Remove this ad

Lead

Jun 6 16 10:32 PM

Tags : :


  • new penalty system: penalty box/sin bin, penalties for minor infractions like in basketball (including when advantage is played), harsher retroactive punishments for diving and violent behavior
  • clock must be stopped when play stops (game clock can be reduced to compensate)
  • substitutions must be made fluid and unlimited
  • offside rule must be less strict
  • goalkeeper must not be able to catch the ball
  • kicks from the penalty mark must be redone (penalty shootouts will be less common anyway with these rule changes because higher scoring games cause a less amount of draws)
  • signalling injured players must sit out for a minimum time or be treated on the field during play
The main reason most of these rule changes (or something similar) are needed is because there is not enough scoring opportunities in football for the scoreline to represent the true performance on the field to a satisfactory degree.

Last Edited By: abramjones Jul 3 17 8:02 AM. Edited 4 times

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

Jun 6 16 10:54 PM

All these sound like great proposals.  Perhaps we could also replace the goal posts with a small circular metal hoop, and then maybe the players should be able to use their hands to throw and bounce the ball.  Then we should replace the grass, maybe with some wooden gymnasium flooring.

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

Jun 7 16 1:19 AM

nfm24 wrote:
All these sound like great proposals.  Perhaps we could also replace the goal posts with a small circular metal hoop, and then maybe the players should be able to use their hands to throw and bounce the ball.  Then we should replace the grass, maybe with some wooden gymnasium flooring.

Sorry, but I don't think your ideas will fix the mathematical problem caused by lack of scoring opportunities in football (:

Sarcasm aside, you're clearly stating that if my rules were to be used it would be a completely different sport. But no, compared to the current game of football it would be considered a different variation at most. Often when things start out they gradually change over time, usually for the sake of improvement. Some things move very slowly, some things a bit faster. Unfortunately, football and many other sports evolve very slowly... not because they are perfect as is, just because people don't like change. Since football is pretty much the oldest sport largely played it has many primitive features that have not been fixed yet, though it should be said that most sports (and games in general) suffer from some type of lack of foresight. One of the main reasons for such retardation in the world of gaming and sports is the lack of need for improvement, therefore such progressive thinkers that could influence such traits usually do not take part in the realm of games and sports. In the world of science and technology improvement is extremely important, so things tend to change fast there relatively quickly, even in the face of religious fundamentalism.

Honestly though, the changes i suggest are not even that extreme with the exception of 1 or 2 things. Mostly it is common sense fixes, but if you're so accustomed to something that seemingly works for you it is natural human behavior not to want change, and even bitterly fight against improvement.

Last Edited By: abramjones Jun 7 16 1:58 AM. Edited 6 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,526 Site Admin

#3 [url]

Jun 7 16 9:35 AM

Football is relatively simple. That is why it has become the most popular game in the world by far.

The rules you posit smack of "Americanisation" - Europeans don't like the Americanisation of sports in general. All these sin bins and timeouts and nonsense - we don't like it. It disrupts the game. Also, these types of things are more likely to work in indoor sports. If you watch a game of American football, it is punctuated far too often. It's all about individual "plays" rather than a single flowing entity.

Quote    Reply   

#4 [url]

Jun 7 16 10:03 AM

I can live with harsher punishments for diving and violent behavior as well as clock must be stopped when play stops. For the rest your proposlas are a farçe and asking for a reaction Neil (nfm24) gave.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,526 Site Admin

#5 [url]

Jun 7 16 10:50 AM

Yes, these 2 seemed the most reasonable. Stopping the clock is difficult though - for example, in futsal, a match of 40 minutes playing time can take almost double that time to complete in real time. Clock is stopped when ball is not in play, and for free kicks, etc. Obviously, in football, this could result in matches lasting something like 2 hours 15 minutes instead of 1 hour 30.

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Jun 8 16 9:30 AM

I'm more and more convinced that penalty kicks must be abolished during a match. Fouls committed inside the box should be punished with a normal free kick. Penalties are too decisive and can cause a lot of polemics.
Penalty shoot-outs must be kept only to settle draws in official tournaments and knockout stages, exactly like it happens now, but during the 90 or 180 minutes they mustn't be used anymore.
This would be a first step to evade a lot of polemics and tensions.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,526 Site Admin

#7 [url]

Jun 8 16 9:41 AM

Free kicks inside the box already happen, but they are quite rare. Usually they are given for non-contact fouls (dangerous play) or some goalkeeper errors, like taking too many steps with the ball.

If they are introduced for all fouls, it could result in more dangerous tackles being attempted in the box (and also, ultra-defensive teams would no longer have the fear of fouling their opponents and this type of "10 defenders in the box" play might become more successful). Of course, a very dangerous foul (or deliberate handball) could still attract a red card, so we would probably see a rise in "slightly aggressive" fouling only.

Quote    Reply   

#8 [url]

Jun 8 16 2:44 PM

The solution is simple: zero tolerance towards violent fouls, both inside and outside the box. I can't stand for those referees who book those players who take their shirt off while celebrating, and then tolerate killer tackles.

Remember how many decisive games have been decided by fake penalties and how many polemics have been generated. It's time to change this rule. Moreover, referees can referee more serenely without such a huge responsability.

Quote    Reply   

#9 [url]

Jun 8 16 11:11 PM

[quotes from video]
> Scoring should more strongly correlate to "who played best on the field"
..
> make the "final score of a football match a more accurate depiction of the performance on the field"


Let's momentarily ignore the fundamental tautological flaw in this, and the vague and unquantifiable terminology, and just suppose that your premise makes sense.

You haven't demonstrated any correlation between your intended outcome and your suggested rule changes.  Why have you chosen these *particular* adjustments?  Your suggestions are arbitrary tweaks that could easily be replaced by another set of tweaks, and we wouldn't know which set was "better".  

Some of your rule changes may garner "face-value" approval or disapproval among fans, but these views are normally based on simple entertainment aspects or instant gratification of seeing somebody punished etc. They are adjustments to affect things that annoyed you, which is fair enough - there are some merits on that front alone.  But there is no evidence that they increase the scoring opportunities, or reduce upsets.  The best you could hope for is to appeal to "common sense", unjustified and unquantifiable, that some of the tweaks could possibly, maybe, result in a few more scoring opportunities. Maybe.   Though there would obviously be more effective ways to achieve that.


Furthermore, you haven't explained why it matters.  Why is higher "chance of upset" a bad thing?  Are you having gambling problems?  A need to see "justice" done?  Why is "more scoring opportunities" a good thing?  Attention deficit of fans?  Lack of perseverance and tactical nuance?  Childlike need to be continually rewarded for modicum of effort?

What is the point of sport?  To demonstrate superiority, and to have superiority confirmed?  "Scientific outcome"?  Not for me.  If those are important to you, then that is your view, but do not assume that they are axiomatic truths.  You are imposing the wrong filters upon what you see on the field.

There is no problem to be solved.  There is no need for a strong reliable correlation between "ability" and result.  Sport is not about who is "best".  It's about who wins on the day.  It's the same thing you failed to grasp on the other thread.


Quote    Reply   

#10 [url]

Jun 17 16 9:34 PM

TheRoonBa wrote:
Football is relatively simple. That is why it has become the most popular game in the world by far.

The rules you posit smack of "Americanisation" - Europeans don't like the Americanisation of sports in general. All these sin bins and timeouts and nonsense - we don't like it. It disrupts the game. Also, these types of things are more likely to work in indoor sports. If you watch a game of American football, it is punctuated far too often. It's all about individual "plays" rather than a single flowing entity.

You are completely incorrect here, these rules will make the game much more fluid (single flowing as you call it). Not sure if you even listened to what I was saying, but I mentioned that several times. And yes, my video about American Football is coming too, you are absolutely right, it is broken up and becomes complete nonsense (yes, timeouts are nonsense, but should not be compared to sin bins). As far as the Americanization, I don't think so. It's a blanket comment, but what is "American" about my proposal?

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#11 [url]

Jun 17 16 9:38 PM

TheRoonBa wrote:
Yes, these 2 seemed the most reasonable. Stopping the clock is difficult though - for example, in futsal, a match of 40 minutes playing time can take almost double that time to complete in real time. Clock is stopped when ball is not in play, and for free kicks, etc. Obviously, in football, this could result in matches lasting something like 2 hours 15 minutes instead of 1 hour 30.

Simply reduce the total time on the clock, this way we are watching a "single flowing" game as you call it instead of unnecessary time wasting. example, in association football each half could be 30 minutes instead of 45 minutes. I heard that in an average football game there is about 30 minutes of time wasting.

Quote    Reply   

#12 [url]

Jun 17 16 9:43 PM

Luca wrote:
I'm more and more convinced that penalty kicks must be abolished during a match. Fouls committed inside the box should be punished with a normal free kick. Penalties are too decisive and can cause a lot of polemics.
Penalty shoot-outs must be kept only to settle draws in official tournaments and knockout stages, exactly like it happens now, but during the 90 or 180 minutes they mustn't be used anymore.
This would be a first step to evade a lot of polemics and tensions.

Yes, they cause a lot of problems mathematically speaking also. This is why their effect but at least be minimized. In my video I am talking about minimizing their effect, making the game mechanic of penalty kicks more realistic in terms of score to performance on the field ratio. but i'm sure they could be done away with proper rules also.

Quote    Reply   

#13 [url]

Jun 17 16 9:51 PM

nfm24 wrote:
[quotes from video]
> Scoring should more strongly correlate to "who played best on the field"
..
> make the "final score of a football match a more accurate depiction of the performance on the field"


Let's momentarily ignore the fundamental tautological flaw in this, and the vague and unquantifiable terminology, and just suppose that your premise makes sense.

You haven't demonstrated any correlation between your intended outcome and your suggested rule changes.  Why have you chosen these *particular* adjustments?  Your suggestions are arbitrary tweaks that could easily be replaced by another set of tweaks, and we wouldn't know which set was "better".  

Some of your rule changes may garner "face-value" approval or disapproval among fans, but these views are normally based on simple entertainment aspects or instant gratification of seeing somebody punished etc. They are adjustments to affect things that annoyed you, which is fair enough - there are some merits on that front alone.  But there is no evidence that they increase the scoring opportunities, or reduce upsets.  The best you could hope for is to appeal to "common sense", unjustified and unquantifiable, that some of the tweaks could possibly, maybe, result in a few more scoring opportunities. Maybe.   Though there would obviously be more effective ways to achieve that.


Furthermore, you haven't explained why it matters.  Why is higher "chance of upset" a bad thing?  Are you having gambling problems?  A need to see "justice" done?  Why is "more scoring opportunities" a good thing?  Attention deficit of fans?  Lack of perseverance and tactical nuance?  Childlike need to be continually rewarded for modicum of effort?

What is the point of sport?  To demonstrate superiority, and to have superiority confirmed?  "Scientific outcome"?  Not for me.  If those are important to you, then that is your view, but do not assume that they are axiomatic truths.  You are imposing the wrong filters upon what you see on the field.

There is no problem to be solved.  There is no need for a strong reliable correlation between "ability" and result.  Sport is not about who is "best".  It's about who wins on the day.  It's the same thing you failed to grasp on the other thread.


Firstly, the only reason there is a lack of evidence for the results of my suggestions is because there is no experiments done. But anyone that has played football (or pretty much any other ball sport) could tell you that if the goalkeeper can't catch the ball and the offside rule is liberalized that there are going to be more scoring opportunities. Why argue this fact? It's not something that needs scientific research.

Your last argument is ridiculous, why? Because then why even have scoring in sports then? The point of the score is to represent the performance on the field. Are you telling me otherwise? The team who wins on the day should be the team who performed better on the field.

And no, you're taking me out of context. I'm not saying upsets are bad. There are 2 types of wins, deserved and undeserved. deserved: one team outplays the other team and the scoreline represents this fact. undeserved win: the winning team did not out perform the losing team, the score was a result of a fluke or a lack of chances (this is the equivalent to running an experiment too few times and trusting those results).

Last Edited By: abramjones Jun 17 16 9:54 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#14 [url]

Jan 27 17 5:16 PM

So that less offside idea... looks like a legendary striker might be onside with that (pun intended).

Not sure what to make of these, I'm presuming hoping that they're merely suggestions being floated about in comment as they have to go through several stages (including approval by IFAB) before they pass into the rulebook. Trial them in leagues till the cows come home, but be sure to have substantial evidence before coming back.

Ignoring all the on-pitch alterations for a second (frozen clock), the 55/60 game-per-year limit seems especially prone to abuse, especially with the increasing blame placed towards international matches (rather than the club tours which at least Van Basten is acknowledging the hypocrisy on), you can see a big club making sure their player hits the limit before the end-of-season to disqualify him playing for his country, or treating certain cup games with even less respect because they want to save adding to appearance totals, or a club over-achieving on all fronts and being forced into a weaker team for the business end of those competitions.

Plus if they define friendlies as counting to the total, do you count games in training as well where the reserves are invited as the easy-going opponents?

Quote    Reply   

#15 [url]

Jan 27 17 6:09 PM

> “That's all for money but we have to think about football and not money,” said Van Basten, who was hired by Fifa

!!?? Oh Marco, Marco Marco Marco...

It is a bit worrying that MVB is talking in the same terms as some clown on a forum, passing these ideas in idle chit-chat form instead of well-researched evidence-based proposals. Maybe they come later.

> be sure to have substantial evidence

Yes and furthermore, have some clear parameters of what "success" means in the trials. How to measure the level of improvement of [whatever aspect it is that is being picked on]

Quote    Reply   

#16 [url]

Jan 29 17 10:55 AM

nfm24 wrote:
Yes and furthermore, have some clear parameters of what "success" means in the trials. How to measure the level of improvement of [whatever aspect it is that is being picked on]
That's why I said extensive testing in leagues before even thinking of cementing something like he proposes. The '4th sub in extra time' is aimed at scenarios that happen quite rarely in the big picture, so can be just trialled in a few cups (less games) to the same effect. 'Orange cards' are something which would have a huge impact on the game, would need hundreds or thousands of games to test it on so a couple of seasons in a number of leagues would be needed just to get some basic results on how it works in practice. In the meantime would at least give those leagues a unique quirk to draw viewers. And if in the end it doesn't work, all that is lost is a couple of seasons of the league being under 100% 'proper' rules.

I just feel wary about letting any serious changes go straight to the international rulebook, obviously it can be taken out at any time, but as the pinnacle of the sport internationals should be held under what are widely agreed to be the 'perfect' rulebook of the time, no alterations unless absoloutly certain the change will stick. Of course with a natural fear of new and innovative ideas that's what the Home Nations are there for in IFAB...

Not sure what the testing process was, but something like the backpass rule seems a comparitively easy decision, fixing a clear flaw with the sport. These Van Basten rules on the other hand seem to be fixing 'problems' that are more subjective, in particular the '4 quarters' idea which is fixing a problem that probably only appears in the eyes of TV executives...

Quote    Reply   

#17 [url]

Jan 30 17 1:00 AM

Stuff like "4th sub in extra time" doesn't need a trial really, it is just a tweak that doesn't greatly affect general game play.

Something like changing the offside rule, or even sin bins, is far more drastic and the effect on the game play needs to be investigated properly. What is the collateral impact on tactical aspects etc? Does it just lead to other problems?

It also isn't always clear what it is that is supposed to be being improved by the changes. Or what is so wrong now that needs drastic steps to fix. Why mess around...

E.g. here are some proposals to increase the number of scoring opportunities (which is obviously the only valid aim of sport). I have no evidence but obviously these are still great ideas anyway.

1. no free-kicks - only penalty kicks for every offence
2. teams must have seven players in opponent's half at all times
3. no goalkeepers
4. the team without the ball is not allowed to run (walking only)

Quote    Reply   

#18 [url]

Jan 30 17 1:01 AM

NB: actually I do have a lot of evidence because these rules are more or less equal to the unwritten code of conduct which govern the sort of games I play in myself.

Quote    Reply   

#19 [url]

Jan 30 17 8:07 AM

nfm24 wrote:
It also isn't always clear what it is that is supposed to be being improved by the changes. Or what is so wrong now that needs drastic steps to fix. Why mess around...
Because some people somewhere (usually a TV pundit) say there's a problem (such as players crowding a referee), and if you repeat a narrative enough then the general public start to believe it's the worst thing ever. Never understood why in the joyous moment of an FA Cup pitch invasion the commentators always qualify it with a "we don't like to see it but it's understandable here" (if they say that every single time, does that mean they do enjoy it?).

I'm still on the fence about goal-line technology, it undoubtedly works, but it comes down to how much of that human element you want involved in making the important decisions. Plus there's that 'international standard' I mentioned before, obviously each match is played to the home team's technological capabilities but until each country has a system in place it can't be uniformly applied.

And funnily enough, the games I play only have one major rule - you kicked the ball over the fence, you go get it... smiley: laugh

Quote    Reply   

#20 [url]

Jan 30 17 10:16 AM

mattsanger92 wrote:
 you kicked the ball over the fence, you go get it... smiley: laugh

 1-May-1958 Katanga 5-3 Brazzaville  (abandoned*)
 * shortly before full time the Brazzaville players, in protest at the award of a penalty
  to Katanga, kicked the ball out of the stadium; the ball could not be found and there was
  apparently no replacement, so the referee abandoned the match.


Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help