Any Rule Changes in International Soccer You'd Make?

[Kremlin Watcher]

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?

Football field: 5,341 m2
Baseball field: 18,000 m2 (I know, I know)
Basketball court: 451 m2
Hockey rink: 1,579 m2 (standard size)
Soccer pitch: 4,050 to 10,800 m2
 
So:
 
NFL: 5,341/7 = one official for every 763 m2 of physical space
MLB: 18,000/4 = one official for every 4,500 m2; 18,000/6 = one official for every 3,000 m2
NBA: 451/3 = one official for every 150 m2
NHL: 1,579/4 = one official for every 395 m2
Soccer: 4,050/3 = one official for every 1,350 m2 on a small pitch; 10,800/3 = one official for every 3,600 m2 on a big pitch
 
MDL’s numbers and these together make it pretty clear that there should be at least three on-field officials. I would vote for five, each one covering a specific area of the field. Fifty years ago, one ref could probably keep up with the game. But the sport has developed such ridiculously good athletes that there is no way one guy on the field can keep pace with the speed and athleticism of the game. It is to FIFA’s everlasting discredit that they continue to allow the sport to be sullied this way.

 

[DJnVa]

In the abstract that sounds great. However it's interesting to note that the official that covers the least amount of ground is an NBA ref.
 
And most people pretty much think they suck.

 

[SoxFanInCali]

My only concern with more refs is them getting in the way.  Even when there is only one you occasionally see a pass hit him and mess up a breakaway, or even worse, start a breakaway the other direction.

 

[theapportioner]

I didn't realize until now that there are wide disparities in the size of the soccer field, particularly the width. Seems like it ought to be a major consideration in team formations. I guess it's a bit like baseball in that the fields are all shapes and sizes, but I found this surprising.
 
http://worldsoccer.about.com/od/soccer101/a/101_Field.htm

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

My only concern with more refs is them getting in the way.  Even when there is only one you occasionally see a pass hit him and mess up a breakaway, or even worse, start a breakaway the other direction.

 
I think, with 3 total on-field officials, you could set up the field mechanics so that you minimize the risk of this.  On set pieces, they'd be off the pitch behind (or next to) the goal, and splitting the on-field angles around the 18-yd box, so that they'd be less in the middle of direct rebounds while having a good angle on just about every player.  You'd also have a distinct benefit on plays where the ball drastically changes location several times very quickly, on long bombs or header-pinball type plays and the like - basically, set it up so that there are refs able to closely observe not just the most likely location for the ball but the 2nd- and 3rd- most likely locations as well, e.g. for breakaways in both directions.
 
Anecdotally, the number of times the ref affects the play is within the 10-20 yards between the central circle and the top of the penalty box, because their default location is along the center line of the pitch and that's where the ball most often crosses the middle while on the ground.  You could have refs shift around so as to vacate that area when the ball's near it, while actually improving their ability to watch more players more closely.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

Also, I'll add a suggestion, not about rules or enforcement, but specific to how the World Cup is organized:
 
In 1974, 78 and 82, after the first round group stage, the group winners and varying levels of runners-up were then placed into a second group stage, where they were mixed in together and played another 2-3 matches each.  I would suggest bringing back that format, especially given the 32-team tournament that it is today.
 
Round 1: Group stage as is done today, 8 groups of 4 teams
Round 2: Second group stage, 4 groups of 4 teams; each group has 2 winners and 2 runners-up from the round 1 groups, none of whom (within a round 2 group) were in the same round 1 group.
Round 3: Winners and runners-up of Round 2 groups clear to the Quarterfinals, and play knockout matches from there.
 
Benefits:
* More games!  To go from 16 teams remaining to 8, we play 24 matches instead of 8.
* More variety of opponents.  Nobody has an easy path to the quarterfinals; a team that won an "easy" group may have a hard one in round 2, a team that wins a group of death may have better confidence and odds going into a second grouping.
* Less opportunity for the whims and fortunes of a single game or call to affect whether you advance.
* More viewing audiences have their teams last longer into the tournament, and can retain interest.
 
Drawbacks:
* More games means more opportunity for injuries, I suppose
* The tournament will last longer; casual fans may lose interest if they feel like it's been going on all summer

 

[SoxFanInCali]

The tournament ends July 13th this year.
 
The second round of Champions League qualifying starts July 15th, and The English Premier League starts up August 16th.  Teams also need a few weeks for friendlies/training camp, and to rest stars that played in the World Cup.  There's no time left on the calendar to add another group stage.

 

[SoxJox]

Also, I'll add a suggestion, not about rules or enforcement, but specific to how the World Cup is organized:
 
In 1974, 78 and 82, after the first round group stage, the group winners and varying levels of runners-up were then placed into a second group stage, where they were mixed in together and played another 2-3 matches each.  I would suggest bringing back that format, especially given the 32-team tournament that it is today.
 
Round 1: Group stage as is done today, 8 groups of 4 teams
Round 2: Second group stage, 4 groups of 4 teams; each group has 2 winners and 2 runners-up from the round 1 groups, none of whom (within a round 2 group) were in the same round 1 group.
Round 3: Winners and runners-up of Round 2 groups clear to the Quarterfinals, and play knockout matches from there.
 
Benefits:
* More games!  To go from 16 teams remaining to 8, we play 24 matches instead of 8.
* More variety of opponents.  Nobody has an easy path to the quarterfinals; a team that won an "easy" group may have a hard one in round 2, a team that wins a group of death may have better confidence and odds going into a second grouping.
* Less opportunity for the whims and fortunes of a single game or call to affect whether you advance.
* More viewing audiences have their teams last longer into the tournament, and can retain interest.
 
Drawbacks:
* More games means more opportunity for injuries, I suppose
* The tournament will last longer; casual fans may lose interest if they feel like it's been going on all summer

 
We'd all love to see more games.  But recovery time in places like Brazil, albeit experiencing perhaps higher than normal temperatures this year, would wear most bodies down quite rapidly when also mixed in with workouts.  

 

[DLew On Roids]

College soccer ref (and health policy blogger) Richard Mayhew weighs in on the two-referee concept, the challenges that would come from its adoption, and ultimately his verdict on whether it's a good idea:
 
The Cult of the Referee