[Football] Possible new football rules

[Swansman]

The laws of the game change all the time and FIFA traditionally tests new rules at different levels before making decisions. Not everything turns permanent: to give one example, they tried timeouts at the U16 World Cup in Ecuador 1995 and the FIFA World Cup that same summer. But a lot of rule changes stick if they turn out well in the trials.

Currently they are trying five new rules in youth competitions in various countries:

1. Self-pass. Players can choose to dribble from free-kicks, corner, goal kicks and...
2. Kick-ins. Instead of throw-ins they are trying again (like in the U17 World Cup in Australia 1993) with kick-ins, but this time around you can dribble with the ball and you only have five seconds (unless the ref deems it impossible due to the ball going into the stands or whatever) before the opponent gets it instead.
3. Set amount of time. 60 minutes with the ball in play rather than the 90 now. Would increase the number of minutes with the ball actually in play.
4. Sin bins. Dissent/rude language punished by being sent off for 10 minutes.
5. Unlimited subs.

What do you think of these rules? Personally I wouldnt be surprised to see any of them except for unlimited subs.

 

[timbha]

4 and possibly 3 might be beneficial, the others are tinkering for the sake of it. Leave our game alone

 

[withdeanwombat]

In 2) would VAR be used to decide if the time limit has passed?

 

[beorhthelm]

1. yeah, no reason not to.
2. stupid
3. stupid on toast.
4. yes.
5. no.

anything timed is stupid, requires the ref to watch their wrist rather than the game.

 

[macbeth]

anything timed is stupid, requires the ref to watch their wrist rather than the game.

Or just get an independent timekeeper like in other sports?

 

[Easy 10]

I've long been a fan of the self-pass rule. Works brilliantly in hockey, it would be just as good in football.

There is literally no downside to it.

 

[beorhthelm]

Or just get an independent timekeeper like in other sports?

are there? so another official, another technology, another rule applied to professional tier not to lower tiers.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Would like to see the trial on 3

 

[vagabond]

The laws of the game change all the time and FIFA traditionally tests new rules at different levels before making decisions. Not everything turns permanent: to give one example, they tried timeouts at the U16 World Cup in Ecuador 1995 and the FIFA World Cup that same summer. But a lot of rule changes stick if they turn out well in the trials.

Currently they are trying five new rules in youth competitions in various countries:

1. Self-pass. Players can choose to dribble from free-kicks, corner, goal kicks and...
2. Kick-ins. Instead of throw-ins they are trying again (like in the U17 World Cup in Australia 1993) with kick-ins, but this time around you can dribble with the ball and you only have five seconds (unless the ref deems it impossible due to the ball going into the stands or whatever) before the opponent gets it instead.
3. Set amount of time. 60 minutes with the ball in play rather than the 90 now. Would increase the number of minutes with the ball actually in play.
4. Sin bins. Dissent/rude language punished by being sent off for 10 minutes.
5. Unlimited subs.

What do you think of these rules? Personally I wouldnt be surprised to see any of them except for unlimited subs.

Is this the first thing you thought of when you got up?

 

[Guinness Boy]

1 - yes please!

2 and 3 can go jump in a very deep lake

4 - makes sense

5 - only in amateur veterans. Rolling subs works brilliantly if you're a fat unfit 40 something welder who needs a fag every 20 minutes. Not so much for professional athletes.

 

[Milano]

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No

 

[Swansman]

Is this the first thing you thought of when you got up?

Yes.

 

[Seagull27]

The laws of the game change all the time and FIFA traditionally tests new rules at different levels before making decisions. Not everything turns permanent: to give one example, they tried timeouts at the U16 World Cup in Ecuador 1995 and the FIFA World Cup that same summer. But a lot of rule changes stick if they turn out well in the trials.

Currently they are trying five new rules in youth competitions in various countries:

1. Self-pass. Players can choose to dribble from free-kicks, corner, goal kicks and...
2. Kick-ins. Instead of throw-ins they are trying again (like in the U17 World Cup in Australia 1993) with kick-ins, but this time around you can dribble with the ball and you only have five seconds (unless the ref deems it impossible due to the ball going into the stands or whatever) before the opponent gets it instead.
3. Set amount of time. 60 minutes with the ball in play rather than the 90 now. Would increase the number of minutes with the ball actually in play.
4. Sin bins. Dissent/rude language punished by being sent off for 10 minutes.
5. Unlimited subs.

What do you think of these rules? Personally I wouldnt be surprised to see any of them except for unlimited subs.

1. Yeah would he keen to see this given a try

2. Nah. Makes throw-ins (kick-ins) too much of an advantage. I like the idea of the 5 second rule to take it though

3. Awful. Stoppage time is an integral part of the game that has produced so many amazing moments, would hate to see it changed.

4. Wouldn't mind, but why not just enforce the current rules stronger? 1st sign of dissent or rude language = yellow card, and mic up the referees. It would soon stop.

5. Nope. Favours richer teams too much.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I would like to see all these and possible others triallied. It's called 'doing the experiment'.

On other forums people discuss whether some plant or malaria drug is useful in Covid. I don't bloody know. Do the experiment and come back to us when you find out.

I would urge, however, that one change should be trialled at a time. When the outcome is 'better' or 'not better' 'for the game' (measured in units of Opinion rather than fact) if you change more that one variable at a time you won't be able to tell which changed the 'outcome'.

Yes, yes, I know that you can objectively test some changes. Such as VAR. Are more decision correct than before VAR? Yes, overwhelmingly so. But this is not how many (most?) fans decide on value. Overall, for many, VAR has made the game worse. Full stop.

So, yes, experiment, but with the caveats (on evidence and interpretation of outcome) above.

 

[vagabond]

Yes.

Fair enough. Just thought I’d establish that [emoji6]

 

[Swansman]

What do people have against kick/dribble-ins?

Throw-ins more often than not punishes the team that gets them. In more than 50% of the cases, the opponent gets the ball within three seconds after the throw, meaning that just kicking the ball over the sideline is a decent strategy. I think throw-ins, much like back passes or tackles from behind, wouldnt be missed once gone.

 

[trueblue]

Interesting that there seems to be pretty broad agreement on the good ones. Not that it tends to make a lot of difference to the lawmakers these days. Quicker free-kicks could be brilliant and sin bins are not a bad idea, although I'm not convinced dissent is the best reason to use them. Independent time-keeper, possibly - not sure the loss of stoppage time matters as it would still be thrilling during the final couple of minutes, although might lead to teams time-wasting more with the ball in play if they know exactly when the whistle will go. The kick-ins thing sounds shit.

 

[Johnny RoastBeef]

Or just get an independent timekeeper like in other sports?

For grass roots football someone needs to invent a smart whistle watch combo that stops and starts the clock when blown.

 

[beorhthelm]

What do people have against kick/dribble-ins?

Throw-ins more often than not punishes the team that gets them. In more than 50% of the cases, the opponent gets the ball within three seconds after the throw, meaning that just kicking the ball over the sideline is a decent strategy. I think throw-ins, much like back passes or tackles from behind, wouldnt be missed once gone.

the point of throw-ins is suppose to be simply a way to restart play. making it a free kick would be disproportionate.

 

[Swansman]

1. Yeah would he keen to see this given a try

2. Nah. Makes throw-ins (kick-ins) too much of an advantage. I like the idea of the 5 second rule to take it though

3. Awful. Stoppage time is an integral part of the game that has produced so many amazing moments, would hate to see it changed.

4. Wouldn't mind, but why not just enforce the current rules stronger? 1st sign of dissent or rude language = yellow card, and mic up the referees. It would soon stop.

5. Nope. Favours richer teams too much.

Are these amazing moments because of stoppage time itself though? Or is it just because its the dying minutes of a game, which is something that wouldnt change with a new system. I think more about the opposite: that you can make every free kick, throw in, corner and goal kick take 30+ seconds when you are 1-0 up is something that prevented a lot of amazing moments.