Improving the Beautiful Game – Lessons From the Yanks?
// September 13th, 2008 // Uncategorized
A couple of weeks ago the normally entertaining Bill Edgar over at The Times Online blogged about 10 Rule Changes to Improve Football. The list was very unimaginative and poorly thought out with such ideas as ‘scrap the rule that forces injured players to leave the pitch after receiving treatment’ bizarely followed by ‘automatically stop the game if a player falls and remains on the ground for 3 seconds’. Can you imagine if a player is through on goal and suddenly half the members of the opposing team collapse to the ground as if hit by snipers. Don’t think it wouldn’t happen. Anyway, the list got me thinking about what ideas we could take from American sports and apply to the nearly perfect beautiful game to improve it. Here’s my top 5:
- I’ve always been impressed by the way the umpires in NFL clearly explain each decision to the crowd / TV viewers by way of a mic. Certain soccer referrees suffer from a kind of God complex where they deem themselves so superior to everyone else in the ground that they don’t even have to explain their decisions to the players involved. Even if you disagree with a referee’s decision, having them publicly explain their decision can only lower the feelings of outrage.
- I see no reason why we still persist with the crazy secrecy of time keeping. The scoreboard could contain a large clock (a la Ice Hockey) under control of the referee (or even the 4th official). Players will surely cut down on time wasting and play acting if they can see that the clock is stopped and it’s surely going to be less aggravating for opposition fans if they know that the foreigner (only foreigners fake injury) writhing on the ground is not dimishing the amount of time they have to gain an equaliser. As a further bonus, imagine all the home crowd counting down in unisom the final 10 seconds of a famous victory!
- The current system of extra time and penalties is far from perfect (hence all the failed attempts at improvements lately; golden goal? silver goal?). The NASL had a shootout system whereby an attacking player had a limited amount of time to dribble from the halfway line and shoot past the keeper. It offers all the benefits of penalties (quick, exciting, not predetermined) but requiring more technique and offering a bit more drama. Check out the following on YouTube (2:25) to see what I’m talking about.
- If you don’t like the idea above, what about taking a leaf out of baseball and continue the match until one team emerges as winner. To ensure we don’t have games actually playing for eternity, we could force each team to remove a player every five minutes.
- Sin bins. This one’s got to be a no brainer. There is so much cynical infringement and bending of rules going on that just isn’t punished. For some reason referees are terrified of penalising somebody for shirt pulling even though it can be just as decisive in impeding the opposition team as a handball or bad tackle. How many times do you see a referee running towards a perpetrator of a cynical foul reaching for his breast pocket only to remember the player has already being booked and chickening out of showing the card. A punishment in-between a sending off and a free kick is needed and a Sin Bin is the obvious contender to help clean up the game.
That’s my short list to get started, but I’m sure there’s lots more we could incorporate from US sports, what are your ideas?
posted by Cass
9 Responses to “Improving the Beautiful Game – Lessons From the Yanks?”
Leave a Reply
- john@York UK said: I don't know if this fits in here properly and as ...
- Alain said: Lazar, agree with you that Big Mo is going to have...
- victor said: I believe that Real Madrid is missing a center for...
- john@York UK said: Well, Ronaldo will have plenty of time for normal ...
- admin said: ab, it is kind of uncanny about Nasri......
- Lazar said: Ramos was teeeewwwible today. I've never understoo...
- Welcome to Manchester
- The Most Important World Cup Lineup of All
- 'Hand of Frog' - Understanding the Backlash
- Men Versus Boys
- Shame On You, On-ye-wu
Sin bin? In the U.S. it’s called a penalty box, at least in hockey. Not a bad idea, actually.
Soccer would definitely be improved if they copied the fighting rule in Hockey. Allowing 2 players to go at it within certain limitations would definitely make it more exciting and help prove to us Americans that not all soocer players are namby pamby divers.
Gianluca Vialli (formerly one of the best strikers in the world and now that rare thing, an interesting pundit!) wrote a really good book on footy called ‘The Italian Job’ and he made a really good argument for both sin bins and clock stopping. I would suggest anyone that has not read it go find a copy, but his arguments went something like this….
Clock – FIFA expect games to average around 33 minutes of actual play in a half (including injury time) Since injury time never seems to be more than about 4 minutes regardless of how many stoppages etc. so players know they can run down the clock by rolling around holding some part of their anatomy as though it has recently come into contact with a blow torch. To get round this we should just play 30 minute halves, where when the whistle is blown, the clock stops…voila, no more time wasting as since the clock is not moving, no gains etc. and people still get to see 30 minutes(ish) per half. I would add one more thing to this and steal an idea from rugby, which is that the game stops when the clock reaches zero and the ball goes dead – no more of those ludicrous things when the whistle gets blown as a corner is taken.
Sin Bins – the problem with yellow cards is that they do not affect the team that is the subject of the bad challenge. A yellow card means that the player might get a suspension, but this will be the following week, how is that any good when the guy just took out your man? A sin bin would allow the ref to have a first offence 3 mins, second offence 5 mins, third offence off, with the option to penalise someone more harshly if the offence warrants it (eg go straight to the 5 min or sending off)
The other thing that gets used in so many sports from tennis to rugby and most US sports – replays and other technology. The richest, most popular sport in the world still has things happen like a non-goal being given last weekend (Reading against Watford) and Liverpool having a goal disallowed for offside, when it blatantly wasn’t.
Oh and while we are on the subject of offside…..argh! FIFA should take a leaf from hockey’s book (that is field hockey just so we are clear!!) and look at abolishing the rule. Hockey tried it and found that teams that tried the goal hanging approach gained no advantage and hence they did away with the rule….now with the current offside rule that nobody could ever be applied consistently, you would have thought they would at least give that idea a try?
Large clocks on display, stopping the clock on the ref’s whistle and subsequently eliminating stoppage time are terrific ideas.
As a fan of penalties for the sole reason I’m under the strong opinion that if you’re not good enough to win in 120 minutes of open play then a lottery is fair and penalties are exciting for all the neutrals out there. No its not perfect, but its conclusive, exciting and the logic given just now is 100% sound.
France V Brasil in 1986 was the only game I have ever seen that was so so good it should have been replayed. As an England fan I could hate pens, but I don’t because being unbiased … you make your own luck in football and whilst we may have been unlucky, we have also never been good enough to undoubtedly deserve to win.
So … to the alternatives … I believe any form of golden/silver goal leads to frightened and defensive play. Whilst removing a man every 5 mins and waiting for someone to score is oft suggested I think it would be as dull as golden/silver goal extra times and leave a shallow feeling afterwards. I think the fact that Silver goal extra times (offering the opponent the rest of the half to respond if scored against) are more exciting than Golden Goal games (which end when one team scores), and somehow this pays further testimony to my argument against both.
To give an emotional viewpoint on the same topic: As a Liverpool fan I far preferred the feeling of our famous penalty wins of 2005 and 1984 to the 2001 UEFA Cup Golden Goal win against Alves (All games were incredibly exciting and the fact we hadn’t won anything for years before meant the UEFA cup was as improtant to us Liverpool fans at the time as the EUROPEAN CUP (yes … I said European Cup not the Champions League – It should be a cup of champions … but that’s a different topic altogether).
So … if you buy my argument that if you’re not enough better than the other team to win in 120 minutes of open play then the crowd are entitled to an exciting finish we have two options remaining:
1. PENALTIES – Still my choice, having been on the winning and losing end of both in important games
2. CASS’s suggestion of running at the keeper from the 35 yard line with 5 seconds to score
My choice is still option 1 as I think penalties will result in more goals. But I agree option 2 provides an interesting alternative.
One final example: After a boring 0-0 in the 1994 Brasil V Italy World Cup Final, those at the game were entitled to see some goals and with penalties they got them. As a life long Brasil lover it left a slightly hollow feeling from winning, but that was deserved … On the night Brasil played crap. I could even have taken (just) an Italy win from penalties … them being the team I love to hate ever since they put the greatest Brasil side of my lifetime out of the world cup in 1982: http://www.planetworldcup.com/SPECIALS/brazil82.html
Planet World Cup is another site I’d recommend adding to your linked sites guys. Enjoy your next penalty shoot-out!!
Rich – Wasn’t the Alves winner an o.g. anyway? A very unsatisfactory way to win a game (unless it’s a player you particularly dislike commiting the act!)
As to the suggestions, here’s my thoughts:
1) Totally agree – when I first saw an American Football game I was really impressed by the way the referees clarified everything both with a linked up microphone and also the hand signals indicating the kind of infringement that has taken place. They even a guide to all the signals in the match program if you didn’t really have a clue what was going on (as this was taking place in England, of course no one did…maybe even the refs themselves). By indicating the type of foul it will probably urge the officials to be more cautious in making snap decisions, or being influenced by a home crowd because they would need to ‘justify’ their decisions, rather than blowing the whistle because they think they saw something happen in a crowded penalty area. I also like the idea of a ref having to announce “PERSONAL FOUL…ROUGHING THE LEFT-BACK!” to an abusive crowd!
2 Not sure about this one. Are you saying we should stop the clock so we genuinely get 90 mins of play? A change like that would fundamentally alter the game in more ways than you would think. As current estimates suggest that during a typical game, the ball is in play around 60-65 mins you’ll find that games will finish much, much later than they currently do. Could be an issue for midweek/evening kick-offs? Rugby Union switched to the stop-clock approach because referees already added sufficient stoppage time to cover delays, it made more sense in playing to 80 mins rather than (in the most extreme cases) over 10 minutes of stoppage time. The final objection would be that the policy of FIFA is ensure the same laws are applied at all levels of the game – what’s good for the Premiership, is good for any minor league as well – and this would be seen as a gimmick for the big leagues. While I think about about it, why not adopt a hooter at full time as is done in Rugby League. When it’s heard the game remains active until the ball goes dead, then the game ends!
3) You say penalties aren’t perfect but everyone kind of enjoys them and are simple enough to understand. I’ve no real objection to a run-up but it’s hardly a more genuine measure of skill – how often during a game does a player get to run unopposed from the centre-circle to take on the goalie? I think a penalty is a far more common occurrence. Why not just do the Crossbar challenge?
4) Again possibly but removing a player every five minutes is gimmicky. What if a player is sent off whilst leaving the pitch (perhaps though time wasting and receiving a second yellow) – does his team get penalised?
5) No brainer. I’ve been saying this for years and it works really well in Rugby. It’s introduction is essential now we have card-happy refs and rule makers that insist on mandatory cards for certain fouls. Sin-binning for 5/10 mins for minor offences give immediate advantages to the wronged team and doesn’t spoil the overall spectacle of the game. How often has a great game been ruined by an early red card (either given correctly or incorrectly). Not much fun when you’ve spent £40-odd to get in to see it too!
Anyway some some rambling thoughts there!
90 minutes of in-play football would be far too much so I agree the actual time would have to be shortened.
I also love the idea of the buzzer going and everybody knowing that the next time the ball goes out of the play the game’s over. If you have the ball and are behind you have to score from that play while the other team are going to be hurtling themselves at you to send the ball into touch. Could make for some great drama.
With regard to the sin bin, the only problem I can think of is that the team who loses a player for 10 minutes might just play hardcore defensive football until their player returns. Maybe requires a bit of further thought.
I think I’ll return to the penalty discussion in another post as I have a better idea.
Please stop calling it the sin bin. Please.
BARCA BARCA
what a match for the catalan derby with the stadium in flames messi scores in 100 min could not get any better.
Thanks to the great Henry to bring the game back to a draw in the 82 min
what a great blog