[Football] Law changes that have actually improved the game

[Weststander]

The outlawing of the tackle from behind.

Although it has expanded the opportunities from cheat coaches and players orchestrating feigning, before that gifted players were hacked to pieces. Old school defenders boast that they raked the achilles and calves of forwards at the first opportunity, to either put them out of the game or make them nervous.

 

[Arthur]

No. The Basile Boli rule (not sure anyone calls it that tbf) was the law change that meant you could no longer tackle players from behind without risking a red card. Marco van Basten had just come back from long-time injury in some game against Marseille when Boli immediatly made a tackle like that, ending Van Bastens career. And as Van Basten was considered one of the best if not the best player at that point, FIFA finally saw the need to protect players from tackles like that. This resulted in a law change just before World Cup 94, where they decided that tackles from behind or with studs showing would result in red cards.

Thinking about it, it was called the "Van Basten law" and not the "Basile Boli rule"... but he certainly played a role in it.

The outlawing of the tackle from behind.

Although it has expanded the opportunities from cheat coaches and players orchestrating feigning, before that gifted players were hacked to pieces. Old school defenders boast that they've raked the achilles and calves of forwards at the first opportunity, to either put them out of the game or make them nervous.

Good one....although NEVER heard anyone refer to it as the Basile Boli rule.

 

[jackanada]

I wonder what the reaction was at the time to arguable the biggest law change in the last 100 years?

In 1925 the offside law was changed so that a player was offside unless at least 2 opponents were between him and the goal. Previously it was 3.

It had a huge impact. Goals in the football league rose from 4700 (2.54 per game) to 6373 (3.45 per game).

Many, many scoring records were set in the immediate years following this change as defences struggled to adapt, e.g. Dixie Dean's 60 goals in 39 league games in 1927/28.

Good shout. Part of the reason for the change was Newcastle defender Bill McCracken who invented and perfected the art of the offside trap to such great effect other teams had to copy him and the game got compressed into a narrow sliver either side of the halfway line and goals scored plummeted.
This was the motivation for the rule change, which in turn led to Herbert Chapman inventing the WM formation, which disappeared for the best part of a century before being revived by Potter for our 3-0 shellacking of the Toon.

 

[Uter]

Good shout. Part of the reason for the change was Newcastle defender Bill McCracken who invented and perfected the art of the offside trap to such great effect other teams had to copy him and the game got compressed into a narrow sliver either side of the halfway line and goals scored plummeted.
This was the motivation for the rule change, which in turn led to Herbert Chapman inventing the WM formation, which disappeared for the best part of a century before being revived by Potter for our 3-0 shellacking of the Toon.

Reading about it, it seems there was considerable resistance to this change as it took several years to get it adopted. I doubt there was universal joy at the resulting flood of goals that followed. First division goals per game didn't fall back to below 3 until 47/48.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

3 points for a win was the best change to the game IMO.

 

[beorhthelm]

...As for what WOULD improve the game - I've long been an advocate of the self-pass from free kicks. I can see absolutely no detriment to the game to allow a player to simply take a free kick and run with the ball (or a quick free kick if thats what he wants to do), providing its taken from the right spot. Saves time, stops arguments with the ref, and the fouled team gets a REAL advantage rather than the foulers being allowed time to get all their players back in position.

I'd like to see, in instances where a free kick has been given, and where the attacking player has had to leave the field of play because of receiving treatment, the offender also has to leave the field of play for the same duration thus taking the numerical advantage away from the defending team.

two very good suggestions, that would help remove the tactical foul. though i wonder if would encourage diving/light touch fouls.

 

[Simster]

Neil Maupay and Aaron Connolly may not agree, but adding a line of tape to act as a crossbar in 1866 was a major improvement to the game (an actual fixed crossbar was introduced 9 years later). Up until then goals could be scored at any height, same as Aussie rules.

As for what WOULD improve the game - I've long been an advocate of the self-pass from free kicks. I can see absolutely no detriment to the game to allow a player to simply take a free kick and run with the ball (or a quick free kick if thats what he wants to do), providing its taken from the right spot. Saves time, stops arguments with the ref, and the fouled team gets a REAL advantage rather than the foulers being allowed time to get all their players back in position.

Also, kick-ins instead of throws. Why not ?

Self-pass: agree completely
Kick-in: agree but feel there should be a restriction on how far the ball can travel before your team mate touches the ball. I don't like throw-ins, the fact that the ball starts high up immediately puts the receiving team at a disadvantage because that team has to control a high ball. Doesn't seem fair to me.

One change I'd make to corners is that I think the attacking team ought to be able to take the kick from any point on the goal line from the corner flag to maybe 10 or 20 yards further in, like a short corner in hockey. At the moment, it's too easy for the defending team to counter attack when the keeper plucks it out of mid air and bowls it out to a forward. With less distance for the kick to travel, I'd hope keepers and defenders would be at more of a disadvantage.

 

[Marty McFly]

The 10yard progression of a free kick for dissent worked well in my eyes. Such a shame it was discontinued.

 

[MattBackHome]

Yeah 3 points for a win, innit.

Thanks Jimmy Hill.

 

[Bry Nylon]

I'd like to see a ruling that certain offences in the 18 yard box are dealt with by means of a free kick instead of a penalty. It just seems disproportionate that every offence is rewarded with a free shot on goal from 12 yards and encourages attackers to 'look' for penalties.

 

[Questions]

I agree with a lot of what you say - the back pass rule, the subs, booking for diving and so on.

Where I disagree is on VAR. For me, what it has done is highlight some of the crap laws. If you're going to implement VAR, then simplify the offside rule. The only thing that should count are feet position. That way, it doesn't matter if the striker is pointing where he wants it played, just look at where his feet are when the ball is played - he's then either offside or he's not.

Similarly, clarify the handball rule and quickly. As you say, it is a complete mess.

VAR is not being used well at the moment, but it can be improved. I remember Gary Lineker insisting the back pass rule was going to be a complete disaster, and for the first 2 or 3 months it wasn't great seeing keepers who had never had to control the ball with their feet either panicking and hoofing it into touch or getting caught with the first touch of a blind rapist and giving comedy goals away. But over time, they've had to adapt and have done so and there isn't a sane person alive who wants to go back to the days before the rule existed.

All of this.......... especially the feet on offside ... I think the people who are responsible for changes in the law have always had the game at heart but inadvertently have made it worse with the handball and contact in the box blah blah ......... or is that the refs ?.....

 

[drew]

I'd like to see a ruling that certain offences in the 18 yard box are dealt with by means of a free kick instead of a penalty. It just seems disproportionate that every offence is rewarded with a free shot on goal from 12 yards and encourages attackers to 'look' for penalties.

Indirect free kicks aren't penalties!

 

[drew]

Following on from the scraping offside thread I was thinking about what law changes have actually improved the game since I've been following the game.

All I could think of was the back pass rule and increasing the number of subs from 1 to 2 (I'm not sure going from 2 to 3 has improved things to be honest and going from 3 to 5 can **** off!). Goal line technology (Villa/Sheff Utd aside) appears to be working very well.

Booking for diving is good but it should be black and white and its not.

The handball law is a hot mess now, offside similar. The professional foul was good when brought in but again they've tinkered with it so much it appears there is no consistency.

In my opinion VAR is the worst thing to ever happen to the game.

I've watched a year of sin binning being trialed non league and its crap.

Should we just stop tinkering with the laws full stop?

What's gone wrong with the sin binning?

 

[Bry Nylon]

Indirect free kicks aren't penalties!

First - apologies your post, above, now includes a note saying I've edited it. I haven't; I simply pressed the wrong button when I attempted to quote your post so I could reply to it

Anyway, thank you. I know indirect free kicks aren't penalties; and I think indirect free kicks should be awarded as an alternative except in the clearest case of a goal-scoring opportunity being denied.

The penalty we got at home vs. Liverpool when Henderson (I think) kicked Welbeck's foot. Did that really warrant a pen? A free kick maybe, but never a penalty. Massively disproportionate sanction for a clumsily swung boot. That sort of thing. Don't get me wrong - I was delighted we got the penalty but will be less happy when we are the receiving end of similarly rough justice. The number of penalties - especially soft ones - is ruining football.

 

[DavidRyder]

No passing back to the keeper - although TBH, at the time when goalies were allowed to pick up the back pass, it never really bothered me. But if we went back to it, I'm pretty sure I'd hate it.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

The outlawing of the tackle from behind.

Although it has expanded the opportunities from cheat coaches and players orchestrating feigning, before that gifted players were hacked to pieces. Old school defenders boast that they raked the achilles and calves of forwards at the first opportunity, to either put them out of the game or make them nervous.

I loved getting my tackle in from behind, as long as your tackle is clean, the man receiving it should have nothing to grumble about.
The art is to be fast into it, and to leave no prisoners, while hitting the target, with the bonus of a little follow-through for extra effect.

It was all great to see what their face would look like after the event.

 

[Weststander]

I loved getting my tackle in from behind, as long as your tackle is clean, the man receiving it should have nothing to grumble about.
The art is to be fast into it, and to leave no prisoners, while hitting the target, with the bonus of a little follow-through for extra effect.

It was all great to see what their face would look like after the event.

Bissouma is still able to tackle brilliantly when coming from behind the attacker eg against Newcastle. Hooking those long legs around the opponent, to steal the ball.

Contrast to the old fashioned assaults, it was one of the trademarks of the Bassett/Gould Wimbledon team, to win a mental supremacy in the first minutes of the game.

 

[marlowe]

The smoking ban...

 

[marlowe]

Concealed razor blades Peaky Blinders style

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Bissouma is still able to tackle brilliantly when coming from behind the attacker eg against Newcastle. Hooking those long legs around the opponent, to steal the ball.

Contrast to the old fashioned assaults, it was one of the trademarks of the Bassett/Gould Wimbledon team, to win a mental supremacy in the first minutes of the game.

Yes, I think if your Vinnie Jones of this world were allowed to dominate their physicality too much it could ruin it, as Wimbledon did.

But to a lesser extent the hefty centre back with flailing arms often assault Trossard and Maupay when they have got in their stride they both get brushed away and the ref gives nowt still.

Yet a clean tackle from behind gets penalised way too easy as far as I am concerned the tacklers are treading on a knifes edge when wanting to do this within the free-kick territory and it can change a match.

Tackling is an art form and the art should be expressed, or the game loses its edge, a decent tackle in the AMEX for example can change the atmosphere and the match................when it has customers in it!

Long live the quality tackle.