If you could change 1 rule in football

[rhroyal]

Video technology. It hardly slows Rugby, cricket and tennis down.

Let players celebrate goals as they want. (within reason - we don't want to see the return of Di Canio's fascist salute!)

Divers caught should not be booked, but branded with a red hot iron bearing the words "cock muncher".

[Sun Tzu]

Some interesting ideas, most of which I disagree with (shock horror !).

I'd cut the number of subs down to 3 (although still think that is too many). There is absolutely no reason to have the entire squad on the bench and we've lost the fun factor in seeing centre backs in goal or midfielders playing as make shift strikers.

I'd introduce a yellow card for any player who touches the ball after a freekick has been awarded to the opposition. Just leave it alone, don't pick it up and 'pretend' to give it to an opponent, or try and decide where it should be taken from.

I'd only allow throw ons to be taken from a standing position - no runs ups. You stand at the point the ball went off and you don't move until you've thrown the ball in. Ideally I'd change the throw to an underarm roll as well to cut the horror of the long throw out of the game.

[handbags_harris]

Video technology. It hardly slows Rugby, cricket and tennis down.

Major difference with football - there are set restarts for those sports. Tennis is played point by point, cricket ball by ball. Rugby has, and has always had, a specific stoppage in play for things like whether a try is scored. If it is not, for a foot in touch, ball held up, or the ball grounded by a defending player, a lineout, 5 metre attacking scrum, or another restart is given (the latter I forget - 25 metre dropout?). In short, the game is stopped at specific points, and doesn't carry on because as soon as something like that happens, the ball is dead. In football, the ball likely as not will not go dead, so how do you stop the game and restart it? And what do you have video technology for? Personally I'd much rather have goal-line technology and that alone to show if a goal has been scored. I would leave everything else to the discretion of the linesmen and referee.

...cut the horror of the long throw out of the game.

The throw in is as much part of the game as goal kicks, free kicks, corner kicks etc. Would you stop people taking long goal kicks? Free kicks? Would you make every corner kick a short one? In fact, would you stop teams like the Wimbledon of old throwing it up long to the big number 9? I don't agree with this sentiment at all. If a team has a player who possesses the ability to throw the ball longer than the next man, they should have the right to use it. A long throw in is simply a variation of a theme - the kick into the box or the hoof clear. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

[Wax Jacket]

video technology hasn't improved cricket one jot, if anything it's creating problems between teams and, worse, problems amongst the umpires who feel it totally undermines them

[Sun Tzu]

...cut the horror of the long throw out of the game.

The throw in is as much part of the game as goal kicks, free kicks, corner kicks etc. Would you stop people taking long goal kicks? Free kicks? Would you make every corner kick a short one? In fact, would you stop teams like the Wimbledon of old throwing it up long to the big number 9? I don't agree with this sentiment at all. If a team has a player who possesses the ability to throw the ball longer than the next man, they should have the right to use it. A long throw in is simply a variation of a theme - the kick into the box or the hoof clear. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

I disagree.

Goalkicks, corners, free kicks all use the part of the body that is specific to football - the foot !
The throw in is unique (nearly)in that it is a completely different way of propelling the ball.
It also can be used as an ugly and unsubtle tactic to eliminate the very essence of th egame. It is against the whole ethos of the game to be able to kick the ball off an opponet and win a throw in your own half and then be able to throw the ball into an attacking position. It adds nothing to the game (especially as the long throw is designed to create a lottery rather than enhance skill) and the throw should return to being simply a means of restarting the game, not a horrible tactic for teams unable to play the game as it should be played.

you can argue that anything should be allowe dif a team can gain an advantage using it. My opinion is the throw on should not be something that teams have as their main (sole ?) tactic. Play the game on the ground as it should be.... and with the feet.

[Ian Royal]

So you don't like it because it involves use of a part of the anatomy that wouldn't normally be allowed yet propose a solution that ... wait for it ... uses the same part of the anatomy?

[handbags_harris]

...cut the horror of the long throw out of the game.

The throw in is as much part of the game as goal kicks, free kicks, corner kicks etc. Would you stop people taking long goal kicks? Free kicks? Would you make every corner kick a short one? In fact, would you stop teams like the Wimbledon of old throwing it up long to the big number 9? I don't agree with this sentiment at all. If a team has a player who possesses the ability to throw the ball longer than the next man, they should have the right to use it. A long throw in is simply a variation of a theme - the kick into the box or the hoof clear. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

I disagree.

Goalkicks, corners, free kicks all use the part of the body that is specific to football - the foot !
The throw in is unique (nearly)in that it is a completely different way of propelling the ball.
It also can be used as an ugly and unsubtle tactic to eliminate the very essence of th egame. It is against the whole ethos of the game to be able to kick the ball off an opponet and win a throw in your own half and then be able to throw the ball into an attacking position. It adds nothing to the game (especially as the long throw is designed to create a lottery rather than enhance skill) and the throw should return to being simply a means of restarting the game, not a horrible tactic for teams unable to play the game as it should be played.

you can argue that anything should be allowe dif a team can gain an advantage using it. My opinion is the throw on should not be something that teams have as their main (sole ?) tactic. Play the game on the ground as it should be.... and with the feet.

1) Goal kicks, corner kicks, free kicks - they all use part of the body that is specific to football. So what? Is the throw in, and therefore the use of the hands within set parameters, not specific to football as well?

2) The throw in is indeed almost unique, but is it not the same as a keeper launching a throw into the opposition half like Peter Schmeichel used to do on a regular basis?

3) A number of teams have played with, and continue to play with "ugly, unsubtle tactics", launching the ball up from back to front to the number 9's head, thereby creating a lottery as to where it drops. It's part of the game, one of the many ways it can be played. The long throw is no different to this, only the ball is thrown, not kicked. I fail to see the significance of the difference in propulsion.

4) "It adds nothing to the game...". I disagree, I think it adds a massive aspect to the game. Football is as much about defence as attack, and it is up to the defending team to counteract the long throw. It adds a completely different dimension to a game of football from a defensive perspective.

5) "...not a horrible tactic for teams unable to play the game as it should be played." A quote which really gets my goat. Is there a "proper way" to play football? Surely the "proper way" to play football is to play to your player's strengths? If that means direct play, including utilising a particular player's strong arm, so be it IMO.

6) I am yet to see a team which uses the long throw as their main tactic.

7) "Play the game on the ground as it should be...". See point 5. I suppose you dislike English football as a whole (with the exception of continentally driven Arsenal), because the ball spends a significant amount of time in the air in all of the games across the board.

[parky]

I would make it so you could only be offside if you are closer than 18 yards to the goal and none of the interfering with play just straight up offside if you are there when the ball is passed forward.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

I would make it so you could only be offside if you are closer than 18 yards to the goal and none of the interfering with play just straight up offside if you are there when the ball is passed forward.

as has already been pointed out, it was changed because goals were being ruled out because a player might be technically offside, even though not remotely involved in the play. I can't see how anyone would want a return to that.

It'd be much better if people just accepted the offside rule is there to prevent goalhanging and stop getting so worked up by somebody being three inches offside. I annoys me when I see tv pundits moan about a linesman getting a marginal call wrong, even though it took them four replays from different angles to make a judgement.

[Sun Tzu]

So you don't like it because it involves use of a part of the anatomy that wouldn't normally be allowed yet propose a solution that ... wait for it ... uses the same part of the anatomy?

No.

But welcome to the discussion !

I dislike it because it it is out of sync with the game. It is fundamentally wrong that a team can adopt a tactic that centres on deliberately playingthe ball off an opponent in an area of the pitch that is nowhere near the goal and then use a non footballing tactic to get the ball into the goal area. it's just a horrible tactic and the game would be the better if it was not possible.

A roll on would ensure we play football, not throw ball.

[Sun Tzu]

1) Goal kicks, corner kicks, free kicks - they all use part of the body that is specific to football. So what? Is the throw in, and therefore the use of the hands within set parameters, not specific to football as well?

2) The throw in is indeed almost unique, but is it not the same as a keeper launching a throw into the opposition half like Peter Schmeichel used to do on a regular basis?

3) A number of teams have played with, and continue to play with "ugly, unsubtle tactics", launching the ball up from back to front to the number 9's head, thereby creating a lottery as to where it drops. It's part of the game, one of the many ways it can be played. The long throw is no different to this, only the ball is thrown, not kicked. I fail to see the significance of the difference in propulsion.

4) "It adds nothing to the game...". I disagree, I think it adds a massive aspect to the game. Football is as much about defence as attack, and it is up to the defending team to counteract the long throw. It adds a completely different dimension to a game of football from a defensive perspective.

5) "...not a horrible tactic for teams unable to play the game as it should be played." A quote which really gets my goat. Is there a "proper way" to play football? Surely the "proper way" to play football is to play to your player's strengths? If that means direct play, including utilising a particular player's strong arm, so be it IMO.

6) I am yet to see a team which uses the long throw as their main tactic.

7) "Play the game on the ground as it should be...". See point 5. I suppose you dislike English football as a whole (with the exception of continentally driven Arsenal), because the ball spends a significant amount of time in the air in all of the games across the board.

I can see the point in many of those, pretty reasonable responses on the whole (OK, all of them are fairly flimsy really !)

I'm happy to disagree with you. It's an odd football fan who thinks throwing a ball in the air for some big blokes to fight over is an improvement on 'the beautiful game'. I'll stick with my view that using a throw to simply get the ball back into proper play would be a big improvement.

[handbags_harris]

I'm happy to disagree with you. It's an odd football fan who thinks throwing a ball in the air for some big blokes to fight over is an improvement on 'the beautiful game'. I'll stick with my view that using a throw to simply get the ball back into proper play would be a big improvement.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. Football is, after all, a game where there are so many differing opinions on the finer aspects, hence why you get the likes of (going to extremes) John Beck and Arsene Wenger.

I never said I thought the long throw improved the game, I am merely arguing against banning it. I see the throw in as part of the game, something to be used by an attacking team if they have a player with the ability to throw it long. I feel it is as much a part of the game as any other part, even if it is a somewhat agricultural tool.

In essence, I find it odd that someone would want to ban a particular aspect of attacking play by making it that much more difficult to get the ball ionto a goalscoring area simply because the ball is thrown in to that area rather than kicked in.

[handbags_harris]

So you don't like it because it involves use of a part of the anatomy that wouldn't normally be allowed yet propose a solution that ... wait for it ... uses the same part of the anatomy?

No.

But welcome to the discussion !

I dislike it because it it is out of sync with the game. It is fundamentally wrong that a team can adopt a tactic that centres on deliberately playingthe ball off an opponent in an area of the pitch that is nowhere near the goal and then use a non footballing tactic to get the ball into the goal area. it's just a horrible tactic and the game would be the better if it was not possible.

A roll on would ensure we play football, not throw ball.

Rather than centreing the attention on one team (in your case, the one who takes the throw in), I don't really need to tell you there are two teams to a game of football. Surely it should be up to the defending team to prevent that particular mode of attack, rather than just banning it altogether? Defensive play is just as much a part of the game as attacking.

And if the ball should be played on the ground, would you ban heading and chesting the ball as well?

[Sun Tzu]

So you don't like it because it involves use of a part of the anatomy that wouldn't normally be allowed yet propose a solution that ... wait for it ... uses the same part of the anatomy?

No.

But welcome to the discussion !

I dislike it because it it is out of sync with the game. It is fundamentally wrong that a team can adopt a tactic that centres on deliberately playingthe ball off an opponent in an area of the pitch that is nowhere near the goal and then use a non footballing tactic to get the ball into the goal area. it's just a horrible tactic and the game would be the better if it was not possible.

A roll on would ensure we play football, not throw ball.

Rather than centreing the attention on one team (in your case, the one who takes the throw in), I don't really need to tell you there are two teams to a game of football. Surely it should be up to the defending team to prevent that particular mode of attack, rather than just banning it altogether? Defensive play is just as much a part of the game as attacking.

And if the ball should be played on the ground, would you ban heading and chesting the ball as well?

The defending team already DOES defend the long throw. But that's irrelevant. I'd rather they defended a proper attack than an alien bastardised form of attack.

LOl at banning heading and chesting, Very much part of open play and not a problem with either and an odd thing to suggest in the context of the discussion. Just think it's a very basic thing that football is not about throwing the ball half the length of the pitch. If it's your idea of football then fair enough.

[parky]

I would make it so you could only be offside if you are closer than 18 yards to the goal and none of the interfering with play just straight up offside if you are there when the ball is passed forward.

as has already been pointed out, it was changed because goals were being ruled out because a player might be technically offside, even though not remotely involved in the play. I can't see how anyone would want a return to that.

It'd be much better if people just accepted the offside rule is there to prevent goalhanging and stop getting so worked up by somebody being three inches offside. I annoys me when I see tv pundits moan about a linesman getting a marginal call wrong, even though it took them four replays from different angles to make a judgement.

That's not right at all, The offside rule was in place when in most sports, you could not pass backwards (rugby obviously still have this rule) however they were subsequently allowed to pass the ball forward and in 1863 the offside rule was introduced, nothing to do to stop goalhanging at all! Also My suggestion was to make it simpler to understand and it still keeps in, the joy of seeing a perfectly executed run into the penalty area. I just dont understand why a player needs to be offside just after he crosses the halfway line.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

I would make it so you could only be offside if you are closer than 18 yards to the goal and none of the interfering with play just straight up offside if you are there when the ball is passed forward.

as has already been pointed out, it was changed because goals were being ruled out because a player might be technically offside, even though not remotely involved in the play. I can't see how anyone would want a return to that.

It'd be much better if people just accepted the offside rule is there to prevent goalhanging and stop getting so worked up by somebody being three inches offside. I annoys me when I see tv pundits moan about a linesman getting a marginal call wrong, even though it took them four replays from different angles to make a judgement.

That's not right at all, The offside rule was in place when in most sports, you could not pass backwards (rugby obviously still have this rule) however they were subsequently allowed to pass the ball forward and in 1863 the offside rule was introduced, nothing to do to stop goalhanging at all!

the whole point of pass backwards is that you'd be offside otherwise.

You also didn't have to play the ball backwards. Hitting the ball forwards was quite normal. It's just that everyone had to be behind a ball played forwards, so they couldn't just stand yards away from the defence and collect punts over the top of everyone.

The game back then didn't even have passing as we know it. It hadn't been invented as a tactic. They didn't used to pass it like in rugby.

Also My suggestion was to make it simpler to understand and it still keeps in, the joy of seeing a perfectly executed run into the penalty area. I just dont understand why a player needs to be offside just after he crosses the halfway line.

They tried a 35 yard offside line in the NASL, and one thing they found was that it prevented defenders from pushing up to halfway as they can now. It actually made it harder for teams to attack, not easier as assumed.

Your "simplifying" idea still doesn't address the very real problem of goals being chalked off because of players who are not involved at all in the play being ahead of a pass.

[handbags_harris]

No.

But welcome to the discussion !

I dislike it because it it is out of sync with the game. It is fundamentally wrong that a team can adopt a tactic that centres on deliberately playingthe ball off an opponent in an area of the pitch that is nowhere near the goal and then use a non footballing tactic to get the ball into the goal area. it's just a horrible tactic and the game would be the better if it was not possible.

A roll on would ensure we play football, not throw ball.

Rather than centreing the attention on one team (in your case, the one who takes the throw in), I don't really need to tell you there are two teams to a game of football. Surely it should be up to the defending team to prevent that particular mode of attack, rather than just banning it altogether? Defensive play is just as much a part of the game as attacking.

And if the ball should be played on the ground, would you ban heading and chesting the ball as well?

The defending team already DOES defend the long throw. But that's irrelevant. I'd rather they defended a proper attack than an alien bastardised form of attack.

LOl at banning heading and chesting, Very much part of open play and not a problem with either and an odd thing to suggest in the context of the discussion. Just think it's a very basic thing that football is not about throwing the ball half the length of the pitch. If it's your idea of football then fair enough.

We'll agree to disagree. I just can't comprehend the problem with a team taking advantage of a restart in play in this way. It's up to the team and their management to decide how to restart play, so long as it's within the parameters set in the laws of the game. You would change the parameters of he throw in, fair enough. I see no problem with it as they are because the throw in has been as much a part of the game as any other restart in play has been, and is a skill in it's own right (a pretty basic one, granted, but a skill nonetheless).

As for my idea of football, well let's say there's more than one way to skin a cat. I accept football as a game that can be played in many different styles to suit your individual personnel. As much as I like Arsenal's style of play, there is no way that every team is going to be able to play like that because for every Andrei Arshavin there's 1000 Kalifa Cisse's.

[Ian Royal]

So you don't like it because it involves use of a part of the anatomy that wouldn't normally be allowed yet propose a solution that ... wait for it ... uses the same part of the anatomy?

No.

But welcome to the discussion !

I dislike it because it it is out of sync with the game. It is fundamentally wrong that a team can adopt a tactic that centres on deliberately playingthe ball off an opponent in an area of the pitch that is nowhere near the goal and then use a non footballing tactic to get the ball into the goal area. it's just a horrible tactic and the game would be the better if it was not possible.

A roll on would ensure we play football, not throw ball.

So it's not fundamentally wrong to deliberately play the ball off an opponant to win a goal kick and pump it straight up to the 9 in the box? Or win a corner by the flag and pump it into the box?

What would you do to stop opposition players standing directly infront of the "roll on" position so you can't get it anywhere near your player? Or just a ball being rolled on and repeatedly kicked straight back out again for the next half an hour? Is it an offence if the ball lifts off the ground?

It's a ridiculous suggestion IMO and one you're likely to get near zero support on.

[Ian Royal]

I would make it so you could only be offside if you are closer than 18 yards to the goal and none of the interfering with play just straight up offside if you are there when the ball is passed forward.

as has already been pointed out, it was changed because goals were being ruled out because a player might be technically offside, even though not remotely involved in the play. I can't see how anyone would want a return to that.

It'd be much better if people just accepted the offside rule is there to prevent goalhanging and stop getting so worked up by somebody being three inches offside. I annoys me when I see tv pundits moan about a linesman getting a marginal call wrong, even though it took them four replays from different angles to make a judgement.

That's not right at all, The offside rule was in place when in most sports, you could not pass backwards (rugby obviously still have this rule) however they were subsequently allowed to pass the ball forward and in 1863 the offside rule was introduced, nothing to do to stop goalhanging at all! Also My suggestion was to make it simpler to understand and it still keeps in, the joy of seeing a perfectly executed run into the penalty area. I just dont understand why a player needs to be offside just after he crosses the halfway line.

So what you are doing is giving a team a licence to position a winger permanently 10 yards from the corner flag for a long punt upfield to then run at goal or play the ball across the pitch to a striker who had been standing 19 yards from the goal?

Or even just straight to a striker who stands 19 yards from goal.

IMO that is a horrendously badly thought out suggestion.

[handbags_harris]

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.