Any Rule Changes in International Soccer You'd Make?

[coremiller]

Prompted by Netherlands-Australia ...
 
Get rid of the suspensions for yellow card accumulation in tournaments.  Or at least require more than two yellows for a suspension.  

 

[luckiestman]

If you watch how teams looked at the end of the Europa final, & still feel this way, just give up & follow hockey.

Who cares about how they look? I wouldn't want the World Series decided by home run derby if we went past 5 extra innings or something.

 

[seageral]

make robbens wear something over his weird looking head.  that thing is scary

 

[DJnVa]

That's the way the rule is written. Unfortunately, it isn't always called that way.

 
This is tricky though. It's accepted that "making your body bigger" (arms away from body) is considered deliberate. If the player isn't looking but his hands are still away from his body there's nothing that I've seen in the rules that awards anything other than a penalty.
 
If you rule that because a player's back was turned it wasn't deliberate then you will see this happen a lot more.
 
So, when you say that's the way the rule is written are you taking the position that because the defender didn't see it that it wasn't deliberate? Because unlike most sports, soccer rules are very easy to read and generally pretty straightforward.
 
 
Also found this:

The USSF advises referees to use the rule of thumb that "it is handling if the player plays the ball, but not handling if the ball plays the player."
 

 

[mgoblue2]

Prompted by Netherlands-Australia ...
 
Get rid of the suspensions for yellow card accumulation in tournaments.  Or at least require more than two yellows for a suspension.  

Really should be three. In most cases, to me, one of three yellow cards is ticky-tack stuff.
 
Also, that handball in Netherlands-Australia was brutal. There'd be some quick fix thing like if the defender isn't looking don't call it unless it was egregious that I'd be for. But if the guy is 5 yards away it's almost always an accident IMO.

 

[swiftaw]

With regards to tournament yellow card accumulation, I'd like something like this: You accumulate two yellow cards, you have a choice, sit out the next game (and have your card count reset) or play the next game but if you get carded in that one you are suspended for the next 2 matches. 

 

[DJnVa]

Really should be three. In most cases, to me, one of three yellow cards is ticky-tack stuff.
 
Also, that handball in Netherlands-Australia was brutal. There'd be some quick fix thing like if the defender isn't looking don't call it unless it was egregious that I'd be for. But if the guy is 5 yards away it's almost always an accident IMO.

 
Maybe in the NFL, if the DB isn't looking it isn't pass interference too.
 
You have to keep your arms against your body or this is the risk.

 

[URI]

Who cares about how they look? I wouldn't want the World Series decided by home run derby if we went past 5 extra innings or something.

Because the players were close to collapsing. The PK isn't ideal, but if it's the 25th inning, and your shortstops are pitching...is a HR derby really a worse option?

 

[Dan to Theo to Ben]

Prompted by Netherlands-Australia ...
 
Get rid of the suspensions for yellow card accumulation in tournaments.  Or at least require more than two yellows for a suspension.  

Just coming here to post that. Especially with tiebreakers the way they are. (not H2H)
 
It sorta evens out, but unfair to Chile to have Spain play Australia without Cahill. Like fighting a kangaroo that's missing one of its legs.
 
I'd change the rule that if you get yellow in 1 and 2, you miss round of 16, not the third group game.

 

[DJnVa]

Just coming here to post that. Especially with tiebreakers the way they are. (not H2H)
 
It sorta evens out, but unfair to Chile to have Spain play Australia without Cahill. Like fighting a kangaroo that's missing one of its legs.
 
 

 
Chile would play Netherlands with van Persie.

 

[SoxFanInCali]

I'm fine with the 2 yellows during the 3 group matches means you miss a game, but I think they should clear after the group stage.  Right now you could pick up a yellow in your first match, then get a second in the quarterfinal (the team's 5th match) and have to miss the semifinal.

 

[swiftaw]

I'm fine with the 2 yellows during the 3 group matches means you miss a game, but I think they should clear after the group stage.  Right now you could pick up a yellow in your first match, then get a second in the quarterfinal (the team's 5th match) and have to miss the semifinal.

That used to be the way, but then you could pick up two yellows in the 3 knockout rounds before the final, and miss the final. The way it is now, you can only miss the final if you get sent off in the semis.

 

[luckiestman]

Because the players were close to collapsing. The PK isn't ideal, but if it's the 25th inning, and your shortstops are pitching...is a HR derby really a worse option?

My issue with it is that it is saying a team is the winner of a game because they are better at something that is not the game. I think there has to be something better.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

On changes I would make, I would like the World Cup Final to be decided by a replay if the score is tied after extra time, and only go to penalties if the replay ends in a draw. I presume the reason they don't do it is logistics but still it would be great to have more football.

 

[URI]

My issue with it is that it is saying a team is the winner of a game because they are better at something that is not the game. I think there has to be something better.

 
Like shortstops pitching...
 
I know what your issue is.  I'm saying that it's the best of a bunch of bad options.

 

[lexrageorge]

 
This is tricky though. It's accepted that "making your body bigger" (arms away from body) is considered deliberate. If the player isn't looking but his hands are still away from his body there's nothing that I've seen in the rules that awards anything other than a penalty.
 
If you rule that because a player's back was turned it wasn't deliberate then you will see this happen a lot more.
 
So, when you say that's the way the rule is written are you taking the position that because the defender didn't see it that it wasn't deliberate? Because unlike most sports, soccer rules are very easy to read and generally pretty straightforward.
 
 
Also found this:

The rules do call it "deliberate handling", and FIFA guidelines do say the referee can take into account the possibility of an "unexpected ball".  The call was wrong in this case, but it does happen very fast and referees have to make an instant decision based on what they saw, which may not have been a perfect angle.  
 
I agree that changing the rule for this one instance is not necessary and is likely to create more problems than it solves. 

 

[SydneySox]

If an attacking player plays a ball, and it strikes the hand of a defender away from his body, it is a handball. That's the right of it. Defending players are not allowed to use their arms - deliberately or inadvertantly - to impede a ball through the air. And that is the right of it. For two reasons. The first being it is fair. The second being it is the most clear way to call the rule.
 
There is a level of arbitrary decision making by a referee in allowing for deliberate or accidental, when it is not goalbound. As with any penalty , any accidental contact away from the body is a spot kick. In the box this is a penalty. If deliberate, the player goes. If it's goalbound, it's always a red. Harry Kewell got red carded in the last world cup for Australia on an extremely tough call (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y4fHzmMaWw) but it happens.
 
What I'm saying is, there is absolutely nothing to 'fix'. An attacker must not be impeded. Defenders have all the power in football. The rules like this, and the ones from people who whine about so-called 'diving' all exist because without them, attacking players are rendered vulnerable to physical play. These rules are refined to address the things defenders do to defend. Removing the inadvertant hand-ball rule means you can run with your arms out wide all the time and as long as you don't make a play at a ball, it's play on.
 
I wish more people would stop and think before posting bullshit 'fix' rules in here.

 

[SydneySox]

My issue with it is that it is saying a team is the winner of a game because they are better at something that is not the game. I think there has to be something better.

 
Again, what? This is the sport. There is a beauty in the extra extra extra time period when people are literally falling down and yet continue to muster the ability to play.  
 
You're taking away the contest of a game to create a 'fix' for things that are not broken.
 
Most football followers love watching two teams of completely fucked people throwing themselves at each other at the end.

 

[SydneySox]

I'm fine with the 2 yellows during the 3 group matches means you miss a game, but I think they should clear after the group stage.  Right now you could pick up a yellow in your first match, then get a second in the quarterfinal (the team's 5th match) and have to miss the semifinal.

 
So... don't get carded?  How many cards are given that are undeserved. Not many? I mean, it happens, obviously. I think, totally off the top of my head, it's a small percentage (of clear - 'that was no fucking card' cards).
 
Tim Cahill, for instance, has no one but himself to blame for missing the match against Spain. He mouthed off like a fucking westie against Chile and his tackle this morning was atrocious. For him, that relentless drive is part of what makes him a better player but with that comes the punishment. He deserved both those cards, possibly even a red today, and he will sit because of it. Plenty of great players in this World Cup aren't getting carded and missing games.
 
I have sympathy with your argument that could see an extension to 3 and wouldn't really worry, but I think moves to wipe the cards for later aren't much more than pandering to entertainment - ie the crowd who will say "How can we have a final without the best players?" (My response would be - if they were the best they should stop getting carded).

 

[SydneySox]

I think we should have more game stoppages and commercials and standing around in soccer, for little tangible benefit.

 
Indeed.
 
You're not a 'traditionalist' because you don't want video replay stoppages in football.
 
Rolling subs, like Fletch says: Worst fucking idea ever, except for the idea of no more offsides. In football you pick your 11, and with that 11 comes strenghts and weaknesses. You know you're picking a team with players in it who have the ability do some things and not other things. It's a fantastic tactical decision and one people agonise over. With rolling subs, none of that matters. None of it. Because now, you just deploy and re-deploy players as you see fit.
 
Now, there may be a place for a game like this, but it's a totally different game than what we see as professional football. Maybe foosball? Maybe your local park league?
 
Also, just wanted to touch on this from URI:
 
 

 
5.  DLew's idea from a couple days ago, allowing the referee to card the captain for not controlling his team.

 
The captain role is almost strictly honorary, given as a pure leadership situation. It's also something tat can be passed around. You do this, and why would a team bother making anyone on their team who was any good a captain?

 

[singaporesoxfan]

 
Again, what? This is the sport. There is a beauty in the extra extra extra time period when people are literally falling down and yet continue to muster the ability to play.  
 
You're taking away the contest of a game to create a 'fix' for things that are not broken.
 
Most football followers love watching two teams of completely fucked people throwing themselves at each other at the end.

I generally agree with you on everything else but here he was complaining about penalty kicks not the ragged people at the end of extra time. I see his point though I guess penalty kicks are the least bad solution.

 

[DJnVa]

The rules do call it "deliberate handling", and FIFA guidelines do say the referee can take into account the possibility of an "unexpected ball".

 
I'm not sure it was "unexpected". It's exactly what he thought would happen (a ball played in) because he turned away to avoid being hit. The ball did not deflect off of anything.

 

[lexrageorge]

If an attacking player plays a ball, and it strikes the hand of a defender away from his body, it is a handball. That's the right of it. Defending players are not allowed to use their arms - deliberately or inadvertantly - to impede a ball through the air. And that is the right of it. For two reasons. The first being it is fair. The second being it is the most clear way to call the rule.
 
There is a level of arbitrary decision making by a referee in allowing for deliberate or accidental, when it is not goalbound. As with any penalty , any accidental contact away from the body is a spot kick. In the box this is a penalty. If deliberate, the player goes. If it's goalbound, it's always a red. Harry Kewell got red carded in the last world cup for Australia on an extremely tough call (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y4fHzmMaWw) but it happens.
 
What I'm saying is, there is absolutely nothing to 'fix'. An attacker must not be impeded. Defenders have all the power in football. The rules like this, and the ones from people who whine about so-called 'diving' all exist because without them, attacking players are rendered vulnerable to physical play. These rules are refined to address the things defenders do to defend. Removing the inadvertant hand-ball rule means you can run with your arms out wide all the time and as long as you don't make a play at a ball, it's play on.
 
I wish more people would stop and think before posting bullshit 'fix' rules in here.

Are you sure the bolded is correct?  The reason I ask is that in the link below, they call it "deliberate handling", and mention that the referee must take into account the following:
 
- The movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball toward the hand)
- The distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
- The position of the hand does not necessarily mean there is an infringement
...
 
Full text here:  http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/02/36/01/11/lawsofthegameweben_neutral.pdf
 
It seems as if the referee does have some leeway in the case of purely incidental contact.  But, I must admit, I'm not familiar enough with the international game to know if the play in question is always called deliberate handling as a matter of course.  Admittedly, these things happen at full speed, and I can understand if the referee would normally side with the attacking team in this situation. 
 
EDIT:  Thanks, DrewDawg, for the clarification.  That makes sense to me.  

 

[SydneySox]

Yes, it's correct in that the point is, the handball rule is to allow punishment for balls that are deliberately or inadvertantly stopped by the hand of a defender.

The ref has all sorts of leeway - as he should, and another reason I am critical of replay or refining things that take away leeway in an attempt to define everything explicitly - and one of those is if it cannons off someones face, glances off a hand and carries on, he can and ofen will wave it on.
 
But an attacker who sees his pass in the box stopped by an illegal part of the body - the hand - has every right to appeal to a referee for a foul. It's up to the ref to determine if that's fair, and if it was intentional.
 
I like that system.

 

[SydneySox]

I generally agree with you on everything else but here he was complaining about penalty kicks not the ragged people at the end of extra time. I see his point though I guess penalty kicks are the least bad solution.

 
I was addressing the general angst of the thread in general, but certainly apologise if my reply read as a direct response.

 

[URI]

 
 
The captain role is almost strictly honorary, given as a pure leadership situation. It's also something tat can be passed around. You do this, and why would a team bother making anyone on their team who was any good a captain?

 
Then that shitty player gets carded for his team acting like fuckfaces.  For me, it's the best way for the referee to enforce the "only the captain may talk to the referee" rule that keeps things like the entire Portuguese team surrounding the ref attempting to intimidate him in the Germany game.

 

[Tony C]

Probably the more direct way is to simply card the guy or guys who do that, no change in rule necessary (though a pretty dramatic change in customary practice, which would make even that tough to do -- if so, so be it, not the worst thing in the world).
 
I'm pretty much in the "these changes would backfire" camp, though certainly an extra ref in high stakes matches with the resources, the same as baseball rolls out more umps during the playoffs would make sense.

 

[SydneySox]

Yeah - I was going to type it out more later.

Card those people.

 

[atisha]

Soccer should learn a thing or two from rugby union.

- Let the referee signal any stoppage of time and stop the clock in the arena, restarting it at another ref signal. When the 45 minutes are up, game over.
- Let the referee... refer to a TMO when he is not sure about awarding a PK or a goal. No rights for players or coaches to appeal.
- Maybe make a yellow card worth a 10 minutes sin-bin.

Also, re: extra time. Start the 1st period with teams of 9 players, and the 2nd period with teams of 7. If still tied, go to penalties, but only 5 players and the goalkeeper should be involved. May seem unfair and punishing, but heck, if you complain you should have won the match in regulation.

 

[SocrManiac]

Also, re: extra time. Start the 1st period with teams of 9 players, and the 2nd period with teams of 7. If still tied, go to penalties, but only 5 players and the goalkeeper should be involved. May seem unfair and punishing, but heck, if you complain you should have won the match in regulation.

 
This isn't hockey. Taking players off the field isn't going to increase scoring. It just makes a big field bigger. Short sided and pickup games know this one pretty well- if you don't have enough to fill out two squads, you move the damn goals closer so something actually happens.
 
Outside of my wife, soccer is the biggest thing in my life and has been for as long as I can remember. This handle is my original AIM handle when I didn't have enough characters for "Soccer Maniac." The one thing that galls me to this day is simulation (this as an Italy and Juvé supporter). 
 
You could make a case with the text of the rule that any time a player goes to ground in the box, there should either be a penalty or a yellow card. Every. Single. Time. I suppose this just increases the risk-reward. It could lead to a lot of the short sided games I was against earlier, as well as a lot of high scoring games via penalties... I honestly don't know how you do anything about it in realtime. If there can be suspensions meted after the fact using a review board, you might curtail things, but I honestly don't know.
 
I'd also like to see a rule where if you're stretchered off, you're done for the half. Period. If you've been hurt so egregiously that you need to eat clock with a group of medics physically carrying you off the field, there's no way you can be fit to play again. It happened yesterday with Chile. The Benefica/Juventus Europa League semi-final second leg was dominated by this. The second half of the game was just Benefica players receiving medical attention on the field, getting stretchered off, then hopping off the stretcher and re-entering. This seems like a very simple thing to fix.

 

[DLew On Roids]

Soccer should learn a thing or two from rugby union.

- Let the referee signal any stoppage of time and stop the clock in the arena, restarting it at another ref signal. When the 45 minutes are up, game over.

Did rugby change its timing rules so play doesn't continue after the horn until a dead ball?

 

[Finn's Dad]

Did many of you watch the initial years of MLS? They tried to American-ize things, and it was piss poor. They had a clock that ran down with no extra time, games didn't end in a tie but an MLS-style shoot out (think hockey penalty shots... You have so many seconds to dribble 35/40 yards and shoot on net). It was awful, and it took away so much from the game.

If you are interested in unlimited subs, watch high school soccer. It sucks and lacks something that is in a standard 3-sub match, besides professionals. It really is running at full steam for short periods, then get subbed. Games have no flow. Part of the beauty of soccer is seeing the last second goals, when people have played the while game, already ran 6 miles, and manage to do a 70 yard sprint close to full speed. Look at Donovan's goal versus Algeria last year... It had all the elements that makes soccer amazing. Last second goal to put the team into the knockout round, started off a counter attack that took no the at all, Donovan traveled some 80-yards at full speed, despite the exhaustion.

If you constantly sub, there is no "gut-check" moment. I would be all for an extra sub in extra time. When this tourney hits the knockout stages, subs will be precious. Is Manaus hosting a knockout game? If so, that could be brutal if they go extra time.

 

[URI]

Yeah - I was going to type it out more later.

Card those people.

Portugal would have picked up 8 cards in about 3 seconds though. That should be the rule, but there are no refs on earth that would unleash 8 yellow cards in a row during the World Cup, and likely, FIFA wouldn't back them.

 

[coremiller]

 
I'd also like to see a rule where if you're stretchered off, you're done for the half. Period. If you've been hurt so egregiously that you need to eat clock with a group of medics physically carrying you off the field, there's no way you can be fit to play again. It happened yesterday with Chile. The Benefica/Juventus Europa League semi-final second leg was dominated by this. The second half of the game was just Benefica players receiving medical attention on the field, getting stretchered off, then hopping off the stretcher and re-entering. This seems like a very simple thing to fix.

 
Won't this just create bigger incentives to try to beat the crap out of the other team, hoping to get their players locked out for a half?

 

[URI]

Won't this just create bigger incentives to try to beat the crap out of the other team, hoping to get their players locked out for a half?

Yeah it's a thuggery incentive.

 

[luckiestman]

 
Again, what? This is the sport. There is a beauty in the extra extra extra time period when people are literally falling down and yet continue to muster the ability to play.  
 
You're taking away the contest of a game to create a 'fix' for things that are not broken.
 
Most football followers love watching two teams of completely fucked people throwing themselves at each other at the end.

 
 
I can't tell if youre agreeing with me or not. Only thing I stated I don;t like is penalty shootout to decide the game. Im perfectly fine with extra extra extra time

 

[GreenMonster49]

Because the players were close to collapsing. The PK isn't ideal, but if it's the 25th inning, and your shortstops are pitching...is a HR derby really a worse option?

 
In baseball, the risk of having a 25th inning is really slim--in general, every inning has a 50% change of ending the game [http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/402].  That's because it's easy enough to score runs in MLB.  What if scoring runs were harder, or there were fewer rested starting pitchers available?  In international softball, teams start with a runner at second base.  And in the World Baseball Classic, starting in the 14th inning, runners start at first and second bases.  While these are artificial situations, they are far better than a home run derby to decide the contest.   In a soccer context, I would much prefer to see teams alternate getting corner kicks (attempts end when the defence clears the ball) rather than penalties, but at least penalty kicks are part of the regular game.

 

[URI]

In baseball, the risk of having a 25th inning is really slim--in general, every inning has a 50% change of ending the game [http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/402].  That's because it's easy enough to score runs in MLB.  What if scoring runs were harder, or there were fewer rested starting pitchers available?  In international softball, teams start with a runner at second base.  And in the World Baseball Classic, starting in the 14th inning, runners start at first and second bases.  While these are artificial situations, they are far better than a home run derby to decide the contest.   In a soccer context, I would much prefer to see teams alternate getting corner kicks (attempts end when the defence clears the ball) rather than penalties, but at least penalty kicks are part of the regular game.

The 25th inning was only to some how come close to an equal physical toll taken on these guys.

I see alternating corner kicks as being much more sloppy, and horrible than PKs.

 

[JayMags71]

Corners also add more opportunities for injury.

 

[SydneySox]

 
 
I can't tell if youre agreeing with me or not. Only thing I stated I don;t like is penalty shootout to decide the game. Im perfectly fine with extra extra extra time

 
I can't tell if you read the whole thead.

 

[SydneySox]

Portugal would have picked up 8 cards in about 3 seconds though. That should be the rule, but there are no refs on earth that would unleash 8 yellow cards in a row during the World Cup, and likely, FIFA wouldn't back them.

 
So card one of them. The rule is there. If the ref is abused or touched he can card one. He could have easily picked one out to card, it happens all the time.  Often it is the captain because he's usually right in front.
 
That he didn't is important to your point because if he doesn't card one of them there, why would he card one of them there just because he can card the captain?
 
Rule already exists, broseph.

 

[URI]

I know, I said that in the original thread that started the discussion.

I'm saying refs are reluctant to do anything in the Portugal example, since handing out cards to everyone is something they are never going to do, and just carding one is likely to cause more problems because it's already so arbitrary.

Maybe we should just utilize the roof snipers in my rule #6 to help quell everyone trying to intimidate referees.

 

[SydneySox]

I dunno. Refs are fucking dickheads most of the time anyway, I'm not entirely against them getting some talk.

 

[URI]

You're a fucking dickhead.

There. I feel like we did good work, A man.

 

[SydneySox]

We solved soccer!

 

[BoredViewer]

I think we should have more game stoppages and commercials and standing around in soccer, for little tangible benefit.

 
Yeah... I can't see how taking an extra minute or two, on top of the usual posing and prancing that goes on after a PK is called, to actually check a replay and make sure it wasn't a dive, would have any tangible benefit.  Goals are plentiful... almost like baskets in the NBA.  What's a bad call here or there, when to fix it might extend the average match by a minute?

 

[URI]

Yeah... I can't see how taking an extra minute or two, on top of the usual posing and prancing that goes on after a PK is called, to actually check a replay and make sure it wasn't a dive, would have any tangible benefit.  Goals are plentiful... almost like baskets in the NBA.  What's a bad call here or there, when to fix it might extend the average match by a minute?

You have suffered massive amounts of brain damage if you think it's going to be a minute or two. Like, just horrible, unspeakable amounts.

 

[SydneySox]

Let alone this inane assumption that video will definitely prove the correctness or lackthereof of a penalty.

 

[URI]

But at least it adds the dual benefit of fundamentally changing the most watched game in the world to make it more American friendly and allowing a bunch of commercials in the middle of the game.

It's really win-win-win.

 

[luckiestman]

You know how the goalie can use his hands? What if everyone could?