FIFA are considering new football rules

Not really a fan of any of them. Not because it is change, but because I don't really see the problem they are trying to "solve" nor do I see any great benefits in the reasons being put forward as to why they're good.

A throw in being a kick in for example..why? What does it do? The throw in is just a simple mechanism of determining who has and likely keeps possession, what does kicking it in do to change that? They're not supposed to be corners either which would really bog the game down so I presume they mean along the floor, in which case, I ask again..why?

Unlimited subs. When has there ever been a football match where the entertainment has been improved by wholesale changes? Limited changes allows the manager to impact the game but also retains the importance of selection, pre-game tactics etc. This isn't a change that improves entertainment in my opinion, I hate friendly matches because as a spectacle they are diabolical and the subs are usually a big part.

The time and stopping the clock, potentially. I wouldn't mind seeing an experiment on that to see how it works. I don't immediately see what the improvement is but at the same time I don't see that it should hinder the game too much if it is play just as often.
 
OnlyTwoDaSilvas said:
30 min halves and clock stoppages sound good. Time wasting is a scourge on the game. That would combat it directly. Hard to believe the clock just rolls on the way it does no matter what. I don't watch any other clock sport where that happens. However, I'd perhaps maybe trialling 40 or 35 minutes first, rather than go straight to 30.

Kick ins sound bad. Just get rid of the foul throw rule. As long as you throw the ball in with two hands over your head, who cares if you have a foot off the ground, or if you release the ball too far infront of your head, or not far enough. If you want to drop the ball right infront of your feet, you should be able to, it's your possession. There is no advantage to be gained from a foul throw.

Unlimited subs would benefit the bigger teams with bigger squads. Does it also mean that players can go off and then come back on? I don't like that idea. I think it would make games disjointed tactically. Though speaking of subs, I'd rather they just happened, rather than the game stopping so they can applaud the crowd or whatever. You should be ready to come off and go on, like in rugby. Maybe that will be the case if they're unlimited, but it should be the case anyway.

Sin bins for a yellow don't sound great either, particularly as bookings are so inconsistently awarded anyway. You get players who don't get booked until their 4th or 5th foul, and then others who get one immediately for a nothing challenge. I don't trust referees to apply this effectively.
Click to expand...
That would kill the players. I think that pretty much all the games last around 50-65 effective minutes per match. In the world cup, I think that the average was 32 minutes per half. I think some English team last year managed to finish the match only in 45 minutes.

Honestly, with the number of matches played (and apparently the young ones finding the games too long), 30 mins per half should be the upper bound. Probably go even lower and make the games shorter.
 
I'm sorry if this has been mentioned already, but it is something I certainly wrote about on another thread when I first joined: one obvious rule change would be to make the goals wider and higher.

As I said last time, the goals in football were based on an average man lay down x 4.5 I think (I'm not sure where the height came from). Now I bet an average man in 1875 was about 5ft 6" - 5ft 7" what is it now? nearer 6 foot I bet.

A re-calculation to account for 'evolution' would make a goal approx. 8m wide (up from 7.3) do that and make them proportionally higher to keep the same shape and try it out say in a pre-season mini-tournament. It would be interesting to see what would happen - ideally the players would not know, although a decent goalkeeper might spot it!

Would it make the games more exciting with more goals, or would teams change strategy to focus on defence ruining everything? One thing that might happen: it would end these sweeper-keepers playing as an extra-defender and that would also help the game too, it is supposed to be 10 outfield players vs another 10 with a goalie on each side, not as we have currently 11 vs 11 and a sort of rush-goalie system (especially the Scotland team!). But remember, rule changes have been tried in the past unsuccessfully. I remember the 'golden goal' was supposed to be great, but it made teams ultra cautious in extra-time and when golden goals did occur e.g. Euro 1996 it was a bit of an anti-climax.

I have another idea, this one is specifically to end penalty shoot-outs so great for England and Utd fans! Have the goals on some sort of mechanism so that 5 mins into extra-time they are widened say 15cm and telescopic side poles increase the height to keep the same proportion. Every five mins same thing happens again.

Now people will say this can't be applied to all football: school games, sunday league etc. but we have already crossed that line with VAR.
 
Last edited:
GoranIvanisevic said:
Id be 100% for rolling substitutes with no stoppages to sub players, as long as there is 11 players on the pitch at a time who cares
Click to expand...
I would suggest most people because it is football not basketball and is a completely ridiculous idea.
 
kouroux said:
Not sure what to think about it. I don't recognize football anymore
https://www.insidesport.co/what-are...fa-are-considering-that-has-got-fans-furious/

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.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember - and I stand to be corrected - that when the NASL began in the USA, similar sweeping changes were proposed to the game there to make it more palatable to the American fan. Getting rid of the offside rule was another.
 
VAR, the ESL, kick-ins, Jermaine Jenas. Urgh. Will it ever end? Not they've had their way it won't.

If, like me, you've had it up to here with the basardizing of our beloved game, then don't click this link and sign the petition
 
30 is too less. I'd want 35.

And also, if there are unlimited subs, then 40 min a half should be better because you can replace tiring legs easily.
 
30 mins break I agree with, unlimited subs absolutely no but 5 subs in modern day congested football should be reasonable i think. Sin bin like rule for yellow card is a high risk change. Players try to get other player on yellow all the time with their antics. That rule will encourage all kind of shenanigans.
 
World Game said:
30 minutes a half.
The game clock stops when the ball goes out of play.
- enjoy the missing 30 minutes filled with commercial breaks during pauses
- rewards in play time wasting (e.g bringing it to the corner) because now your actions are taking up a greater percentage of the total time

Unlimited subs.
- Increases the gap between rich and poor teams
- An advantage of being the attacking team is that you keep the ball and stretch/tire out the opposition's defence. This will no longer be the case and help out defensive teams.

Throw-ins played with feet.
-So basically throw-ins become indirect free kicks/corners.
-Attacking team would wait for their players to get in the box like a set piece further slowing the game down.

5 minute suspension for a yellow card.
- Makes referees even more influential in deciding a match's result.
- There are enough bad referees out there, their bad decisions shouldn't be given even more power.
- The team playing 11v10 or 11v9 would just decide to park the bus/waste time until their player is back.
Click to expand...

The ball spends less than 30 minutes per half in play now so, no time wasting would use a lower percentage.

Covid has proven extra subs don't massively change games.

Kick Ins would lead to more in game action, goals and excitement.

Sin Bins are stupid but it would reduce tactical fouling.
 
Kick-ins sound awful. Every match would be a set-piece slog-fest, unless there's some restriction on the kick has to be a less than 10 yards pass or something.
 
JB7 said:
I would suggest most people because it is football not basketball and is a completely ridiculous idea.
Click to expand...
Basketball does not have rolling substitutes, but maybe you meant unlimited. As a basketball fan, unlimited subs would destroy momentum in football; the last two minutes of an NBA game can be excruciatingly drawn out when coaches start subbing offense for defense and vice versa.
 
The International Football Association (FIFA) denied, in an official statement, today, Monday, that there is an intention to introduce any amendments to the football laws at the present time, against the background of what was recently circulated about making changes in the law, and trying them in the upcoming Youth World Cup.

FIFA confirmed that the news circulating about changing some football laws is incorrect, and confirms that there is no intention for the recent changes and they have not been discussed internally.



https://middleeast.in-24.com/sport/News/24545.html
 
Random Task said:
Yes, that would help remove the issue of endlessly interchanging the same players, but heavily rewards the richer clubs who inevitably have deeper squads, furthering the gap between the likes of City and Stoke, for example.
Click to expand...
I think it would be crazy to have unlimited subs whereby the same player can come back on the pitch. It would become a farce.

You would have superstar players barely ever playing a full game of football. In fact it would end up with the best players just being used in bursts as and when needed.
 
Maybe I am old fashioned. But why is this game suppose to be changed for those who don't care for it in the first place? How about 'fixing' the game for us who actually follow it, for instance decrease the distance between big clubs and small clubs, or between the bigger leagues and small leagues.
 
Sin bins, unlimited subs, 30 minute halves and scrapping throw-ins wouldn't add anything, they'd just be gimmicks and/or ways to keep the advertisers/big clubs happy. Football's a great game as it is and there have been relatively few major rule changes throughout its history. Those which have been brought in have generally brought obvious benefits (allowing subs, bringing in the backpass rule). Making up new rules for the wrong reasons would set a bad precedent and cheapen the whole game.

Basically the only things i'd change about football is having someone off-pitch calculate extra time, automatic red cards for fouls where there is literally no attempt to play ball (think Chiellini on Saka) and maybe a rule to disincentive the little tactical fouls a lot of the top teams rely on. Maybe refs can give out yellow cards for soft fouls at their discretion to punish teams who get several players to commit not-quite-a-yellow fouls to disrupt the opposition. Oh, and re-write the rule about obstruction to make shielding the ball out of play with no intent to play it a foul.
 
I'm sorry this is completely about having TV ad breaks in the stopped clocks and introducing time outs. This has nothing to do with appealing to youngsters. Does anyone seriously believe "young people" (I'm quite young and I hate this) think "oh look there's a stoppage in play, I'd much rather be watching an ad right now"?

Also I'm not of the the opinion that time wasting is such a big problem that it can't be fixed by just telling the ref to be strict about it and start handing out cards for it. It's a cash grab of a solution to a barely existent easy to fix problem that fundamentally changes the sport to allow people to run ads on TV. There is genuinely something valuable and important in the idea that when you're on the field - for 45 minutes - it is just the players. They have to cope with tactical changes through rushed messages and give their all while being out of breath and pushing it to the limit mentally as well and physically. This would be the ruin of the game.
 
Let's not turn football into a bastardized US version of itself. Let's really not. I get it, greed is strong, and boy do I see the timeouts and commercial breaks after every attack coming, but let's really not do that.
 
dinostar77 said:
What is it with sports currently? F1 and now football tinkering with what works just to try to make their sports appeal to a younger generation who have the attention span of a goldfish and alienate their core audience.
Click to expand...
Younger generation will become their "core audience" in the future.
 
kouroux said:
Not sure what to think about it. I don't recognize football anymore
https://www.insidesport.co/what-are...fa-are-considering-that-has-got-fans-furious/

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.
Click to expand...

The clocks top one is perfectly reasonable and about time to happen. Plus punishment for players who are pushing it regardless to have more regeneration time.

The other suggestions are horrible, though.

- Unlimited subs: This is not NBA or NHL. Despite the clocks top it would result in longer match days due to constant subbing. Additionally it would take away a good chunk of the endurance aspect that is important in football.
- Throw ins with feet: You have a lot less options with feet and as a result throw ins would become even weaker and less exciting than they already are.
- 5min suspension for yellow cards: Way too long. That's 1/12 of the entire game a player is missing. It would be fine with a reduced susepnsion time, though.
 
Ueanuwug said:
The clocks top one is perfectly reasonable and about time to happen. Plus punishment for players who are pushing it regardless to have more regeneration time.

The other suggestions are horrible, though.

- Unlimited subs: This is not NBA or NHL. Despite the clocks top it would result in longer match days due to constant subbing. Additionally it would take away a good chunk of the endurance aspect that is important in football.
- Throw ins with feet: You have a lot less options with feet and as a result throw ins would become even weaker and less exciting than they already are.
- 5min suspension for yellow cards: Way too long. That's 1/12 of the entire game a player is missing. It would be fine with a reduced susepnsion time, though.
Click to expand...
I feel like 5mins would have been ok if the clock changes weren't introduced.
 
Don’t people and haven’t people liked football for decades because of what it is. Why the feck has it got to be changed so drastically.

The professional games seems intent on going further and further away from grassroots football, eventually Sunday league and lower divisions will be playing a different sport to the top leagues in the world and I hate that idea.
 
SfcNervion said:
Maybe I am old fashioned. But why is this game suppose to be changed for those who don't care for it in the first place? How about 'fixing' the game for us who actually follow it, for instance decrease the distance between big clubs and small clubs, or between the bigger leagues and small leagues.
Click to expand...

You know the answer to that question, don't you?
 
wise_old_man said:
Younger generation will become their "core audience" in the future.
Click to expand...
The younger generation who watch football and f1 for example will become their core audience. The younger audience who have the attention span of a goldfish, will probably always have an attention span of a goldfish. So why bend over backwards for the goldfish?
 
Raoul said:
Beyond the fact that each of these are mindbendingly stupid ideas., why are they fiddling with the rules in the first place ? Makes no sense.
Click to expand...
The only one of these that remotely makes sense is the 5 mins per yellow card- I think that’s long overdue. The system gif building up suspensions based on yellows over the course of the season is way too lax.

Throw ins changed to free kicks would be a huge change imho, it’s very difficult to see how that would pan out. You’d certainly see less fullbacks rushing to ‘save’ a corner given that a free kick from the touch line 10 - 20 yards up the pitch is potentially more dangerous than a corner.
30 minute halves would change the game beyond recognition and I hope to god they don’t go down that route.
 
Raoul said:
Beyond the fact that each of these are mindbendingly stupid ideas., why are they fiddling with the rules in the first place ? Makes no sense.
Click to expand...
I think it's because of the Super League, specially the rule about reducing playing time. It was one of the things Agnelli presented as a necessary change as the attention span of the casual football viewer was really short
 
To my mind, the reason we call it the Beautiful Game is because of its simplicity.
Leave it alone.
 
kouroux said:
I think it's because of the Super League, specially the rule about reducing playing time. It was one of the things Agnelli presented as a necessary change as the attention span of the casual football viewer was really short
Click to expand...
The average play time with the ball in play is typically between 50 to 60 minutes. How would fixing it to 60 minutes reduce play time? It would increase it. So I’d say it has absolutely nothing to do with that. The idea has been suggested for years anyway, long before any super league.
 
limerickcitykid said:
The average play time with the ball in play is typically between 50 to 60 minutes. How would fixing it to 60 minutes reduce play time? It would increase it. So I’d say it has absolutely nothing to do with that. The idea has been suggested for years anyway, long before any super league.
Click to expand...
Yeah but I wasn't talking about the idea per se but more about the changes being made right now. The timing of it all is coincidental with those vultures. They wanna control the narratives concerning the big changes revolving around the game
 
Skills said:
Anyone else think you shouldn't be able to make subs during throw ins?

To me a throw-in should be a quick restart of the game not a full stoppage.
Click to expand...
In principle, everything in a game is quick restart, except penalty kicks and direct free kicks (where the referee measures up wall distance).
 
Last edited:
I actually like the unlimited subs: teams would be playing always 100% effort, because they could rotate their players. No clock stop for needed for substitutions, though, and there would be a substituiton area where players would had to leave the pitch and enter it.

The 4th ref would control if both teams have a maximum of 11 players and if the players left the field in the substitution area.
 
Can someone explain this “back pass” rule? It seems to say that the ref will award an indirect free kick for heading the ball back to your keeper even if he doesn’t pick it up!

“IFAB have implemented a rule change whereby players will be booked and an indirect free-kick awarded if a player: “initiates a deliberate trick for the ball to be passed (including from a free kick or goal kick) to the goalkeeper with the head, chest, knee etc. to circumvent the Law, whether or not the goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands; the goalkeeper is penalised if responsible for initiating the deliberate trick.””

So they’re outlawing passing to the keeper with anything but your feet? Seems odd to me, why not let the keeper kick those but not touch them?
 
Beans said:
Can someone explain this “back pass” rule? It seems to say that the ref will award an indirect free kick for heading the ball back to your keeper even if he doesn’t pick it up!

“IFAB have implemented a rule change whereby players will be booked and an indirect free-kick awarded if a player: “initiates a deliberate trick for the ball to be passed (including from a free kick or goal kick) to the goalkeeper with the head, chest, knee etc. to circumvent the Law, whether or not the goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands; the goalkeeper is penalised if responsible for initiating the deliberate trick.””

So they’re outlawing passing to the keeper with anything but your feet? Seems odd to me, why not let the keeper kick those but not touch them?
Click to expand...

I believe the 'deliberate trick' part means you can't flick the ball up to yourself or a teammate to head it back to the keeper, and it seems you're now penalised for it even if the keeper doesn't catch it. That seems a bit of a strange addition.

If I understand the rule correctly, you will be able to head or chest the ball back to goalkeeper if it happens naturally, but it can't be set-up.
 
You let them stop the clock every now and then, you let them welcome sponsors with mass of advertisements during the games. Hope that never comes into this game during my life.

Unless they make them extremely fast, no thanks to unlimited subs.

5 mins for yellow sounds interesting.

Throw ins with feet is just silly.
 
What seems to be a common pattern in a large amount of games now is one team sitting deep with the whole team behind the ball and the opponents being tasked with breaking them down.

With every team having the latest tech, it seems a lot easier for lesser teams to robotically stay together as a unit and become very difficult to break down than it was 10-20 years ago.

In an effort to make the game more expansive and exciting, it would be interesting to see a trial where every team has to have at least 2 players in the oppositions half to prevent teams parking the bus. That rule combined with an adjustment to the offside rule whereby you can only be offside in the final 3rd of the pitch as opposed to the final half of the pitch.

It will never happen and possibly a load of bollocks anyway, but something like this to encourage more end to end football.
 
I read they were introducing a wildcard pick for every international team after scouring the internet for ideas.
 
kouroux said:
Some of the suggestions are what the Super League proposed, FIFA are a bunch of assholes really
Click to expand...
Yes. What UEFA and FIFA didn't like about the Super League was that they would not be in charge of running it and making billions, not the ideas espoused themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.