.............and could change the rules, what would you do? Giving ManUre's opponents a 3 goal start isn't allowed. For me, without getting too radical, I'd:
(i)Goal kicks must be taken from the side of the goal where the ball went out of play
(ii)If a free kick is taken illegally (eg the ball was moving), I'd award the kick to the opposition just like with illegal thow-ins

I've also aired my views on sendings-off carrying over to the next game to ensure 90 mins punishment to the team, but that is no doubt too radical :-(

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

Answers

I'd get rid of the "interfering with play" bit of the offside rule.

I'd make it illegal to pass the ball back to the goalkeeper when you aren't under any pressure.

Each team should have at least one player in the opposition's half at all times.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

paul:

do you realise that your rule changes would lead to a meaningless cycle of free kicks.

once a team got possession and started an attack from their own half the one person in the opposition half would be played offside as a result of the defence stepping over the half way line,

whether the player (in the oppo half ) is interfering with play or not.

brilliant, well done.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

The offside rule would obviously be adapted to fit, maybe an extra line on the pitch between the halfway line and the penalty box, in which a player can't be offside.

I admit it isn't really a feasible idea but we need something to stop teams defending with 11 men once they're one-nil up. Something to encourage a bit of attacking play.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

Actually, reading through that idea, it really does sound stupid.

Scrap the offside rule, make the goals twice as wide and ban keeper gloves.

Seriously, it is quite hard to think of any rule changes that would make any real difference. Possibly a three card system, so players would only get a third of a red card for petulent things like kicking the ball away. They still get punished for it, but it's not as severe as for something like a high challenge.

Bloody hell, 5-0 to Spurs, now what's that all about?

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

without being too radical, but this is slightly, and has been covered, sin bins. It takes the pressure off ref's to deceide whether it is bad or sending off bad. It would make players who are getting niggly out the game to cool off. It would give the ref an added dimemsion and they could draw the line between 'losing it' once in a bad tackle say and sending someone off for violent conduct say or persistant sin bins. The other things is that it wouldn't alter the essential nature of the game tooo much but differentiate between head cases and bad tackles.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

Get rid of penalty shoot outs, and award the game to the team that can throw the linesman farthest.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

Or the first one to light a fart?

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

I'd stop allowing defenders to blatantly obstruct attackers while ushering the ball out of play.

This doesn't even involve a change to the Rules - simply that Referees apply the existing law.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

Something needs to be done about free kicks given for fouls on goalkeepers. The keeper only has to fall to the ground for a free kick to be given, in most cases there is minimal contact.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

Yeah, I agree with Clarky, it drives me round the bend that refs don't whistle for that. TM's idea is good too - at the moment there's no punishment in between getting a yellow card (relatively minor punishment) and getting a red, which is obviously far more serious. Given the trivial things people seem to be getting red cards for these days something in between might be good. On the down side, we'd have a lot of instances of referees bottling it and giving a sin bin when a red card is appropriate.

I think there's a case for making the game 10 a side. I know that's pretty radical, game has been 11 a side for a hundred years etc, but the reality is that the game has changed dramatically since it was devised. Players are far, far fitter and cover far more ground than they used to so there's a lot less space there. Removing a player has the potential to open things up a bit. Mind you, there are one or two managers who would just dispense with strikers all together....

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

Jesus Screach that;s freaky. I've just been saying to wor lass about the 'rolling ball' issue while watching the Spurs Chelsea game after Chelsea needed four or five retakes because of the ball rolling. I said exactly the same as you in that it should then go to the other side and you wouldn't see another freekick retaken because off it.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

If it goes to the other side it could really screw up games.

Imagine if the ball is rolling off a bumpy bit of grass just as the player hits it - the other side could end up with a free kick anywhere on the pitch, perhaps even in the opposition's penalty area.

Making a big thing of the rolling ball would mean free kicks would take longer to take as players would be forced to make an effort to stop the ball fully to avoid giving away possession in dangerous areas.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

Got to disagree Paul. As Fat Big Ron said tonight (or was it the other fella?) the rules state that the ball must be stationary. The other related issue is the number of times the ref (Palsey in this case) blew for a FK which was taken quickly when he should have played advantage.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

Yes the ball must be stationary, but a bumpy pitch or a gust of wind could easily move the ball just before the kick is taken, gifting the other team a free kick with those rules.

If there is a then a rule to discount balls that move because of a bad pitch or a gust of wind then it becomes too complicated, with players using it as an excuse for the ball moving.

Better left alone IMO.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

I don't think the ball often moves due to wind or bumpy pitches just as a player is about to kick it. Gary MacAllister's penaltly miss against England in Euro96 aside!!

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

Gotta disagree Paul. It's usually blatently obvious as it's the difference between the ones who throw the ball down and then kick it as it's still moving as opposed to the ones who place it on the ground. Others who throw it to the ground generally wait for it to stop. You can generally spot the difference even at ground level during the game (I play Sunday morning, or I did before I tore my cruciate ligament).

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

OK, put it like this. Roy Keane flies in with a head high tackle just outside our penalty box. Our free kick and Keane sent off.

However, the ball is moving when the kick is taken. Does that mean that Manchester United should now have the advantage with a free kick in a Beckham-esque area?

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

If we were trying to take advantage of the situation by taking the FK when the ball was moving, then yes. However, as ADK and Andy said, it's usually pretty obvious when the ball has been placed and when it has been tossed down (usually with a bit of backspin). Easy to control. Wait until the ref blows the whistle or make damned sure you have placed the ball and it is stationary. If it subsequently moves due to wind, then it's not a "fould kick" and you would be allowed to take it again.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

I think it would complicate things too much to be honest.

Making a big thing out of it would just heap even more pressure on referees if and when they missed the moving ball. Take the Chelsea FA cup tie at Wembley, when they scored after a free kick where the ball was rolling. If there was a rule that said that it should really be our advantage because of that, then the ref would get a lot of abuse and we'd feel even more hard done by.

If you were going to introduce a rule for this - which is basically stopping players from taking the free kick too quickly before the ball has stopped still, then you may as well have the referee blow his whistle for EVERY recommencation (if that's a word) of play. Every throw in, free kick.

Going by these standards, could you also say that if a goal kick is taken with a moving ball, as many keepers prefer to play it short now, the opposition get a free kick inside the six yard box? It would cause absolute mayhem if a referee gave a free kick for that.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

How ADK > 10 men? Now in Ice hockey, if the game is a draw, each team takes a player off and they play a bit longer. How about that. At, say, 70 minutes, if it is 0-0, each team takes off 1 player per 5 minutes. Might get down to 5-a-side by the end of injury time.

Apologies for disrespectful use of commas.,

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

Sin bins, yes! Taking a man off per side and playing until there's a result would be my choice over penalties. Though I wouldn't start taking players off until the end of regulation time.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

I once played in a competition in Prague that had the sin-bin rule. 1st bad offence was a 7minute sin-bin, if another offence warranted a sin-bin then it was a sending off.

In one game I went to the sin-bin for a second time and couldnt believe my luck when the ref whistled me back into play - the germans we were playing against couldnt believe their luck when i scored the winner.

i like the idea of sin-bins but the ref needs to learn to count to at least two if that system is to work!

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

I'd go for removing players as an alternative to penalties, but I certainly wouldn't be doing it after 70 minutes or anything like that. There's nothing wrong with a draw!

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

.... I'd stop allowing defenders to blatantly obstruct attackers while ushering the ball out of play. ....

I think this depends on whether or not there is physical contact that is deliberately intended to prevent the attacking player getting past the defender.

If a defender chooses to move his body to prevent an attacker occupying space that would allow the attacker to gain control of the ball, and doesn't physically impede him, then I'd say more power to the defender's elbow.

I quite admire defenders who can shuggy the ball out of play without actually physically impeding the attacking player other than by standing where the attacker needs to be to gain control.

In a way it's like an attacker standing in a position that prevents a solid defensive wall forming. It seems to be a legitimate tactic these days, for defenders to physically shove attackers out of the way, so that the wall can be made solid, again coming down to who has the right to stand where ?

I think though, the main problem is making the referee's job more manageable. Chelsea were stuffed tonight, and I'm not saying it necessarily would have made much difference, but JFH'baink definitely got the shitty end of the stick, which no doubt will be overturned when they look at the video evidence. But what if he hadn't been sent off ? On that basis, I'd go for the sin bin. Two bookings, sin bin, off on the third.

Even Big Fat Ron had to admit that, even though video assistance during play is the last thing he wants, it would have been a big help to the referee in helping him decide whether or not JFH should have been sent off.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

If we are going to have a 6second rule for keepers then fu****g time it. Ive counted hundreds of occasions when keepers hold it for about 13 seconds, Cudacini and Barthez the ones which stand out.
Immediate Yellow for shirt pulling I cant abide it.
4 Lino's in offside decision if 2 linos flag its off if only 1 it aint. for freekicks id say the lino closest flags, and the ref m akes his mind up.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

agree about the 4 linesmen. I would also like to see a yellow card fopr any player who pulls an imaginary card out of their imaginary pockets after a foul has been committed. I think most of the time they are using their imaginary brains.

And I would like video evidence to be used during a game.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

OO Kegsy good shout one of my pet hates that a straight red from me as its ungentlemanly conduct

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

I always thought that ungentelmanly conduct was a yellow, but I would send them off

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

Stop Keepers Jumping up with their legs out a la Sullivan last night, it's an offence for outfield players to do it, how come a goalkeeper can decapitate someone AND get the freekick. Alternatively make all goalkeepers play with broken necks.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

Bastard!

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

I thought there was a FIFA directive before this season saying that the imaginary card trick would be a booking, but the refs don't seem to be implementing it. Re Clarky's point, how about the defender only being in control of the ball and therefore able to shield it if he (or she) has touched it? This would stop the sheperding out for a goal kick phenomenon, but still allow players to use the body.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

Can't see the point of shepherding the ball out for a corner, which is what you seem to be saying, Dan. Might as well just blast it into the stand.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

I'm still keen on the ref being able to force a substitution for someone who rolls over 11 times when he gets tackled, clutches his face and falls down shaking his head around like something out of WWF (poofs) and that they should also take as long as is possible about allowing Chelsea players back on the pitch after they develop peculiar injuries as soon as their side is caught on the break. Other than that it is just to enforce existing rules like giving throws the other way when players take the throw from the wrong place (it's not hard, the linesman can indicate the spot since offside doesn't count for throws so he's got nowt else to do). I also agree about awarding kicks the other way when players toss the ball down and steal yards in the process or simply move it - Nobby is as guilty as anyone and it makes my blood boil. It's cheating. Don't participate in sport if rules don't mean anything to you.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

I still get pi$$ed off when all the bloody substitutions are made 2 mins from the end, just to waste time. No subs in last 10 mins, other than for stretcher cases?

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

Won't work Nick. You'd just get every substitution preceded by the stretcher bearers. Now, make it pallbearers and I think you're onto a good idea.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

Ooo, one of my peeves....players acting like they've been fatally wounded to waste time and/or get other players booked! Boils my blood! If a player is so injured he needs to be stretchered off it should be an automatic substitution with the player carried straight into the dressing room, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Buh bye!

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

If the players need treatment get them OFF the pitch so the game can continue. Might stop them faking it to stop play (DeGoey at the SF anyone??).

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

all injured players made to have a 5 minute break to recover from their injuries ?

make the goals bigger by a foot

introduce "team fouls" any team committing more than 12 fouls in a half get their captain booked

remove off side as an offence in extra time

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

diving: automatic yellow

diving in the penalty area : automatic red (yes a few innocents would walk but more players would stay on their feet)

Professional foul or handball to stop a goal: Recreate the original situation.

e.g. handball on goal line - penalty with outfield player between stix.

solkjaer like foul on r. lee - attacking team get one on one with goalie at 30 yards out with 5 seconds before defense can move.

2 refs.

mandatory yellow for 5 fouls, red for 10. no sendings off for dissent just a yellow a one match ban plus fine. sorry craig.

the bollocks about the moving ball at freekicks is purely pedantic, get lives people.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

Steph - the point you made about getting people off the park - Keown v us at Highbury was on his feet being treated 2feet from the goal line and it wasted 5mins. He didnt even leave the pitch after his treatment which i thought was the rule. if the ref doesnt adhere to the rules in that case he should be subbed by the fourth official on the advice of an FA observer.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

The fourth official is meant to add 30 seconds on to added time for every substitute and 30 for every goal.

It rarely gets implemented though, I remember a match when all 6 substitutions took place in the second half and there were only 2 minutes held up by the 4th official.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

Completely agree that the best 'innovation' would be for refs to more consistently apply the existing rules. What might help them do that would be a simplification of the rulebook (does anyone know how many there actually are these days in total ?)

If you insist on radical rule changes then the benchmarks have to be that they're easy to understand and implement, require no new resources, but especially that they help open up the game.

Scrapping the offside rule entirely does it for me - it would stretch the game to all corners of the pitch making for more excitement, force tactical innovation from hidebound managers and - perhaps best of all in the current climate - free up the extra officials to help the ref crack down on all those whingeing cheating b@st@rds.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

If you scrap the offside rule the game will be changed completely - bit of a gamble as it might be disastrous. Presumably back in the midsts of time the offside rule was introduced to stop a player from just standing in front of the opposition goalie for the whole game.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

Someone should tell Springy that.

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2002

Actually I quite like the idea of scrapping the offside trap. As an overweight centre forward who can't run (but deadly from 6 inches). Do you think Mickey Quinn will come out of retirement?

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2002

Gav is also deadly from six inches, allegedly

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2002

I heard it was 3

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2002

its a lethal cocktail of pace and power over the distance that makes him so hard to handle

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2002

"the bollocks about the moving ball at freekicks is purely pedantic, get lives people"

Oooooooooohhhh! When I grow up I want to have only insightful and visionary opinions like george. He's my hero.

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2002