FIFA are considering new football rules

Chief123 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are effectively complaining that smaller nations and teams aren't as easy to best anymore and you want to give all the advantage back to the bigger clubs and nations.
 
Chief123 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Teams can play defensively if they want to. Why should a team have to play more expansive open football when the opposition has a more expensive and star studded team.

The beauty of football is that there are so many tactics and ways to play.
 
RoyH1 said:
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.
Click to expand...


FIFA has no interest in a football organisation in which the biggest clubs/associations have the biggest influence on the decisions. Far more difficult and especially far more expensive to bribe. They need smaller nations with a somewhat corrupt football association and at best low public interest in the sport for their business model. Where top clubs want to create an elitist circle, the FIFA want to bloat it.

I'd say our best hope are the domestic leagues and football associations. Yikes.
 
Chief123 said:
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.
Click to expand...
All that would do is turn games into long ball basketball games, completely bypassing the midfield.
All build up play would be gone and the middle of the pitch would become irrelevant.
 
UnitedSofa said:
Why has this year old thread been resurrected?
Click to expand...

Possibly because of the way they're adding extra time at this WC it makes more and more sense to go for the best proposal which is switch to 30 min half's with a stop clock whenever the ball goes dead.
 
Chief123 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is a great idea! I genuinely liked your suggestions.
 
Chief123 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's more of an issue this year than previous years mainly due to having such a short break between club and inty football. It's pretty much impossible to coach solid attacking patterns/plays in the few days they had together. It's much easier to work on defensive solidarity and remaining compact in a short space of time. The attacking teams would find it much easier to break them down if they'd had their usual 3/4 week training camp prior to this World Cup.
 
Chief123 said:
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.
Click to expand...
A great idea but one that they’ll never think of. Teams park the bus because sometimes it’s the only chance they have of getting points against top teams. Bottom halve teams don’t have the squad to go toe to toe with the likes of city. It’s down to the teams who’ve spent millions to break down low blocks. Would be a lot more entertaining to watch though. It would interfere with managers tactics/plans aswell. A lot of teams that have one rapid player will park the bus against top teams and then counter.
 
40 minutes a half, stop the clock when the game is interrupted for whatever reason, and make it 5 subs.

The rest is la-la-land.
 
Heavily in favour of any effort to establish a way to stop the damn game clock.
 
Chief123 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The two players having to remain the attacking side of halfway reminds me a bit of netball.
 
Here's a new rule for those cnuts at FIFA: to ensure a great atmosphere, FIFA pays for a set number of fans from each qualifying nation to attend the WC. They cover flights, tickets and accomodation with all the dirty money they make through the bidding process.
 
Strootman's Finger said:
The beauty of football is it's simple, don't feck with it.
Click to expand...
You need to start thinking Big Picture.

Rashford is in on goal, with 17 real seconds + 4 FIFsec points left on the clock in the sixth bonus ball quarter of the 9th inning. He looks up, picks his corner, GOAL!

But the buzzer sounds - Rashy was off-track in the second phase of play three minutes ago after United received the ball from the kick off (which goes to the Home team by default in the sixth bonus ball quarter regardless of who got the last goal). The goal will only count as 0.5 since, although he was onside the entire time, his shoelace touched the boundary of the oval.

But - replay check - Rashy managed to get the ball into the Top Bins corner of the pitch, which is represented by the moving LED block on the grass that changes every sixty seconds. And because he opted to wear the wooden shoe on his weaker foot for the period this counts as a 6x multiplier.

So United lead City 67.35 to 66.89, which just the zero gravity sudden death penalty shoot out to go.
 
Chief123 said:
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.
Click to expand...


If the system wouldn't make the richest richer and richer, this wouldn't be a thing. The rule changes that are needed, IMO, don't affect the game but a) either the distribution of the money that is generated by the game or b) how teams are allowed to spend the money they made.
 
Zehner said:
If the system wouldn't make the richest richer and richer, this wouldn't be a thing. The rule changes that are needed, IMO, don't affect the game but a) either the distribution of the money that is generated by the game or b) how teams are allowed to spend the money they made.
Click to expand...
Although I agree something needs to be done regarding the financial side of the game and levelling out the playing field, I also have no hope in anything being implemented which is effective or constructive. For example FFP was meant to control this yet as we’ve seen with Man City, they just circumnavigated it using creative accountants. I’m not sure it’s possible to control football by restricting the rich and empowering the poor. Even capped transfer budgets would just be loopholed using back handers.
 
Anyone who stays down for more than X seconds (say ~12 seconds?), need a minimum of Y minutes (4 mins maybe?) off the field for a full check-up. Would be like a miracle cure. Even if they stay down 20 seconds and are fine, they need to go off the field for a few minutes.

VAR to check for diving and obvious over-acting while play continues, players get booked in the first stop of play post-VAR check.

Start booking players more quickly for kicking and throwing away the ball.

---

I don't want them stopping the game clock. When teams start stalling, wasting time and rolling around, it's not only to use up the time, but also to kill the momentum of the chasing team's play. And a stopped game clock would still allow teams to kill the momentum.

Also, we'd probably start getting ad breaks.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
You need to start thinking Big Picture.

Rashford is in on goal, with 17 real seconds + 4 FIFsec points left on the clock in the sixth bonus ball quarter of the 9th inning. He looks up, picks his corner, GOAL!

But the buzzer sounds - Rashy was off-track in the second phase of play three minutes ago after United received the ball from the kick off (which goes to the Home team by default in the sixth bonus ball quarter regardless of who got the last goal). The goal will only count as 0.5 since, although he was onside the entire time, his shoelace touched the boundary of the oval.

But - replay check - Rashy managed to get the ball into the Top Bins corner of the pitch, which is represented by the moving LED block on the grass that changes every sixty seconds. And because he opted to wear the wooden shoe on his weaker foot for the period this counts as a 6x multiplier.

So United lead City 67.35 to 66.89, which just the zero gravity sudden death penalty shoot out to go.
Click to expand...
That’s definitely more exciting than half of these games at the WC!
 
Chief123 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Wenger offside rule I think is a more subtle change with the desired effect.
 
Zehner said:
FIFA has no interest in a football organisation in which the biggest clubs/associations have the biggest influence on the decisions. Far more difficult and especially far more expensive to bribe. They need smaller nations with a somewhat corrupt football association and at best low public interest in the sport for their business model. Where top clubs want to create an elitist circle, the FIFA want to bloat it.

I'd say our best hope are the domestic leagues and football associations. Yikes.
Click to expand...
Spot on.
It's no coincidence that the Glazers are now willing to sell. The SuperLeague is not only dead but buried now. FIFA and the oil states will be running things from now on. I'm not going to be surprised in the least if/when the Saudi's get the WC in 2030.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.