when West Ham played Steaua Bucharest in the UEFA. The ref told a West Ham player to tell Redknapp that unless he took Di Canio off, he'd send him off.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

Windy,
The enforced substitution is for feigned injury, not backing in. If Shearer threw himself on the floor rolling around in 'agony' when challenging for a ball with a defender then he would deserve everything he gets: but that's never been part of his game - showing dissent is, but that doesn't bother me the way diving does.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

Fair enough Softie. But I've seen plenty of mistakes made by referees both ways, when players have gone down clutching parts of their anatomy. It might stop people making a meal out of slight contact, but the refereeing decision would be an opinion and therefore open to error. A deliberate dive with no contact is already a bookable offence (isn't it?), so I assume we're talking about the realms of theatrical exagerration of the seriousness of a foul challenge. I still prefer the sin bin as an interim punishment between a yellow and red card. It's immediate (ie no fiddling round with subs) and even adds another dimension to the game - the injured party has a period of numerical superiority, and therefore has the incentive to attack whilst they're a man up.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

This idea of the enforced substitution is an interesting one from Softie, but Windy points out the main problem - it's another area where a ref might make a serious mistake.

In brainstorming mode here, what about making enforced but non- permanent substitutions? For example, a player goes down screaming in agony, ref orders his immediate removal from the pitch and he is replaced immediately by a sub. The original player can come back if he recovers in (say) 5 minutes. This would solve the problem we had at Wembley watching the Chelsea Pansy Show with both De Goey and Leboef feigning injury because United were slaughtering them and they wanted a time out. Such a system would mean that time-outs could not be engineered by these tarts, and it would also disrupt their team's organisation which might well make them think twice about play- acting. If the injury is serious then the substition process has been hurried along and no harm is done.

Just a thought.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

Another reasonable suggestion - we have uncovered enough practical ideas to seriously address the game's current problems. Unfortunately, we have no voice, and in two days all this positive energy will be forgotten. Sad.

BTW Jonno I think you're being harsh on De Goey - he definitely got Dabs boot, and I don't think he was feigning. Regarding the other git.....nuff said!

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

But referees already have the power to remove injured players from the pitch, even without a substitution. I suppose this takes it a step further if the player is deemed to be faking injury, but what are we trying to stop? Basically timewasting and trying to falsely get awarded a foul, booking or sending off. You could actually use the substitution rule to extend the timewasting, and even tactically work it in your favour - a key player gets a rest with a temporary substitution. If prepared for it, it wouldn't seriously effect the team tactically. On to the second issue, the referee can already penalise a dive or faked injury by booking a player...so the substitution rule doesn't add anything, if anything it takes away from the rule. The problem seems to be that refs are reluctant to book players for diving, because it's very difficult to judge the extent of the elaboration. I think they would be similarly reluctatnt to enforce substitutions as well.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2000

We've drifted away from the point a bit I reckon. I wasn't particularly wanting to know what could be done to clean up the tactics used to get some sort of advantage - I think there'll always be players who'll try to take advantage of the rules. What I was after was how to improve the game as a spectacle.

From a lot of the postings, it looks as though the offside rules could do with being tarted up a bit, but not, I don't think, to the extent that special extra pitch markings would need to used.

Anything that makes the defence's job more difficult would be acceptible in my book.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2000