FIFA are considering new football rules

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
44,394
Location
Munich
They literally aren’t :lol:

Basketball is #3 in the world. Volleyball #6. Baseball #8. Football #9.
Boxing and MMA are also for all purposes American sports.
 

RedTiger

Full Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Messages
19,291
Location
Beside the sea-side, Beside the sea.

Crimson King

Full Member
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
882
Throw-ins should change because there are way too many foul throw-ins, barely any are given. At at this point in the game, who is really gaining an advantage from a foul throw-in? I always thoughts they should scrap the foul throw-in rule and let players throw it however they want, as long as they use two hands.
I remember reading somewhere that they only introduced the standard way of doing a throw-in because there used to be a player who was also a top bowler in cricket. The guy could arrow it over arm pretty much the length of the pitch.

Foul throw-ins are stupid because they're normally penalised when someone just drops it to a team mate a foot away, which is stupid. They slow the game down too much, let them just roll it to a team mate.
 

Jev

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
5,816
Location
Denmark
I’m not sure it will make much difference. The most egregious time wasting usually happens when the ball is on the pitch. Faked injuries, yapping at the referee etc. Generally when the ball is out of play they don’t waste too much time, as they know the ref will usually have his watch stopped.
Worded it poorly by saying out of bounds. The idea is to stop the clock when the ball is not in play so the clock would be stopped during what you're mentioning.
 

SS

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2016
Messages
4,329
Location
UK
Been waiting for the timekeeping one for a long time. Far, far better. Just need to add mic’d up refs and VAR.
 

meninred

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
1,297
To me the first rule i would consider changing is giving a penalty taker second chance to score from the rebound. To Me if he misses..he misses. It also severely undermines the heroics of the goalkeeper.
 

VeevaVee

despite the protests, wears Ugg boots
Scout
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
43,586
Location
Manchester
Think the stopping the clock and 30 min halves are not bad ideas at all, though perhaps go down to 40 minutes first.
Think it’s already been shown that playing time is actually only about an hour long anyway hasn’t it?
 

12OunceEpilogue

In perfect harmony
Scout
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
13,203
Location
Wigan
Sounds like they're still trying to go after the American cash.
If making some good changes that actually improve the game and lessen time wasting also happens to attract more American viewers then great. The 'Americanisation' of our sports has always been a pretty hilarious moral panic, as if European organisations and broadcasters only decided to milk their 'customers' for money by advertising the balls off them because of America. European suits love commercialising sport full stop, they're just less good at it.
 

hobbers

Full Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
11,712
Stopping the clock when the ball goes out of play is fine. The rest are a joke.

Yeh let's change football to appeal to Americans and brain dead tiktok users, who won't watch it whatever changes you make.
 

Jev

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
5,816
Location
Denmark
Stopping the clock when the ball goes out of play is fine. The rest are a joke.

Yeh let's change football to appeal to Americans and brain dead tiktok users, who won't watch it whatever changes you make.
Has to be in combination with reduced game time, though. Otherwise games would be way too long.
 

Jev

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
5,816
Location
Denmark
The anti-American comments in here are as stupid as they are funny.
Yeah, the conservative attitude from the football community has held the game back for years. Every rule change is an Americanization.
 

12OunceEpilogue

In perfect harmony
Scout
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
13,203
Location
Wigan
Stopping the clock when the ball goes out of play is fine. The rest are a joke.

Yeh let's change football to appeal to Americans and brain dead tiktok users, who won't watch it whatever changes you make.
I don't think the game will be made to more closely resemble any particular American sport though. I certainly hope not, I don't like any of their games personally.
 

Eli Zee

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
620
30 minutes a half.
The game clock stops when the ball goes out of play.
Unlimited subs.
Throw-ins played with feet.
5 minute suspension for a yellow card.

1) 30 minutes a half is unnecessary. Rather they just did what they did in the summer and add a small break in each half.

2) this is an idea I can get behind. Stop the clock when it's out. Why not? Let's everyone including players know accurately how much time is left.

3) unlimited subs is a bad idea. Too big of an advantage to squads with depth.


4) throw ins with feet? Dumb. Players will get blocked and can't throw it anywhere.

5) this isn't hockey. Yellow card is a warning. That simple.... maybe they should add an orange card and for people caught simulating take them out for 5 min + next yellow (or orange) is red.
 

hobbers

Full Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
11,712
I don't think the game will be made to more closely resemble any particular American sport though. I certainly hope not, I don't like any of their games personally.
The last 3 changes all make no sense other than just copying rules from basketball, nfl and hockey.

I dont see how throw ins detract from the spectacle of football. I'd like to hear anyone try and make a case for why we need to scrap them. Unlimited subs is obviously unfair to teams with smaller squads, and also doesn't add anything to the spectacle. Yellow cards go in the sin bin is just a joke presumably, obviously ripped straight from hockey.
 

lex talionis

Full Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
3,699
The only two rules that need to be added are the following:
  1. A sin bin for serious offenses that don't quite merit a straight red. The Chiellini foul on Baka comes to mind.
  2. Tweak the offside rule so that only the foot, and the rest of the body, can be offside.
Do that and you empower attacking footballing while maintaining some self-respect for the game we love.
 

kouroux

45k posts to finally achieve this tagline
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
82,078
Location
Djibouti (La terre des braves)
To me the first rule i would consider changing is giving a penalty taker second chance to score from the rebound. To Me if he misses..he misses. It also severely undermines the heroics of the goalkeeper.
It's a penalty by its name, the balance isn't supposed to be fair
 

Alex99

Rehab's Pete Doherty
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
13,011
Location
Barry
Fan of the stop-clock timekeeping, but think we need to do some test events before commiting to 30 minute halves. I'd be trailling 35 or 40 minutes first.

Not a fan of any form of sin bin. Not a fan of unlimited subs.

Absolutely baffled by the throw-ins change.
 

Peter van der Gea

Full Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2018
Messages
631
Rolling subs, clock stops between whistles, video checks, free flowing game; get rid of offsides and chuck in sticks and ice and you're basically there
Yeah, but you've got power plays and ice skates in there too. Plus you'd have to change the shape of the ball
 

12OunceEpilogue

In perfect harmony
Scout
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
13,203
Location
Wigan
The last 3 changes all make no sense other than just copying rules from basketball, nfl and hockey.

I dont see how throw ins detract from the spectacle of football. I'd like to hear anyone try and make a case for why we need to scrap them. Unlimited subs is obviously unfair to teams with smaller squads, and also doesn't add anything to the spectacle. Yellow cards go in the sin bin is just a joke presumably, obviously ripped straight from hockey.
I know sin bins from both codes of rugby, they work well and would really kick cynical foulers in the arse. The throw in one does look silly, like it was put in almost as a loss-leader so when they drop it from the final plans it'll look like a compromise. Unlimited subs looks to me like a change with player welfare in mind; it's in nobody's interest to see players break down because they've played a high-octane 60 minutes (:p) if they could have been subbed instead. Your point about squads with differing amounts of depth is fair but considering we've had five subs recently and there's not, as far as I can see, been a huge skew towards the bigger sides would suggest the difference between going to unlimited subs wouldn't be a huge game changer for fairness, but could just be one for player welfare.

Anyway I just don't buy these changes as an attempted Americanisation. It will still be football and thankfully will remain separate from the American games, which I find pretty awful to varying degrees.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
25,023
30 minutes a half.
The game clock stops when the ball goes out of play.
Unlimited subs.
Throw-ins played with feet.
5 minute suspension for a yellow card.

1) 30 minutes a half is unnecessary. Rather they just did what they did in the summer and add a small break in each half.

2) this is an idea I can get behind. Stop the clock when it's out. Why not? Let's everyone including players know accurately how much time is left.

3) unlimited subs is a bad idea. Too big of an advantage to squads with depth.


4) throw ins with feet? Dumb. Players will get blocked and can't throw it anywhere.

5) this isn't hockey. Yellow card is a warning. That simple.... maybe they should add an orange card and for people caught simulating take them out for 5 min + next yellow (or orange) is red.
1 and 2 are linked though. From memory the amount of football actually played in a 90min game (excluding all stoppages) averages at about 60min. Even if not all of those stoppages see the clocked stop, simply stopping the clock while keeping 45min games would increase the work load for players and real-time length of a football game by quite a bit.
 

zkap

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 19, 2018
Messages
151
Supports
Barça
This is coming from the same place as the Super League, and I don't mean the rule changes themselves, but the motivation behind it. It's just a cash grab.

Like others have said, the first problem here is that there really aren't any major flaws in the sport that need fixing. It's fine the way it is. Not perfect, but we don't need any major interventions. If we're going to change something, you have to consider the consequences and in this case I see advertising as the main goal. If they're going to stop the clock and reduce match time, the only real difference is the chance to have mini-breaks throughout the entire match, which means plenty of advertising. That's where it's going, half-time shows, lots of commercials and breaks will become standardized over time, you'll have time-outs etc. They want to chop up the match so they have room for commercials.

Also, these two major proposals (30 mins and stopping the clock) contradict the supposed main idea behind these changes, and that is catering to a younger audience that apparently can't stay focused long enough. If you have constant pauses to the match, during which nothing happens and the clock doesn't tick, how will that help the young ones keep their attention on the game instead of changing the channel?

If you want to stop time-wasting, it can't be simpler - just instruct the refs to be very strict with that element of the game. Basically, the closing 20 mins of the game, ref keeps an eye out of any time-wasting and if it happens, automatic booking. There would be cards galore for a time and then it would stop because ultimately it would be too costly to lose players to suspensions. This doesn't even require a rule change, but it would not be advert-friendly, so we have this instead.

I think these changes, be it in the form of a Super League or not, will be aimed at making the most money, and the best way of doing that will be to commercialize the sport as much as possible. This is why any real and substantial rule change, and not this throw-in BS, will in the end serve to commercialize football. A few rules, like clock-stopping, have this purpose, while other rule changes, like thrown-ins and substitutions, are not relevant but to me seem like they are there to make it less obvious what the changes are really about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mazhar13

Dirty Schwein

Has a 'Best of Britney Spears' album
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
16,227
Location
Behind You
Supports
Luton Town
Imagine they used the stop clock to make it exactly 30 mins a half.

A player unleashes a last second shot from outside the box and the time runs out just before it hits the back of the net.

Riot ensues :lol:
 

Dave Smith

Full Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
1,133
Supports
Anything anti-Dipper
Imagine they used the stop clock to make it exactly 30 mins a half.

A player unleashes a last second shot from outside the box and the time runs out just before it hits the back of the net.

Riot ensues :lol:
Shots that are taken prior to the end of the clock are typically allowed. It is only if the clock is already dead when the shot is taken that it is null.
 

Dave Smith

Full Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
1,133
Supports
Anything anti-Dipper
1 and 2 are linked though. From memory the amount of football actually played in a 90min game (excluding all stoppages) averages at about 60min. Even if not all of those stoppages see the clocked stop, simply stopping the clock while keeping 45min games would increase the work load for players and real-time length of a football game by quite a bit.
Football ranges from 25-35 minutes per half in any given game. I think Burnley a couple of seasons ago managed to get it down to 45 minutes for the entire game or something with their tactics.

I think their is an argument for 35 minutes rather than 30 but anything above that means that games would start end up being similar to those that go to extra time.
 

SirReginald

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
309
Supports
Chelsea
They make suggestions all the time, most are put where they belong, in the toilet. If only UEFA would do the same thing, their new rules suck too.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
25,023
This is coming from the same place as the Super League, and I don't mean the rule changes themselves, but the motivation behind it. It's just a cash grab.

Like others have said, the first problem here is that there really aren't any major flaws in the sport that need fixing. It's fine the way it is. Not perfect, but we don't need any major interventions. If we're going to change something, you have to consider the consequences and in this case I see advertising as the main goal. If they're going to stop the clock and reduce match time, the only real difference is the chance to have mini-breaks throughout the entire match, which means plenty of advertising. That's where it's going, half-time shows, lots of commercials and breaks will become standardized over time, you'll have time-outs etc. They want to chop up the match so they have room for commercials.

Also, these two major proposals (30 mins and stopping the clock) contradict the supposed main idea behind these changes, and that is catering to a younger audience that apparently can't stay focused long enough. If you have constant pauses to the match, during which nothing happens and the clock doesn't tick, how will that help the young ones keep their attention on the game instead of changing the channel?

If you want to stop time-wasting, it can't be simpler - just instruct the refs to be very strict with that element of the game. Basically, the closing 20 mins of the game, ref keeps an eye out of any time-wasting and if it happens, automatic booking. There would be cards galore for a time and then it would stop because ultimately it would be too costly to lose players to suspensions. This doesn't even require a rule change, but it would not be advert-friendly, so we have this instead.

I think these changes, be it in the form of a Super League or not, will be aimed at making the most money, and the best way of doing that will be to commercialize the sport as much as possible. This is why any real and substantial rule change, and not this throw-in BS, will in the end serve to commercialize football. A few rules, like clock-stopping, have this purpose, while other rule changes, like thrown-ins and substitutions, are not relevant but to me seem like they are there to make it less obvious what the changes are really about.
What pauses would occur under a stopped clock system that wouldn't occur under the current system?

I can see how the stopped clock would reduce stoppages, as you could no longer waste time by feigning injury. But I can't for the life of me see how it would create "constant pauses" that don't already exist.
 

Dave Smith

Full Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
1,133
Supports
Anything anti-Dipper
What pauses would occur under a stopped clock system that wouldn't occur under the current system?

I can see how the stopped clock would reduce stoppages, as you could no longer waste time by feigning injury. But I can't for the life of me see how it would create "constant pauses" that don't already exist.
Indeed. The unlimited subs one would be an issue. Unless they're rolling subs.