Boxing and MMA are also for all purposes American sports.They literally aren’t
Basketball is #3 in the world. Volleyball #6. Baseball #8. Football #9.
FIFA are considering new football rules
- Thread starter kouroux
- Start date
Sounds like they're still trying to go after the American cash.
But we've "got our game back" innit.
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.
Not to mention the US based PGA Tour, which is by far the most popular / most watched golf tour. (Golf is #10 worldwide)
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.
Been waiting for the timekeeping one for a long time. Far, far better. Just need to add mic’d up refs and VAR.
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.
Think it’s already been shown that playing time is actually only about an hour long anyway hasn’t it?
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.
The anti-American comments in here are as stupid as they are funny.
Has to be in combination with reduced game time, though. Otherwise games would be way too long.
Yeah, the conservative attitude from the football community has held the game back for years. Every rule change is an Americanization.
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.
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.
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.
Stupidity. Every rule.
Of course you'd say that. It makes your username redundant.
Haha. I didn't even thought about that.
It is the sporting equivalent of “they’re takin our jobs!”
The only two rules that need to be added are the following:
- A sin bin for serious offenses that don't quite merit a straight red. The Chiellini foul on Baka comes to mind.
- Tweak the offside rule so that only the foot, and the rest of the body, can be offside.
It's a penalty by its name, the balance isn't supposed to be fair
I'm afraid next things they'll introduce is a shot clock (like the 24 seconds for basketball) and timeouts 
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.
Not a fan of any form of sin bin. Not a fan of unlimited subs.
Absolutely baffled by the throw-ins change.
Yeah, but you've got power plays and ice skates in there too. Plus you'd have to change the shape of the ball
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 (
) 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.
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.
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 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.
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
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
“Thayre taykin err jerbs!”
I'm afraid next things they'll introduce is a shot clock (like the 24 seconds for basketball) and timeouts
Bruno likes this.
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
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.
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.
All except throw-ins are great improvements
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.
Clock stopping when the ball is out of play and no extra time I can get on board with. The rest I really don't need.
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.
Kick-ins (along the ground) would be great.
Throw ins are stupid.
Throw ins are stupid.
Stuff I like to see changed
- stopping the clock at injuries, free kicks, throw ins so time wasting makes no more sense. It should be the end of play acting.
- red carded players should be replaced by another player. 10 vs 11 is too much of a disadvantage and it changes the game too much. Exciting games often get killed because of one rash tackle.
- to discourage players making horrible tackles, extend the suspension to 5 games
- no more passes to the keeper from own half, this encourages players to make runs and be available to receive a pass and it ups the tempo
and now for the big bomb, I want the end of penalties. They are always a cheap way to win a game, there is no consistency in what is a penalty and what is not and it completely eradicates diving.
I propose a fault in the penalty area to be awarded with for example a penalty corner like hockey, another possibility is just a shot at goal with a wall from where the fault was made. Basically anything that makes it harder to score a goal. Players get cheap penalties all the time and it is irritating. Another idea is if a player makes a fault in the area he gets an immediate red card and gets replaced by a teammate. This should result into no more foul play and diving
- stopping the clock at injuries, free kicks, throw ins so time wasting makes no more sense. It should be the end of play acting.
- red carded players should be replaced by another player. 10 vs 11 is too much of a disadvantage and it changes the game too much. Exciting games often get killed because of one rash tackle.
- to discourage players making horrible tackles, extend the suspension to 5 games
- no more passes to the keeper from own half, this encourages players to make runs and be available to receive a pass and it ups the tempo
and now for the big bomb, I want the end of penalties. They are always a cheap way to win a game, there is no consistency in what is a penalty and what is not and it completely eradicates diving.
I propose a fault in the penalty area to be awarded with for example a penalty corner like hockey, another possibility is just a shot at goal with a wall from where the fault was made. Basically anything that makes it harder to score a goal. Players get cheap penalties all the time and it is irritating. Another idea is if a player makes a fault in the area he gets an immediate red card and gets replaced by a teammate. This should result into no more foul play and diving