If you could change 1 rule in football

[Skyline]

One rule I'd like to see introduced (or, rather, enforced more strictly) is a yellow card for any player who waves an imaginary card at a referee in an attempt to get a player booked. This should be treated as ungentlemanly conduct but never is.

Agree with FineRain about the bookings for celebrating goals. I find the arguments against a player taking his shirt off 'because it offends people in Muslim countries' spurious - if a player is wearing an undershirt as many do nowadays then he isn't going to be exposing his chest, so won't be offending anybody, yet he still gets booked. And that also doesn't account for examples like Simon Cox getting a second yellow card earlier in the season when he raced over to the Reading fans to celebrate and got pushed into the crowd by his teammates. Fair enough is someone races 100yards from where he's scored a goal to stand in front of the opposition fans and celebrate, but if you're celebrating in front of your own fans there can't really be any justification for the booking.

Only thing wrong with the current offside rule is the fact that an attacker can be offside but not interfering with play, so therefore not technically offside, but a defender who is nowhere near the play (because he is on the other side of the pitch, for instance) can still play someone on-side.

[Username:]

One rule I'd like to see introduced (or, rather, enforced more strictly) is a yellow card for any player who waves an imaginary card at a referee in an attempt to get a player booked. This should be treated as ungentlemanly conduct but never is.

Agree with FineRain about the bookings for celebrating goals. I find the arguments against a player taking his shirt off 'because it offends people in Muslim countries' spurious - if a player is wearing an undershirt as many do nowadays then he isn't going to be exposing his chest, so won't be offending anybody, yet he still gets booked. And that also doesn't account for examples like Simon Church getting a second yellow card earlier in the season when he raced over to the Reading fans to celebrate and got pushed into the crowd by his teammates. Fair enough is someone races 100yards from where he's scored a goal to stand in front of the opposition fans and celebrate, but if you're celebrating in front of your own fans there can't really be any justification for the booking.

Only thing wrong with the current offside rule is the fact that an attacker can be offside but not interfering with play, so therefore not technically offside, but a defender who is nowhere near the play (because he is on the other side of the pitch, for instance) can still play someone on-side.

[Skyline]

Yep, senior moment there (Maybe it was wishful thinking that Cox hadn't left and we might have a decent goal scorer in the ranks...)

[Ian Royal]

what I want to know is why do people have such problem understanding "active" or "interfering with play" Why do people think you have to touch the ball to be "active".

If you're in the vecinity and will affect the judgement of the defender / keeper you are active.
If you are running toward the ball, you are active, even if someone else gets to it first.

[Dirk Gently]

what I want to know is why do people have such problem understanding "active" or "interfering with play" Why do people think you have to touch the ball to be "active".

If you're in the vecinity and will affect the judgement of the defender / keeper you are active.
If you are running toward the ball, you are active, even if someone else gets to it first.

If a player's not seeking to gain an advantage then he shouldn't be on t'bloody pitch

[rhroyal]

One rule I'd like to see introduced (or, rather, enforced more strictly) is a yellow card for any player who waves an imaginary card at a referee in an attempt to get a player booked. This should be treated as ungentlemanly conduct but never is.

Agree with FineRain about the bookings for celebrating goals. I find the arguments against a player taking his shirt off 'because it offends people in Muslim countries' spurious - if a player is wearing an undershirt as many do nowadays then he isn't going to be exposing his chest, so won't be offending anybody, yet he still gets booked. And that also doesn't account for examples like Simon Church getting a second yellow card earlier in the season when he raced over to the Reading fans to celebrate and got pushed into the crowd by his teammates. Fair enough is someone races 100yards from where he's scored a goal to stand in front of the opposition fans and celebrate, but if you're celebrating in front of your own fans there can't really be any justification for the booking.

Only thing wrong with the current offside rule is the fact that an attacker can be offside but not interfering with play, so therefore not technically offside, but a defender who is nowhere near the play (because he is on the other side of the pitch, for instance) can still play someone on-side.

But that's sloppy defending and they should be punished. If they're down injured, that's another matter.

[Sun Tzu]

Only thing wrong with the current offside rule is the fact that an attacker can be offside but not interfering with play, so therefore not technically offside, but a defender who is nowhere near the play (because he is on the other side of the pitch, for instance) can still play someone on-side.

It's almost inconceivable that a defender is not 'active' though. Even if all he is doing is marking space.

And I suspect it would be all but impossible to frame a rule which could actually be applied in which defenders could be nearer their goal than an attacker and be excluded from the offside equation. You would need a linesman in a helicopter !!

[prostak]

If we're talking about offside, parky's suggestion in principle is a decent one, although I would extend the region to, say, 25 yards from the goal line. I would effectively introduce the subbuteo pitch to reality football, only utilise the extra lines for offside purposes. For those that aren't aware, the subbuteo pitch has an extra line spanning the width of the pitch halfway between the goal line and halfway line, used to distinguish the area where you are allowed to shoot in.

Didn't the NASL try something like this, in the name of encouraging more attacking (and thus attractive to the new market) football? I wasn't around at the time so can't comment on how well it worked, but that this 'offside line' hasn't been adopted elsewhere suggests it wasn't a particular success.

[Very near...far away]

Straight red for the following goal "celebrations": rock the baby, suck the thumb, any rehearsed choreographed nonsense, and that Carlos Tevez reality tv wiggle your arse and stir thing.

Five match ban for "cupping the ears" - cut to 4 for jug eared footballers (out of sympathy).

Alan Smith to start every game 1 foul away from a straight red - should generally lead to him being off within 5 minutes.

Complaints to the 4th official about time added on - a £5m fine for each incident.

[parky]

Another rule I would bring in, is I would let the team that won the toss choose to have Kick Off if they want

[Dirk Gently]

Another rule I would bring in, is I would let the team that won the toss choose to have Kick Off if they want

Eh?

[parky]

Another rule I would bring in, is I would let the team that won the toss choose to have Kick Off if they want

Eh?

The law states that the team that loses the toss kicks off and the team that wins the toss has choice of ends.

[Dirk Gently]

Another rule I would bring in, is I would let the team that won the toss choose to have Kick Off if they want

Eh?

The law states that the team that loses the toss kicks off and the team that wins the toss has choice of ends.

Really? I'd always assumed that the team winning the toss gets to choose. Strange, although there's not really much advantage from haivg the kick off.

[woodley_royal_124]

This may have been said already.....haven't read all of the thread but feel that rules about red cards and 3 match bans are unfair on a team, especially if its their striker that gets sent off and the team are in the relegation zone - also feel FA are more inflexible than ever on getting red cards rescinded.......is it because they lose out financially I wonder ?

[Pseud O'Nym]

I'd like to see the offside rule changed so that women can understand it, then I could get one to explain it to me.

[Skyline]

Only thing wrong with the current offside rule is the fact that an attacker can be offside but not interfering with play, so therefore not technically offside, but a defender who is nowhere near the play (because he is on the other side of the pitch, for instance) can still play someone on-side.

It's almost inconceivable that a defender is not 'active' though. Even if all he is doing is marking space.

And I suspect it would be all but impossible to frame a rule which could actually be applied in which defenders could be nearer their goal than an attacker and be excluded from the offside equation. You would need a linesman in a helicopter !!

But you could make the same argument for an attacker, even if all he is doing is pulling a defender out of position.

[Jack Celliers]

I would like to see the bit about the benefit of the doubt going to the attacker for offsides being enforced a bit more rigorously. Unless it's blatantly obvious, it should be a goal.

Keith Hackett tried to clear up the offside rule in the Observer a couple of years ago, complaining that pundits, who were paid professionals, didn't have a clue what they were talking about. For example, they they used dictionary definitions, or even their own definitions, for the word active, or quoted dead football managers.

You are offside if you are in the wrong area of the pitch when you:
1 Play the ball,
2 Interfere with the line of vision of an opponent,
3 Score from a rebound when the goalie has saved, the only thing which has been given the name 'Gaining an Advantage'
PIG

[Platypuss]

I would like to see the bit about the benefit of the doubt going to the attacker for offsides being enforced a bit more rigorously. Unless it's blatantly obvious, it should be a goal.

Keith Hackett tried to clear up the offside rule in the Observer a couple of years ago, complaining that pundits, who were paid professionals, didn't have a clue what they were talking about. For example, they they used dictionary definitions, or even their own definitions, for the word active, or quoted dead football managers.

You are offside if you are in the wrong area of the pitch when you:
1 Play the ball,
2 Interfere with the line of vision of an opponent,
3 Score from a rebound when the goalie has saved, the only thing which has been given the name 'Gaining an Advantage'
PIG

??

1. It's where you are when someone else played the ball that matters. If you are in an offside position when the ball is played to you, but a defender gets goalside before you actaully touch it, you are still offside.
2. Yep. Or distract them.
3. Or rebound off the goalposts/bar....

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

I would like to see the bit about the benefit of the doubt going to the attacker for offsides being enforced a bit more rigorously. Unless it's blatantly obvious, it should be a goal.

Keith Hackett tried to clear up the offside rule in the Observer a couple of years ago, complaining that pundits, who were paid professionals, didn't have a clue what they were talking about. For example, they they used dictionary definitions, or even their own definitions, for the word active, or quoted dead football managers.

You are offside if you are in the wrong area of the pitch when you:
1 Play the ball,
2 Interfere with the line of vision of an opponent,
3 Score from a rebound when the goalie has saved, the only thing which has been given the name 'Gaining an Advantage'
PIG

??

1. It's where you are when someone else played the ball that matters. If you are in an offside position when the ball is played to you, but a defender gets goalside before you actaully touch it, you are still offside.

2. Yep. Or distract them.
3. Or rebound off the goalposts/bar....

the point is that you might be in an offside position, but don't actually become offside until you do one of those things. The rule was changed a year or two ago, why is why you get so many complaints about linemen flagging "late" these days. It's not late. It's just that until the attacker is in playable distance of the ball, he's not committing an offside offence.

As for pundits, you can't get a better example than the Italy match in Euro 2008, where the defender was off the pitch. Andy Townsend came out with the line "I don't care what they say the rule book says, that's definitely offside!" Handball seems to confuse them just as well. Pundits invariably come out with tosh like "they know the rules, but they don't know the game" because they are convinced rules should be what they want them to be, not what they are.

[Platypuss]

I'm not disagreeing with you! I'm saying that offside is simple, but not quite as simple as Jack made it out to be.