Last week we started a new idea, it being that every week a new question regarding football will be posted and SG's great (and lesser) minds could discuss it. I'll post the link for the old ones with each new thread, so that if you find one that you want to reply to in the future, you can do so easily, since there's no reason for the discussion to stop just because a new question has been posted.

Remember, if you have an idea for a question you would like to see, PM it to me, and each week one question will be selected based on the quality of the question and it's subject. I will not choose the questions on my own, but this is the best way to ensure that we don't keep discussing the same things.

This week's comes courtesy of Sevillista:

What are some rule changes that would improve the game?

Past Questions:
13/9 - What will football be like in 50 years? (http://www.soccergaming.com/forums/showthread.php?t=170662)

Just a quick note, while these first two questions have been pretty general, you can make your question as specific as you'd like.

Anyway, one major issue that needs to be resolved is whether goal-line technology (which could subsequentially be expanded into multiple roles, such as using it when making offside and fouls decisions. Should that happen, it'll take a while to put it to good use, and restrict or expand it's use accordingly to maintain a good pace for the game.

I'd like to see more subs made available, perhaps 9-11. Sure, choosing subs is part of the tactical scheme, but I'd much rather see two teams who can choose from anyone in their squad and allow them to maximise their potential on the field.

I'd also like the CL squad lists to be like the Prem's, with U-21s given a free pass.

In terms of on-field action I can't think of anything right now, but I'll come back.

more subs, more national players (correct term?) mandatory in the line-up or roster at least. also, get rid of the work permit for players.

I'd like to see the referees being able to view the replays during the game; it would solve the problem of divers etc.

What do you guys think about stopping the minutes played when the ball is out of play? I think that would be more fair than stoppage time.

Then a game would last forever. Just look at handball; there are two 30min halves but the game itself can take 2,5h.

Arguably the game could be improved by a detailed analysis and adjustment of the pitch size, goal size, area size and number of players per team. These were basically decided 130 years ago by guys playing a game which was totally different in many other ways, and if you look at it objectively there's no reason to assume they reached the best possible solution, especially factoring in the other rule changes over the years etc.

I think they should enforce large fines after reviewing the video in which a player dives. The only problem is in some cases the player might be right. The fine would have to be substantial for it to impact the players. Like half a week's, a week's or half a month's salary. So for instance I'd like a few to be handed out each week in any particular league to keep it in the back of the mind of the players. Over time I'm sure it would impact the game and cut it out a lot.

more subs, more national players (correct term?) mandatory in the line-up or roster at least. also, get rid of the work permit for players.

It is indeed strange that a player who will automatically have a job that contributes thousands of dollars to taxes can't get a visa.

Just a quick note, while these first two questions have been pretty general, you can make your question as specific as you'd like.

Anyway, one major issue that needs to be resolved is whether goal-line technology (which could subsequentially be expanded into multiple roles, such as using it when making offside and fouls decisions. Should that happen, it'll take a while to put it to good use, and restrict or expand it's use accordingly to maintain a good pace for the game.

I'd like to see more subs made available, perhaps 9-11. Sure, choosing subs is part of the tactical scheme, but I'd much rather see two teams who can choose from anyone in their squad and allow them to maximise their potential on the field.

I'd also like the CL squad lists to be like the Prem's, with U-21s given a free pass.

In terms of on-field action I can't think of anything right now, but I'll come back.
I am in favor of adding replay for several decision. Unfortunately, I don't think FIFA will do it because part of the game's drama is controversial calls, whether the fans like it or not.

As for the subs, I see two significant problems with adding more (at least several more). For one, it slows the game down significantly, especially when a player walks off to waste time. Secondly, this could be used to get yellow-carded players off the pitch, or worse, put players on to commit yellow-card offenses and then take them off.

I submit the following:
Potential Rule #1: No subs allowed after the 85th minute. I hate watching winning teams use substitutions in the last few minutes to waste time and disrupt the pace of the match. Those should be the most dramatic minutes of a close match, and instead they are often the slowest, and the player is obviously not being brought on as a game changer at that stage.

Potential Rule #2: Players leave the pitch for 5 minutes for a yellow card offense, like hockey players going to the penalty box. I'm not necessarily a fan of this idea, but it's worth discussing. It would more appropriately penalize teams for dangerous tackles or using tactical fouls to stop dangerous counterattacks.

Some that would definitely improve the game:

1) Video refereeing just like in rugby. The ref does the [ ] sign and a fifth ref (and get rid the **** box referees - they're useless) analyses the replay. **** the refereeing errors! They're only cool when they don't affect you. Better off without them.

2) A chip in the ball that indicates not only whether it's a goal or not but whether it's a corner/throw-in or not. You get the idea.

3) National team restrictions: once a player has played for a youth national team, he is not allowed to play for another country (at whatever level). I'm sick of seeing South Americans in Middle-East national teams.

As for the subs, I see two significant problems with adding more (at least several more). For one, it slows the game down significantly, especially when a player walks off to waste time. Secondly, this could be used to get yellow-carded players off the pitch, or worse, put players on to commit yellow-card offenses and then take them off.


I didn't mean more substititions allowed, just that you're given a bigger bench, so to speak. Still make 3 subs, but you have 11 players to choose from.

I didn't mean more substititions allowed, just that you're given a bigger bench, so to speak. Still make 3 subs, but you have 11 players to choose from.
Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, I'd go for that.

What do you guys think about stopping the minutes played when the ball is out of play? I think that would be more fair than stoppage time.
While stoppage time seems relatively arbitrary, I quite like that time isn't a significant factor in the game. In basketball and football, so much ends up hinging on how many seconds are on the clock at the end of the game, and that also leads to tactics that stop or run the clock.

3) National team restrictions: once a player has played for a youth national team, he is not allowed to play for another country (at whatever level). I'm sick of seeing South Americans in Middle-East national teams.

I also don't like seeing the extreme stuff like your example, but this is a bad idea IMO. There are tons of dual nationality players who switch confederations at some point and there's no problem with that IMO. First, I think most African sides would be screwed if they couldn't cap French players, secondly it puts a ton of pressure on kids to make binding decisions for the rest of their life.

Just to use an example that might do a better job illustrating my point than the words above, Neven Subotic would be playing for USA. I wish he was playing for USA, but he has a right to represent the nation of his birth.

video replays.

extreme actions on hard tackles, diving and time wasting.

Sometimes I think actually having no referee at all is better than the 6 they have now in Europe. Seriously, try it for one game.

Sometimes I think actually having no referee at all is better than the 6 they have now in Europe. Seriously, try it for one game.
Really?

I'm not 100% joking, actually. And please, you watch Portuguese games as much as I do. I always get the feeling that sometimes, if the referee wasn't there, the result would either be the same or better! Now 6 of them? It's just a goddamn mess.

I'm not 100% joking, actually. And please, you watch Portuguese games as much as I do. I always get the feeling that sometimes, if the referee wasn't there, the result would either be the same or better! Now 6 of them? It's just a goddamn mess.FWIW, the sport of ultimate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_(sport)) has no official referees. At high levels of play they have "observers" who can be consulted in the event of a disputed call, but the game's rules are otherwise self enforced by the two teams playing. It works better than you'd think.

I think it could work in Basketball too, the only difference in soccer is the penalty kick and the low scoring nature.

I'm not 100% joking, actually. And please, you watch Portuguese games as much as I do. I always get the feeling that sometimes, if the referee wasn't there, the result would either be the same or better! Now 6 of them? It's just a goddamn mess.
And let Pepe run rampant around the field? I don't think so.

You talk about Pepe like he's wheeled onto the pitch like Hannibal Lector.

You talk about Pepe like he's wheeled onto the pitch like Hannibal Lector.
I would never compare Pepe to anybody that clever.

Video replays all the way. Enough with payed referees!

I would imagine there would be all out brawls on any rivalry and derby without refs... but then again, maybe they are like fuel on a fire.

I don't think the players care nearly as much as the fans.

Then in that case you might as well get rid of security too in the stands and see what happens...

I didn't mean more substititions allowed, just that you're given a bigger bench, so to speak. Still make 3 subs, but you have 11 players to choose from.

They already have a mandatory roster of 23 for the finals of international tournaments. Do you mean to expand the subs list to 11 for intl friendlies and/or club matches too?

Instead of technology assuring everything, I'd like to see a simple rule whereby blatantly incorrect calls by refs can be appealed post match by the injured team. Putting egg on the refs' face would make them either atleast reconsider or consult with other officials before they would make a binding decision.

Yes, 11 subs for everything.

I would like to see more subs implemented, as well. If the score is 5-0 after 70 minutes, the manager might be more inclined to include youngsters, who would normally not make the bench. Though there shouldn't be more than 3 subs made.

I would also like to see more action after video replays have been observed for dives (ban) and dangerous tackles. I also really hate the rule in the PL where a player doesn't face action for misconduct when he's been booked for the action.

EDIT: Great Thread Idea Azrael, just noticed it.

I actually think a deeper sub bench hurts the lesser teams who can't afford the depth of a Chelsea or Barcelona or whatever. It could also hurt youth player development if all your best youngsters are sitting on the bench for the big club week after week instead of playing for the Reserves.

I agree and it would be frustrating that they won't play most of the time. They will only get to play in rare occasions when the team is leading by far. 11 subs would mean 75% of the players will just be sitting for the whole game. 7 is perfect IMO.