Any Rule Changes in International Soccer You'd Make?

[ivanvamp]

I want to preface this by saying that I absolutely love soccer.  It is a great sport, and I eat up these big international tournaments.  I'm not one of these people who thinks that the game is boring because it's too slow, or whatever.  I love it.
 
That said, I do think I would tweak a couple of things.
 
First, I would play with unlimited substitutions.  I don't like the fact that if you have a player that gets hurt you have only three options:  (1) he plays hurt, (2) he comes out for a little while and you play a man down, or (3) you take him out and he's done for the day.  Plenty of times in sports athletes get banged up and need to come out for a few minutes but aren't done for the day, but international soccer rules, anyway, require that if he comes out, he's finished.  I don't like that in soccer.  I'm fine with it in baseball, but not in soccer.
 
It would also have the added advantage of speeding up the game.  I'm re-watching Italy-England from the other day.  The pace was pretty slow, due to the weather conditions, I guess.  Well, players just can't maintain a fast pace if they have to play all 90+ minutes.  If they could get a few minutes' of a breather here and there it could change all that.  We'd see more runs, more action, because you could bring in subs without ending starters' days.  
 
In fact, I can't really see a downside to this idea.  Imagine a pro basketball game where if a player came out, he couldn't go back in.  The pace would slow considerably.  It would be less exciting.  And yet, there are still various differences in styles and tactics.  That wouldn't change.  In soccer, even with unlimited subbing, you'd still have teams that play fast and other teams that play more deliberately.  But now teams with very deep 20-man squads could use the Pitino wear-you-down-with-our-pace-and-depth style.  
 
It might even have the added benefit of improving US soccer.  Many people don't like the sport, or don't play the sport, because it's too slow for them (interesting that baseball remains popular).  If the sport stayed very fast, it might be more exciting to the average American, and thus it could potentially change the American soccer culture for the better.  
 
Second, I would never have the knockout round of a major tournament have penalty kicks to determine a game.  Ever.  I would keep playing 15-minute overtime periods until someone scored a goal.  With unlimited substitutions, fatigue shouldn't be a problem.  
 
Any other rule changes you all would make?  Or is the game perfect the way it is?

 

[Dummy Hoy]

Retroactively punish diving in addition to adding at least one more official- ideally have two on field officials, 2 sideline refs, and a video review official.

 

[SteveF]

Retroactively punish diving in addition to adding at least one more official- ideally have two on field officials, 2 sideline refs, and a video review official.

Nailed it. I could not agree more with you.

 

[ivanvamp]

Retroactively punish diving in addition to adding at least one more official- ideally have two on field officials, 2 sideline refs, and a video review official.

 
Yes, very good.  A one-match suspension for clear dives?  

 

[bowiac]

In fact, I can't really see a downside to this idea.  Imagine a pro basketball game where if a player came out, he couldn't go back in.  The pace would slow considerably.  It would be less exciting.  And yet, there are still various differences in styles and tactics.  That wouldn't change.  In soccer, even with unlimited subbing, you'd still have teams that play fast and other teams that play more deliberately.  But now teams with very deep 20-man squads could use the Pitino wear-you-down-with-our-pace-and-depth style.  

I've thought about this idea for years, but I think the change in the game would be a lot more radical than just changing the pace of play. If the NBA had this soccer substitution rules, in addition to playing at a slower pace, you'd basically just no longer have centers or power forwards. The only people who could play would be those who could stand up to 48 minutes of constant running. The skillset of the players would radically shift in favor in just pure athleticism/endurance. You'd have a lot more Nate Robinsons out there, simply because they're the ones who could stand up to 48 minutes of it. No more Dwight Howard or Tim Duncan. They'd just be selected out.
 
Soccer is currently set up to select for the best soccer players from the universe of half marathon runners. Being able to keep running is the first thing you select for, rather than footwork/skill/whatever.
 
If you allowed unlimited substitutions, you'd have an explosion in the skill level in the game from players without the endurance to play the current game. You'd see a lot more diversity in style/range of play. A lot more tall/big players, but the pure skill level would go up as well.

 

[seageral]

 
Yes, very good.  A one-match suspension for clear dives?  

In my opinion this is far and away the biggest change needed.   Holy hell, would I be happy to see Fred tossed out for a game.
 
Extremely interesting point about skill-level bowjac.
 
I'm not 100% convinced that's true about bigger players though.  I always thought it was because big players don't have fine motor skills with their feet.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

I'll echo a post from the Day 1 gamethread:
 
MLB playoffs: 9-12 players on the field, 6 umpires.  Ratio: 1.5-2 to 1.  2-3 to 1 in regular season.
NBA: 10 players on the court, 3 referees.  Ratio: ~3 to 1
NFL: 22 players on the field, 7 officials.  Ratio: ~3 to 1
NHL: 12 players on the ice, 2 referees + 2 linesmen (who can make/confer on calls).  Ratio: 3 to 1
 
FIFA: 22 players on the field, 1 referee + 2 linesmen.  Ratio: ~7 to 1.
 
I will never understand why they don't put more referees on the field to make calls, watch players, and confer if there's doubt.  Why get the calls right when you can just have travesties like this when the whole world is watching?

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

If you're wondering what soccer would look like with unlimited substitutions, look at college soccer. Not only is there unlimited substitution, but there is allowance for re-entry.

I think it changes the game less than you might think. Outside midfielders and forwards tend to platoon (and so there tends to be more kick-and-chase in those parts of the field), but particularly when the games get important, there are few other subs.


One change that I'd like to see is a minimum time off the field if the game is stopped to attend to a player. Something like minimum two minutes or five minutes, waived if the player is substituted. It would address blatant timewasting by faking injuries.

 

[ivanvamp]

To bowiac's point:  
 
You'd also see tactical substitutions as well.  You have a big corner kick, you bring in your tall offensive guys.  You need to change the pace of play, you bring in your fast guys.
 
More substitutions would mean more breaks in the action, so I guess that's the downside.  But really, it would still make for a more exciting and interesting game, IMO.  

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

For infractions that deny what clearly would have been a goal (handling on the line) I would award the goal and not necessarily require a red.

 

[DJnVa]

This is nothing that would really make much difference, but more just something I'd like--a player taken down in the box for a penalty must be the one to take the PK.
 
Clearly not as important as the other things being discussed.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Move back the PK, at least for fouls that occur behind the PK marker in the box. I don't know the numbers, but I would guess something like 90+ percent are converted in the World Cup. The goalie has no chance, unless the kick is inaccurate and he guesses correctly, or the kick is just shanked. There's no drama in them, and there are always questionable calls that lead to nearly automatic goals. Moving it back 5-10 yards would at least add some drama and help even out those mistakes. I also think it's just too harsh of a penalty to begin with.

 

[Merkle's Boner]

I know the "ref keeps the clock" thing is a major thing in soccer, but I would love to see that change.  At least after it goes to injury time, make it exact, so that if there is five minutes of injury time, the game ends exactly when that five minutes is up. 

 

[Buck Showalter]

- 2nd on-field official (as others have stated)
 
- Display of the actual stoppage time so the viewers wouldn't have to guess about the remaining duration of the contest
 
- prohibit backward passes by the offense to the 'back-half' of the field (their own zone) after the ball crosses the mid-field line (ala basketball's backcourt violation)
 
- modify the offsides to make it more relaxed in order to create additional scoring opportunities

 

[Verryfunny2]

I know the "ref keeps the clock" thing is a major thing in soccer, but I would love to see that change.  At least after it goes to injury time, make it exact, so that if there is five minutes of injury time, the game ends exactly when that five minutes is up. 

 
This. Why not make it like hockey and make it a fixed time lets say 35 minutes a half. When the play stops the clock stops. No more timewasting or matches with the ball in play for less than 30 minutes. 

 

[BRS BC]

Make it known that the ref will add double time for all time-wasting. Yellow cards are not much of a deterrent, and players would stop the nonsense if they knew it would lengthen the game.
 
Example from the other day: 5 minutes extra time, team ahead has a player lay on the field with a cramp for 75 seconds, the ref blew the final whistle at 5:45. The time wasting worked. If players knew that 75 seconds would mean they had to play 3 more minutes, those delays would get much shorter.

 

[nickandemmasuncle]

If you're wondering what soccer would look like with unlimited substitutions, look at college soccer. Not only is there unlimited substitution, but there is allowance for re-entry.

I think it changes the game less than you might think. Outside midfielders and forwards tend to platoon (and so there tends to be more kick-and-chase in those parts of the field), but particularly when the games get important, there are few other subs.


One change that I'd like to see is a minimum time off the field if the game is stopped to attend to a player. Something like minimum two minutes or five minutes, waived if the player is substituted. It would address blatant timewasting by faking injuries.

 
I played high school and NCAA, and although the skill level already isn't great, unlimited / quasi-unlimited subs don't help. Basically, guys can come in, run around like maniacs for 15 minutes, apply pressure all over the field in a way they just physically couldn't keep up for 90 minutes, then come out, take a breather, and come back in and do it again. It just leads to incredibly hectic, sloppy play, and if anything, it deprioritizes skill and technique, because the balance tilts in favor of guys who can fly around the field in short bursts rather than guys who can pick out passes and work the ball around the field.
 
I think the sport is great as it is, but they really do need to enforce the guidance to assistant referees to leave the flag down if there's any shred of doubt about an offside call. I really don't think the entertainment value of the sport is enhanced by disallowing goals because a guy has a toenail in an offside position, let alone because the guy is in an onside position but the AR is more terrified about the prospect of incorrectly allowing an offside goal than he is about the prospect of disallowing a good one.
 
EDIT: Misunderstood original post at first.

 

[cromulence]

 
This. Why not make it like hockey and make it a fixed time lets say 35 minutes a half. When the play stops the clock stops. No more timewasting or matches with the ball in play for less than 30 minutes. 

 
Yeah, and let's make the clock count down. And let's have power plays. And commercials!

 

[Infield Infidel]

For fouls in the box before/during set pieces, the ball is moved to the edge of the box. Right now the penalty for the foul is a PK, which IMHO is usually too harsh, which means refs never call anything on the defending team. Everyone knows they won't call anything, so it's a clutch-and-grab free-for-all. Lessening the penalty means it'll be called more, and, paradoxically, defenders would grab less.
 
Move the ball to the edge of the box and the team has a few more options (low kick, curl, indirect, give-and-go, etc.) There aren't many like him but a guy like Pirlo could make magic. It's easier to score but not as automatic as a PK. A downside is on the re-kick, the team knows a foul only incurs a kick from the same spot, but it'd still be better than what we have now. 
 
Also, PK takers should have to start inside the box.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

There should be a slight adjustment made to the offsides rule.
 
On corner kicks, there should be no offside calls so long as the ball stays inside the 18 yard line (extended to the touch lines). Once it clears that area, players must reestablish themselves in an onside position.

 

[JayMags71]

make it a fixed time lets say 35 minutes a half.

Yeah, and let's make the clock count down. And let's have power plays. And commercials!

Seriously. What's wrong with 45 - minute halves?

 

[Drocca]

I don't want commercials and I don't want the flow of the game interrupted. Big plays are often set up ten minutes before they happen, which I enjoy. Unlimited subs would, to my untrained eye, kill these aspects and dramatically change the nature of the game.

 

[Infield Infidel]

Unlimited subs wouldn't be good, but I'd like 1 additional sub in extra time. Would have helped Atletico a little bit in the CL final. 

 

[ivanvamp]

If unlimited subs wouldn't be best (though I still contend they would be), there are lots of other ways to compromise.  Maybe have 10 substitutions in a game, and any one player can come in and out as many times as possible (so long as the total number of subs doesn't go beyond 10).  And if, due to my desire to never see PKs end a knockout game, you can add one substitution for every 15 minute overtime.  

 

[Dan to Theo to Ben]

There should be a slight adjustment made to the offsides rule.
 
On corner kicks, there should be no offside calls so long as the ball stays inside the 18 yard line (extended to the touch lines). Once it clears that area, players must reestablish themselves in an onside position.

Yes this. And I would even extend. Have a 10 second period after corners where the kicking team cannot be called for offsides, wherever the ball goes.
 
 
 
 
i would also institute a "shot clock" for goalie possession after the 80 minute mark with a lead. (better enforcement of delay of game for goalies, there needs to be something betwen nothing and a yellow)

 

[BrazilianSoxFan]

Yes this. And I would even extend. Have a 10 second period after corners where the kicking team cannot be called for offsides, wherever the ball goes.
 
 
 
 
i would also institute a "shot clock" for goalie possession after the 80 minute mark with a lead. (better enforcement of delay of game for goalies, there needs to be something betwen nothing and a yellow)

 
There is one during the whole game. 6 seconds from the moment the keeper grabs the ball, with the penalty being an indirect free-kick.
 

 
An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:
 

• controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing it from his possession
• touches the ball again with his hands after he has released it from his possession and before it has touched another player
• touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate
• touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate

 

[Bosoxen]

I'm having a hard time squaring the fact that people think the referees already have too much on their plates with these proposed changes to the offside rule for corner kicks. That is way too much nuance for the referees - and to a lesser extent, the players - to have to contend with. As an exercise to see how it would be for referees, try to count to 10 while attempting to corral 18 chickens. At the end of 10 seconds, you then have to make sure all of the chickens are within an invisible circle. If they're not, you must hold up your right hand. If you get it wrong, by even a millimeter, the world's media will skewer you until your dying day and random internet jerks will find your personal information and send you death threats.
 
That's basically what you're asking a referee to do if you want them to wait 10 seconds to call an offside following a corner kick.

 

[Dan to Theo to Ben]

 
There is one during the whole game. 6 seconds from the moment the keeper grabs the ball, with the penalty being an indirect free-kick.
 

that's hands only. If it's on the ground in front of him, there is no runoff in my recollection. That is being abused.

 

[BrazilianSoxFan]

If the ball is on the keeper's feet, then the onus is on the trailing team to pressure him to at least force the start of the clock.

 

[Schnerres]

So many ideas and i think every has a great base (time-wasting, flopping,..), but most aren´t executable.
 
 

First, I would play with unlimited substitutions.

This is for kids and lowest amateurs. Why? 1) Why do you want to take out professionals? Conditioning is part of their training. If you aren´t able to play 90mins, you have to play a position (CB possibly or forward) where you don´t need to run as much as others. 2) This will lead to huge breaks in the flow of the game and time-wasting at it´s best. Can you imagine Argentina leading 2-1 with 7mins to go, what will happen, if they can sub in and sub out how much they want? Or 10 times in the last 5mins of regular time?
You will also see this: Corner kick Argentina, ball goes over the defense, results in throw-in for Bosnia (just examples), then usually, Bosnia would hurry with the throw-in. What do we see? Tactical sub: Leo Messi leaves, Lavezzi comes in. Why? Defense of Argentina trots back, counter-attack stopped.
Good idea, but with bad results.
 
 

Retroactively punish diving in addition to adding at least one more official- ideally have two on field officials, 2 sideline refs, and a video review official.

Possible. But i doubt this happens. We already had much trouble to introduce (it was disallowed) goal-line technology in Germanys 1st and 2nd Bundesliga, because of cost. The cost of those additional refs? I guess 2k per game (in Germany) each. It´s just too much money for no need. If you want to penalize someone, it will happen (like if someone elbows someone), but it will happen later, after the game. It will never happen in-game, just too much cost involved and it is not clearly visible. The FIFAs boss of the ref´s said after the penalty decision for Fred, that if you touch/grab someone, you give the referee the chance to call a penalty. How do you know, if it will be decided a dive/flop then?
 
 
What could you do?
-first idea: Allow subs, but not in the last 10mins (hard to control those things).
-second idea: penalize clear flops more regular.
 
What i would like? Well, the last huge change was back in the days when keepers were allowed to take passes from own players and then had to stop it. That was a big change, instead of all these offside/passive offside changes. What would be a huge change? I don´t know, it had to be thought about in a big way. But i like that in handball, you aren´t allowed to touch the ball after the whistle is blown. If you do it, you get a yellow card, which basically everyone does in football and you almost never get a yellow, except if you kick the ball 10m away or really block the ball massively.
 
Another thing would be penalty kicks. I like them. I mean, we win them each time, but i would prefer a 35m penalty with dribbling onto the goal or something like that. This would require some skill, speed and you could also say the player taken down should take it, whatever. In the normal game, you could have everyone run at the forward from the half line. If the game is tied after 120mins, everyone could run on the goal without opposition pressure, but has a time limit with huge pressure, so it´s not as if the keeper could save it, he takes it back and you have a 2nd chance. In theory, that sounds nice, but you have to try it, before realizing it.
Another option would be that you say that after the keeper touched the ball one time, the ball is dead for the attacker (not in normal game, but in the penalty kicks), otherwise, he has almost no chance, i think.
 
 
Game-time and subs all sound great, but you cannot say we break it up and play exactly 91:00 minutes, when the ball was out of bounds for 20seconds. Adding referees won´t help, too, i think. Did you see the own goal for France? You could add 7 refs, nobody sees that 100%, it happens so fast and so close, it´s not visible. Besides that, you have 5-8 refs who have different opinions on a foul call? Each call would take time and the flow of the game is lost, which makes football so great, so every break really has a negative influence.

 

[ivanvamp]

So many ideas and i think every has a great base (time-wasting, flopping,..), but most aren´t executable.
 
 
This is for kids and lowest amateurs. Why? 1) Why do you want to take out professionals? Conditioning is part of their training. If you aren´t able to play 90mins, you have to play a position (CB possibly or forward) where you don´t need to run as much as others. 2) This will lead to huge breaks in the flow of the game and time-wasting at it´s best. Can you imagine Argentina leading 2-1 with 7mins to go, what will happen, if they can sub in and sub out how much they want? Or 10 times in the last 5mins of regular time?
You will also see this: Corner kick Argentina, ball goes over the defense, results in throw-in for Bosnia (just examples), then usually, Bosnia would hurry with the throw-in. What do we see? Tactical sub: Leo Messi leaves, Lavezzi comes in. Why? Defense of Argentina trots back, counter-attack stopped.
Good idea, but with bad results.

 
Your latter point is fair.  Your first one about conditioning is not.  The NBA has some of the best conditioned athletes on earth and they have unlimited substitutions.  The pace of play is just much faster is all.  And that's what we'd see in soccer.  
 
The other part of your post is really good though.  That's what I see as the big downside to my idea.

 

[swiftaw]

Plus, allowing for unlimited subs and re-entry makes a manager's job so much easier. Currently, a manager really has to think about the substitutions since they are permanent.  Could you imagine if MLB allowed unlimited subs and re-renty, it would completely take away a huge tactical portion of the game. 
 
I definitely would allow for one extra sub during extra time though. 

 

[Billy R Ford]

Possible. But i doubt this happens. We already had much trouble to introduce (it was disallowed) goal-line technology in Germanys 1st and 2nd Bundesliga, because of cost. The cost of those additional refs? I guess 2k per game (in Germany) each. It´s just too much money for no need. If you want to penalize someone, it will happen (like if someone elbows someone), but it will happen later, after the game. It will never happen in-game, just too much cost involved and it is not clearly visible. The FIFAs boss of the ref´s said after the penalty decision for Fred, that if you touch/grab someone, you give the referee the chance to call a penalty. How do you know, if it will be decided a dive/flop then?

 
I would just add that MLS, which often is willing to try things that take FIFA ages to even consider, retroactively punishes diving and I think its awesome.
 
MLS operates with an anonymous 5 person Disciplinary Committee that metes out fines and suspensions. They'll punish diving, harsh challenges, and other things that went unnoticed by the ref (if it was off-the-ball for example). So far I think its been great, if not without a little controversy since its done anonymously. 

 

[tims4wins]

Not a "rule change" per se but I think they really need replay for offsides goal / no goal situations. Too many blown calls each way.

 

[CodPiece XL]

I would have all penality kicks awarded as being either reviewable or have 2 coach challenges per game that will allow a penalty kick award to be reviewed, providing challenges are left.
 
I'm not a huge fan of the double whammy of awarding both a penalty kick and automatic red card for a foul preventing a team from having a clear scoring opportunity ( last man)  unless it is for violent play. Obviously, if it's second yellow that's different.
 
Not really a rule change and I could this see this ending in farce but I wish they would do something at corners and free kicks where shirts are clearly being pulled.
 
Not really a rule change but I hate the way refs are awarding free kicks when the tackler  won the ball cleanly but took out the player in the process. The game has gone a little too namby pamby for me.I'll spare the "when I was a lad we..." speech.

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

This. Why not make it like hockey and make it a fixed time lets say 35 minutes a half. When the play stops the clock stops. No more timewasting or matches with the ball in play for less than 30 minutes.

MLS tried this early on, and it wasn't very popular.

College soccer is played with a fixed clock, with the referee signalling to stop the clock for injuries or any other significant stoppages. The downside to this is that it's much more difficult to account for timewasting.
 

I know the "ref keeps the clock" thing is a major thing in soccer, but I would love to see that change. At least after it goes to injury time, make it exact, so that if there is five minutes of injury time, the game ends exactly when that five minutes is up.

Unlimited license to waste time once the game goes into stoppage time!
 

Unlimited subs wouldn't be good, but I'd like 1 additional sub in extra time.

This is such a no-brainer, I'm not sure why they haven't done it already. As it is, teams are allowed one sub per 30 minutes of play. Added extra time is another 30 minutes of play, so add another sub for it.

Another thing would be penalty kicks. I like them. I mean, we win them each time, but i would prefer a 35m penalty with dribbling onto the goal or something like that. This would require some skill, speed and you could also say the player taken down should take it, whatever.

MLS used to do this kind of thing for shootouts. It had enough issues that it was eventually canned, and they have gone to the international standard KFTM to break a 120-minute tie in the MLS Cup playoffs.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

We've debated this on this board beforehand, but I would get rid of the automatic red for denial of a goal scoring opportunity on fouls in the box, a rule that often ruins matches and is essentially self-contradictory (the penalty kick itself is a goal scoring opportunity, which is usually a better opportunity than the player had without the foul, so nothing is ultimately denied).
 
Red + PK for fouls in the box only if a goal would nearly certainly have been scored without the infraction (ie, hand ball on the line, player taken down after rounding keeper and facing completely empty net).
 
PK for other fouls in the box (plus yellow if the foul merits that independently, but not straight red).
 
Red for denial of a goal scoring opportunity outside the box (ie, breakaway pulled down from behind).

 

[CodPiece XL]

We've debated this on this board beforehand, but I would get rid of the automatic red for denial of a goal scoring opportunity on fouls in the box, a rule that often ruins matches and is essentially self-contradictory (the penalty kick itself is a goal scoring opportunity, which is usually a better opportunity than the player had without the foul, so nothing is ultimately denied).
 
Red + PK for fouls in the box only if a goal would nearly certainly have been scored without the infraction (ie, hand ball on the line, player taken down after rounding keeper and facing completely empty net).
 
PK for other fouls in the box (plus yellow if the foul merits that independently, but not straight red).
 
Red for denial of a goal scoring opportunity outside the box (ie, breakaway pulled down from behind).

 
 
I was playing a pickup game a few months back, it's taken pretty seriously with a ref. Some are ex pats from the UK and some are ex pros. In fact I landed up on crutches  for a few days due to a rather juicy tackle from an ex Scotland internationalist who will remain nameless. Anyway, we had a player brought down in the box by a defender, complete professional foul to deny a one on one with the keeper. The ref pointed to the spot and sent the guy off. We asked the ref to let him stay on to keep things even, however, after the game there was a debate. Rather than the double punishment, award a penalty keep the guy on, or don't accept the penalty and have the guy sent off and play the remainder of the game with 10 men. It was an interesting debate, most people wanted the penalty and the guy staying on the field but quite a few said they would prefer playing the game with the other team down to 10 but not get the penalty. I'm not saying this a realistic change but this debate reminded me of the discussion.

 

[Vinho Tinto]

I haven't missed the wacky rule change thread.

 

[CodPiece XL]

I haven't missed the wacky rule change thread.

 
 
You mean if a game goes to extra time each team is reduced by a man every 5 minutes? I love that one...

 

[singaporesoxfan]

I hate the idea of unlimited substitutions. What would likely happen is that at the 80th minute, teams that are ahead bring in fresh defensive specialists to close the door. In addition, as noted above they would waste time by making substitutions. And if you stop the clock or extend injury time for the substitutions you'd end up with the worst aspect of the NBA, where the last 'minute' of games take 20 minutes to play because of frequent pauses in the game.

Also, there's a reason the most goals in football are scored in the last 10 minutes: that's where people get tired. If you allow unlimited fresh legs to come in then, you might get faster play but much fewer goals.

 

[Gunfighter 09]

Head to head, rather than goal differential, should always be the first tie breaker in both league tables and tournament group stages.

I know LaLiga does it this way, but I think Goal differential is the standard everywhere else. I don't see how running up the differential on a beaten opponent helps the sport, and giving tie breaker advantage to wins devalues draws, which is always good.

 

[Dummy Hoy]

What I know as pick up soccer doesn't have refs and they certainly don't have the power to "send someone off"

 

[DJnVa]

Not a "rule change" per se but I think they really need replay for offsides goal / no goal situations. Too many blown calls each way.

 
Is that in both directions? In other words, if player scores and team thinks he was offside, you get replay and if he was offside, there's a free kick. That's easy enough.
 
But what if it's the other way? Whistle blows play dead, but player was onside? Do they get free kick from spot? That doesn't seem fair as he may have been in alone on keeper.
 
I'm not disagreeing, just want to make sure we're thinking of same thing.

 

[CodPiece XL]

What I know as pick up soccer doesn't have refs and they certainly don't have the power to "send someone off"

 
I'm guessing you don't have guys running the lines and playing offside either? I've played in both types of pickups, very well organized games ;   serious blood and thunder, where I did not know some of the players.  I've also played the beer drinking buddies "let's go for a kickabout" types. It just depends on how serious you want the games to be and how many players are available.

 

[tims4wins]

 
Is that in both directions? In other words, if player scores and team thinks he was offside, you get replay and if he was offside, there's a free kick. That's easy enough.
 
But what if it's the other way? Whistle blows play dead, but player was onside? Do they get free kick from spot? That doesn't seem fair as he may have been in alone on keeper.
 
I'm not disagreeing, just want to make sure we're thinking of same thing.

 
Right, the latter scenario needs to be thought through. Alone in box could be a PK. Alone outside of box could be a direct kick. I'm not 100% sure what I would advocate.
 
I do think that having offside replay would lead to the refs being more lenient in their calls, giving the benefit of the doubt, because it would be easier for replay to negate a goal that was offside than to provide an advantage to a team that had a wrongful offside call.

 

[VORP Speed]

You can't take points from a match unless you score, i.e. in a goalless draw nobody gets any points.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

Why wouldn't teams just tacitly agree to let each other score a goal each then? (Sort of like the way players kick the ball back to the opposing team if the opposing team kicked the ball out to stop play for an injury.)

 

[fletcherpost]

Move back the PK, at least for fouls that occur behind the PK marker in the box. I don't know the numbers, but I would guess something like 90+ percent are converted in the World Cup. The goalie has no chance, unless the kick is inaccurate and he guesses correctly, or the kick is just shanked. There's no drama in them, and there are always questionable calls that lead to nearly automatic goals. Moving it back 5-10 yards would at least add some drama and help even out those mistakes. I also think it's just too harsh of a penalty to begin with.

 
This is a decent wee look at penalty shoot outs in the world cup. Basic stat in Pk shoot outs: 204 penalties taken in World Cup shootouts, with 144 scored and 60 failures.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zgg334j

 

[The Gray Eagle]

Premier League penalties are converted at about an 85% rate. 
 
That makes the reward for diving about 85% of a goal, which is huge. Moving the penalty spot back so that a PK is more like a 50% chance of a goal would greatly reduce the benefit of diving, especially if there was also a retroactive banning if you get caught doing it on tape. 
 
It's also ludicrous that the ref keeps the amount of time left in the game secret from the fans and players. How much time is left? Oh maybe a minute, maybe 20 seconds, who cares? Maybe we'll let your team finish its last attack, even though the time is actually up. Or maybe we won't. Who knows? Let the whims of the referee decide when the game is actually over, referee whims are so awesome.