FIFA Considering rule change.

[SpacedX]

2 hours ago, jammie82uk said:

FIFA fortunately can’t change rules in the professional game on their own, I honestly can’t see why anyone would want any of these suggestions they don’t offer anything extra to the game

Well actually, some of them may do, as has been convincingly argued on this thread. Unlimited changes, kick ins and dribbling from corners however - I'm entirely with you. 

[Guest Manley Farrington-Brown]

14 minutes ago, Shit_arse said:

Kick in's instead of throw-ins is a no brainer. Will make the game so much quicker

 

I doubt it. A team gets a kick-in anywhere in their opponents half and it’ll be like a corner, waiting for the big men to come up from the back etc…

[Guest Manley Farrington-Brown]

The 30-minute half is interesting; I’d like to see how it works in practice, but worth trying.

Yellow card sin bins sounds quite good, but I agree with whoever said 10 minutes would be better than five.

All the others sound rubbish.

How much would Man City and Chelsea like unlimited subs - and how much advantage would it give them over everyone else??

[Robo61]

4 hours ago, Lincolnfox said:

Unlimited subs will mean more top talent going to the elite clubs as they know they will get game time and win trophies… that will be the death of football

30 mins per half? I personally like the idea but would prefer 40 mins… we can’t expect to pay the same amount of money for 66% of a product

I do like the sin bin rule… none of this “taking one for the team”… the others can do one as it would be like watching grass roots  

You do realise that the ball is generally in play for significantly less than 30 mins,  I'm sure there was one game in the Euro's that was barely over 20 mins for the second half.

[Robo61]

3 hours ago, jammie82uk said:

FIFA fortunately can’t change rules in the professional game on their own, I honestly can’t see why anyone would want any of these suggestions they don’t offer anything extra to the game

Not so sure thats right,  FIFA are responsible for the rules of the game worldwide.

[Robo61]

Would love to see the 30 mins per half introduced am sure it would reduce some of the time waiting that goes on.  I'm also intrigued by the sin bin proposal but need to see how it would work before I'd committ to supporting.  As for the other proposals  they all seem to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

[Webbo]

What gives them the right to change our game? Where's the demand for change? Isn't football already the world's favourite game by a mile? 

 

 

[oldbluefox]

I would like to see a proper 45 minutes each half. There's no need for 30 mins each way. Football is meant to be 45 mins each way and there is no reason nowadays that the clock could not be stopped to eliminate time wasting tactics which seem to have got worse; substitutions, goal kicks, free kicks, injuries, throw ins, feigned injuries. Do away with the extra time and employ the fourth official to stop and start the clock then we will get our money's worth without the lottery of how much time will be added on at the end.

As just one example how long does it take Maddison to stroll across from the other side of the pitch to take a corner (even when we're losing ffs!!!)?

[trabuch]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

What gives them the right to change our game? Where's the demand for change? Isn't football already the world's favourite game by a mile? 

 

 

And you can be sure that these changes aren't for the benefit of the fans.  I am shocked that there has been some enthusiasm for the changes here.

[HighPeakFox]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

What gives them the right to change our game? Where's the demand for change? Isn't football already the world's favourite game by a mile? 

Respectfully, when you say 'our game', who is 'us'? The people? Or the English? Or other?

 

Also, would you agree that there are areas of the game that could be improved? 

Edited 21 July 2021 by HighPeakFox

[Webbo]

Just now, HighPeakFox said:

Respectfully, when you say 'our game', who is 'us'? The people? Or the English? Or other. 

 

Also, would you agree that there are areas of the game that could be improved? 

I knew someone would try and squeeze some English nationalism narrative into this.

 

I mean ours, the fans, the people across the world who pour their money, time and emotion into it. 

 

A few tweaks in the offside rule, change what you can get carded for, fair enough. Fundamental changes like the length of the game, throw ins to kick ins, unlimited subs? No way. 

[jammie82uk]

29 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

Not so sure thats right,  FIFA are responsible for the rules of the game worldwide.

Nope they only get a vote, IFAB govern the professional game rules 

[AKCJ]

I genuinely have no problem with players time wasting. The problem I have is that referees are so lenient towards it.

[Kierzz]

13 hours ago, STUHILL said:

Don't like any of those changes apart from maybe yellow card sin bins.

It would stop those awful professional fouls, e.g Chiellini on Saka 

But would probably make players less likely than ever to be aggressive in the challenge.

Only thing I really want ditching, is extra time. Straight to pens in all comps! 

Like the Winks tackle against us in the final game. Professional fouls like that should have a bigger punishment

[RoboFox]

I sometimes wonder what the twats at FIFA actually spend their working days doing. 

 

Do they sit around and discuss this shit just to give themselves something to do? Some half-arsed attempt to try to convince people they aren't completely unfit for purpose?

[Xen]

Shorter halves and physically stopping the clock is the best idea on there but definitely needs testing.

 

Increased subs seems to work okay, but I'd want there to be a restriction in place for who can be named on the bench (i.e. 2 youth/academy players, at least). Unlimited subs (especially if its roll-on, roll-off) just skews the game in favour of richer clubs who can have larger squads, and potentially even entirely different setups (an XI for starting the game, and a different XI for defending a lead, perhaps). No thank you.

 

Sin bins could work, but I'm not sure it should be applied for every yellow. Itd need very specific criteria I think (like for Chiellini's shirt-pull on Saka at the Euros), but then it could become even more subjective than it already is.

 

Kick ins and Corner dribbling are both terrible ideas and I hope they get scrapped immediately. 

[HighPeakFox]

38 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I knew someone would try and squeeze some English nationalism narrative into this.

 

I mean ours, the fans, the people across the world who pour their money, time and emotion into it. 

 

A few tweaks in the offside rule, change what you can get carded for, fair enough. Fundamental changes like the length of the game, throw ins to kick ins, unlimited subs? No way. 

There was no attempt WHATSOEVER to squeeze English nationalism into it, I was just trying to find out what you meant. Given the English are supposed to have invented the game, it wasn't a ridiculous question to ask. 

 

I appreciate your answer otherwise. Sadly, the game only ever belonged to us notionally, a means to an end for the politically inclined. 

[Guest Manley Farrington-Brown]

55 minutes ago, oldbluefox said:

I would like to see a proper 45 minutes each half. There's no need for 30 mins each way. Football is meant to be 45 mins each way and there is no reason nowadays that the clock could not be stopped to eliminate time wasting tactics which seem to have got worse; substitutions, goal kicks, free kicks, injuries, throw ins, feigned injuries. Do away with the extra time and employ the fourth official to stop and start the clock then we will get our money's worth without the lottery of how much time will be added on at the end.

As just one example how long does it take Maddison to stroll across from the other side of the pitch to take a corner (even when we're losing ffs!!!)?

I take your point, but with the best will in the world 45 minutes of actual ball-in-play football would take flipping ages! The current 45 minutes takes into account the fact that the ball isn’t in play all the time. I think the 30 minute half idea is worth looking at. It may well turn out to be a complete waste of time, but no harm in trying it out.

[Oxfordfox83]

6 hours ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

30 mins per half of football in play. Out of 90 minute games currently, the ball is usually only in play for 55-60 mins. So we would not lose anything price value wise in terms of action seen. It just means constant time stopping.

Definitely true, but we’re then a very short step from ‘Time Outs’ and ‘Time outs brought to you by NBC’ 🤢

Edited 21 July 2021 by Oxfordfox83

[paulski]

Need to sort out VAR before making further changes to the game. For me its just confused the entire decision making process for the officials and from a spectator experience lots of the decisions are a joke, whats the point for the official watching on the screen to just agree with the ref (as per the Euro final decisions).

 

Would like to see a stop watch but not less game time, also feigning injury should be bookable.

[KrefelderFox666]

59 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I knew someone would try and squeeze some English nationalism narrative into this.

 

I mean ours, the fans, the people across the world who pour their money, time and emotion into it. 

 

A few tweaks in the offside rule, change what you can get carded for, fair enough. Fundamental changes like the length of the game, throw ins to kick ins, unlimited subs? No way. 

Other than the sin bin/carding, I don't think many people on here like anything else that has been proposed.

 

I know change always comes with fear/uncertainty, but a lot of times change is what is required to move on. Football is no different. So many rules have been added/adjusted/removed over the years, not all are bad for the game and the enjoyment. Of course, not all rules really work out as maybe expected but generally changes happen (and without major detriment to enjoyment).

[KrefelderFox666]

8 minutes ago, Oxfordfox83 said:

Definitely true, but we’re then a very short step from ‘Time Outs’ and ‘Time ours brought to you by NBC’ 🤢

Yes, personally I would rather referees get better at adding time on and being consistent. Basing it on time the ball was actually in play. Don't need to stop the clock on the gametime to work that out.

 

The amount of times a player gets treatment for 5 mins, other stoppages, subs etc. and only 3 mins get added. Confusing. I don't mind it if the game is over (e.g. 3/4 goals to the good etc.).

[fuchsntf]

Have a sneaky  feeling, there are American-hands in this....and Dont understand the skills needed to defend or attack the balls at different times & scenarios...

 

corners are Part of our Basic Football & skill...So allowing dribbling would be BShit & for players who cant Think of 1-2s & triangles, or Simply cant cross..

besides Maddison needs a few more  years before he can Master it...

 

Sin bins...Yes please..!!

 

FIFA antics...just Another Brick in the wall,leave our football alone..

I cant Think of One Eufa/FIFA rule  change in my 67+yrs,that they have brought in alone,without peer /media /Fans having First thoughts...

Again this isnt European/S.American thoughts....This is American-business-influence...or the dumbing down Process as begun  & took hold...

 

Sorry I mean the ideas are...

Edited 21 July 2021 by fuchsntf

[yorkie1999]

How do you sin bin a goalie? Is running it into the corners and stopping the opponent getting the ball considered time wasting? What happens the first time a game is 3 hours long but only 60 minutes in play?

[jammie82uk]

2 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

How do you sin bin a goalie? Is running it into the corners and stopping the opponent getting the ball considered time wasting? What happens the first time a game is 3 hours long but only 60 minutes in play?

Basically that will be allowed on the pitch, the clock will stop every time the ball goes out of play and will restart when the ball comes back into play