Ten Ways To Make X Better: Soccer
An irregular series in which I fix all of a sport's problems. Previously: hockey.
[Paul Sherman]
10. Use goal line technology. The imposition on the flow of the game is minimal and there is no reason to not have it. Whether or not a goal is scored is kind of a big deal in a sport that sees 3 or 4 a game.
9. Offsides is reviewable on goals. Again, this disrupts the 90-minute-flow that soccer and only soccer has. But since the game is getting broken up anyway—at least slightly—a quick peek at whether an offsides was or was not accurate is worth it as long as they adopt the NFL's hard limit on time available to make a decision. If it's not obvious in 30 seconds the call is close enough.
8. Stop the clock when people are injured. Ideally soccer would dump the whole stoppage time concept and have a clock that actually reflects what time it is. Every other sport manages this. In lieu of a total overhaul which is not coming, soccer games should borrow a concept from college soccer and allow the ref to cease the inexorable march of time with an X symbol over his head.
The X is deployed when the game is stopped because a player is down. Right now the perception amongst players is that falling over when nursing a late lead helps you win, so it happens all the time. Erase that perception and second half time-wasting gets 50% more tolerable.
7. Yellow cards for being Pepe. In the Champions League Final, Real Madrid defender Pepe twice rolled around like he'd been shot after light taps to his face. These should be cardable events. I will also accept a firing squad.
6. Dump Financial Fair Play and replace it with… I don't know. FFP, if you don't know, is an attempt to prevent a rich owner buying a Chelsea or Manchester City and making them very good by spending a lot of money. Because teams are allowed to spend what they make it tends to set the current power structure in concrete, Leicester notwithstanding. Also it does not work for the same reasons that NCAA amateurism rules, and prohibition more generally, don't work. There is always someone smart enough to cheese the rules. Like… yep, Leicester.*
I have no idea what to do with it in its place. Ideally the euro soccer structure would change so that a Leicester City event was more of a one-in-ten-year event instead of one in a hundred, but I struggle to come up with something that would work. Even Germany—which has the most even revenue distribution and rules against club ownership by individuals—has seen Bayern win four straight titles and 12 since 1998.
The predictability of euro soccer is the main reason I can't be bothered to care about any of it. I have the choice of picking the Yankees or the Lions, and no thanks to either. But without radically reshaping it into a socialist American-style thing*, which isn't happening, there appears to be no solution other than buying a little defensive midfielder from Ligue 2.
*[The cheesing Leicester managed was not enough to get them anywhere near the giants in the EPL and should not color anyone's perceptions of the magnitude of their accomplishment. The fact that there's a Guardian expose on the fact that Man Who Owns Soccer Team Spends Money On It that includes the phrase "Leicester City’s dash to an unlikely Premier League title is billed as football’s most romantic story in a generation but" is so very NCAA and demonstrates why FFP is destined to fail.]
**[The irony here is vast, yes.]
5. Allow refs some discretion on PKs. Right now a lot of fouls in the box don't get called because the punishment for them is outlandishly severe. Also some harmless situations get punished in an outlandishly severe way. If a ref spots a foul in the box that doesn't disrupt an imminent scoring chance he should be allowed to call for a free kick at the spot.
4. Free kicks resulting from fouls that draw yellow cards should be more dangerous. Defenders should not be allowed to line up in the penalty box on the resulting free kick unless they are level with or behind the ball*. That's not as severe as a penalty kick, but it's a lot more severe than it currently is and would adequately punish teams that specialize in those canny fouls just outside of PK territory.
*[IE, they can still defend the opposition on FKs that are more or less corners.]
3. No shootouts in finals. I don't care what you have to do to prevent them. Anything vaguely resembling the actual sport that's going on is far superior to the current system, in which all of a sudden a darts competition breaks out after 120 minutes. The only person who likes that is Steve Lorenz. I grudgingly accept that maybe you have to have shootouts for early stages in competitions because winning the equivalent of a triple OT hockey game is going to destroy your fitness for the next game. Finals should end with someone scoring a goal.
There are various ways to approach the problem but I think the simplest and best is to remove the goalies after 30 minutes of extra time and play sudden death. Is that 100% soccer? No. But it's at least 50% instead of 0%.
2. All throw ins must have a totally rad flip before them. I mean.
This one is obvious.
1. Teams have the option of putting a guy on field with skates. Offsides does not apply to him. Goals he scores count double. It works for any sport!
The ref is not supposed to adjust the game time for throw ins or prompt restarts.Well, there's something else to change. There's no good reason to let that time go.
American sports are fixated on "ball in play" as the measure of timing. Soccer just has a different relationship to time. And things are still happening on the field during a throw in or free kick... guys are making runs, the defense is organizing itself, etc.
That's all fine and well, but I'd rather have more action than less. If you account for all stoppages, you give players more time to actually play.
But that's not what I'm proposing. I would maintain the running clock but have a timekeeper keep track of all the stoppages separately. Then, at the end of the half, he'd inform the referee how much time to put on. He can round to the nearest 30 seconds if need be.
I just think there'd be significantly more time added if this were the case, and it would cut down on teams stalling with the lead.
I think there are two things here.
1. Teams stalling with the lead, which I agree, refs should be better about cracking down on. It usually has to be pretty egregious before they indicate they're adding time. (I think they informally do this to a certain extent ... it's why second halves almost always have more added time).
2. Normal stoppages of play for the ball out of play or free kicks. Those are regarded as part of the game and I on't think there's any need to regularly have 10 minutes of added time per half because of balls out of play and free kicks. I generally think the length of the halves is about right as they're currently played.
Overtime should be sudden death with no chance of a shoot out. Every five minutes each team removes one player to open up the field. If no one scores eventually you are left with a one-on-one match - just like you were a kid on the streets of Rio.
It's actually somewhat realistic and a great idea.
I feel like NCAA soccer is really behind the times. Two simple adjustments could fix:
#1) Make substitution rules more in line with pro/international rules. Limit to 3 to 5 substitutions and no one can come back in.
#2) It should be a two season sport. Have a series of regional championships at the end of the fall (winners can automatically qualify for NCAA's) but carry records over to the spring before you play the League and NCAA championships.
-- and this would never happen , but it would be awesome if it did -- how about relegation/promotion within the NCAA?
13th place in the B1G? down to the MAC you go!
If players are going to continue to fall as if they've been hit by a sniper, I think it is safe to assume that snipers are actually desired. Grant the players their wish. And mine.
Rather than put up a second post, I'll just leave a more serious reply here.
Honestly, I believe few, if any rule changes are going to really bring about the kind of changes to soccer that many want. Yes, there are annyoing parts of the game from a logistical/competitive perspective, but frankly, until the overall quality of the game is improved - read: US skill level improves mightily - rule changes arent the answer to obtain the desired positive changes.
Most of American sensibilities already frown upon the player rolling about the pitch. It isn't cute, funny, or beneficial. It is something that has grown out of the evolution of the game elsewhere. We are, relatively, starting anew. The general disdain regarding the practice will have more impact on flopping than any rule change would.
At this point, rule changes are like trying to decide which brand of duct tape I should use to hold up the fender of my '78 Mazda RX7 in the hopes that one will make me look more like a Mazeratti than the other.
until the overall quality of the game is improved - read: US skill level improves mightily - rule changes arent the answer to obtain the desired positive changes.
Nobody is saying that possible rule changes will make the US more competitive.
Always thought offside should never be called when the ball is inside the box. (Or really, past the line that defines it, so the corners are a no offsides zone too.) In other words, if you're cherry-picking inside the box (pre-emptive TWSS goes here) and the ball is kicked to you from outside, that's offside, but if the ball is played inside, offside never applies. The offside trap is a great tactic and all, but FFS when the ball is advanced that damn far, you should have to actually defend and not be sneaking up to try and catch the offense in the wrong place.
Also, any player who appears to be injured must leave the pitch for a 5-minute evaluation period. To ensure his safety, you see.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
is 90% dribbling, passing, and defending in open space on the field, so a tiebreaker should incorporate as much of that as possible. Shooting, when it happens, is overwhelmingly done on the move and with defenders contesting. So you're deciding the game based on a tiny sliver of the skills used to play the sport for 90 minutes.
What if after one OT period in basketball they had a free-throw shooting contest to decide the winner? Or a game of HORSE?
I disagree with the notion of #3, unless there was a provision for additional substitutions in extra time periods. This ain't like hockey, where you're rolling lines out there. I think you'd have serious prospects of long-term injuries if you took a game beyond the current 90 minutes regulation plus 30 extra time. You're already asking at least 7 players a side to sustain heavy activity for two hours. (Keepers are not exerting themselves at the same level - so I'm not counting them in the "might drop like flies" column.) To add additional limitless 15 minute periods seems to be inviting injury.
But since PKs are suboptimal in some way, I would love to see the return of the Golden Goal. I still don't understand why that rule changed. You'd still have PKs if extra time ended in a tie, but once a goal is scored in extra time that should be it.
On #5, I think this is right, but I'd tweak it. If a foul in the box is done for advantage, it should be a PK regardless of where in the box it occurs. If it's inadvertent, spot of the foul is a better rule. Problem, though, is where do you allow the defenders to be if the ball is (e.g.,) 20 feet from the goal? So maybe you default to the penalty spot (i.e., a pk) if the ball is within a certain range of the goal, and spot of the foul with defenders if farther out?
If people get tired they will make a mistake and the game will end. This isn't 10 yr olds with Capris Suns and Orange slices. Tell them to keep playing.
Hockey players seem to be able to play full extra games in OT during the NHL playoffs and still show up 2 days later.
Soccer has just 3 subs per game total.
That's another thing I'd change, at least for overtime. Three subs may work for 90 minutes, but if you're playing an extra 30 minutes, why don't you get another sub?
An actual game clock sounds all well and good until a winning goal is chalked off because it came .6 seconds after the horn. This has happened a few times in college soccer and it suuuucks. The ref's discretion over time is one of the things that adds tension to the end of the game
Good explanation regarding the Golden Goal rule change. I hadn't seen those studies, and there's some logic to it. I still like the Golden Goal, because a goal scored in ET seems like it should be dispositive of the result, but I agree that the current extra time has often been entertaining.
might be, if you score in the first extra period and the opponent doesn't then when the first extra period ends, game over. No need to play another 15 minutes.
I'd love to see that come back (it was hardly ever used). It's a good compromise between what we have now and the golden goal.
In hockey, basketball, etc., if a goal/basket goes in 0.6 seconds after the horn sounds, it just doesn't count because, uh, the clock expired.
Why did it suck to have a goal not count when it went in after the horn sounded? It would suck even more if they had actually counted it even though it was late? Am I missing something?
It doesn't make sense if hockey and basketball are the standard. It does if you regard soccer as a different sport with a different relationship to time.
The clock in soccer has always been regarded as less an exact timer than a guideline for the ref. It's part of the sport that the ref has discretion as to when the match ends. It's a fundamental part of his authority. Indeed, putting up the sign board with the time added on is a relatively recent addition.
Plus, it gives everyone another chance to yell at the ref.
Other soccer purists on this board insist that you can't give a ref discretion on a foul in the box because there would be too much of a burden for him to decide between different fouls - that the f"oul in the box" rule is a clear rule (LOL).
But then you say that the ref's authority should be all that matters on something as clear-cut as a goal going in after time expires. Talk about opening a pandora's box giving a ref that kind of authority; especially in a sport with notoriously crooked referees.
And I am sorry but a game with a "different relationship to the clock" just doesn't fly with me. Either there is a clock or there isn't; either there is a sideline or there isn't; either there is a ball that crosses the goal line or there isn't.
I was trying to introduce as little as possible in the way of new rules or affecting the outcome of the game (which the refs tend to want to avoid) while discouraging the undesired player behavior. I assume that an injured player could be substituted, and thus treating a player acting like he was seriously injured would be a reasonable response.
In short, if a player feigns serious injury, the ref is totally justified in feigning serious concern for the player's health by benching him. I don't like Brian's yellow card idea as it requires a ref to make the decision that a player is faking. The beauty of my solution is that the ref "believes" the player's act and accordingly takes responsible action to ensure the "protection" of that player.
Are there temporary 5-minute penalties in soccer, and do players come back on the field like they do in hockey, while play is going on?
Since my son started playing higher level soccer and I started watching it more, I've got my list.
1. The Extra Time thing is total crap. Brian has the right suggestion that the clock only stops on injuries. And then it has a defnitive ending. this is particularly infuriating when extra time is subjective and always ends after the last attack fails. It is clear it is subjective. there was a Freakenomics-type book that laid out the huge bias for home teams trailing going into extra time getting additional time to score.
2. Get rid of the card system and use an basketball style number of fouls to get ejected. The cards make the impact of a single call too dramatic and that leads to the flopping. If you can draw a red card, it is a huge advantage.
3. PKs are only awarded if the player is fouled in the box while being a threat to score at the moment of the foul. Like basketball, if the player isn't in the act of trying to score, they don't get free throws (a PK for soccer).
4. Hockey or lacrosse style open substitutions. Having a depth of fresh players would increase the pace of the game. No game compares to hockey in terms of pace of play. This should be encouraged.
5. Sudden death OT. PKs to decide a game is awful. Make each period 5 or 10 minutes and reverse field at each break. This is probably only relevant for playoffs (for the same reason hockey regular season games can end in a shoot out). But having a world cup game end in a series of PKs is wrong. Open substitutions would help facilitate this concept as well.
I think the problem with going to a "number of fouls" system in soccer is that scoring is already so infrequent compared to games like basketball. The card system works fairly well (with a competent ref) in situations like "denial of a goal-scoring opportunity". If I know that tripping a player closing in on the goal with no other defender between him and the goal (apart from the keeper) will be dealt with harshly, I will be really reluctant to do it.
The trick is the "competent ref" part. The job of a center ref is incredibly difficult, even if the ref is acting in complete good faith. But if cards are called reasonably, I think it's a good system even if the results sometimes seem harsh to the recipient of the card.
Additionally, I like the dynamic of a player playing with one yellow having to check himself to avoid an accumulation ejection. It adds a layer of drama to the game that I would not want to see gone.
On open substitutions, there is a middle ground that I saw in a tournament this past weekend in h.s. age club soccer - if a team substitutes a player off during a half, that player cannot come back on during that half. This prevented non-stop substitutions becoming de facto timeouts, but still allowed for reasonable substitutions for injury, fatigue, etc.
The issue is that with a single decision (on drawing a card) it can dramatically alter the outcome of a game. The incentive is for players to flop and try to draw a card. And creating a system that is highly reliant on a single excellent individual is designed to fail in many (perhaps most) circumstances.
From my American perspective, the flopping is the most annoying aspect of the sport. I can deal with low scoring. But watching these athletically gifted men behave like a three year old with a boo boo is troubling. It calls into question their toughness and is in stark contrast to seeing hockey players coming back into games after getting stiches or football players playing through their myriad of injuries.
And the ability to draw a penalty in the box, even while not a scoring threat, makes a single decision hugely important. I think that hockey has it better figured out with the doling out of penalty shots.
And I'm of the opinion that the frequent substitutions in hockey are why the pace of the game is so high. There is very little time on a hockey rink due to the level of effort the players are able to operate for their entire time on the ice as they know they have time to rest. Soccer players (justifiably so) conserve their energy when appropriate as they know they can't come off of the pitch.
I have no delusion that any of these ideas would be enacted. But there are aspects of other sports that are more appealing.
i read somewhere that there is about 66 minutes of soccer played in a game. Rest wasted on throw ins corners free kicks etc.
i read somewhere that there is about 66 minutes of soccer played in a game. Rest wasted on throw ins corners free kicks etc.
10: Goal line technology would be OK but (and this applies to many of these suggested "improvements") it moves you incrementally towards the US 4-hour "sports experience" where everything is litigated to the last mind-numbing detail, so no.
9: No. See 10.
8: No. See 10. I *love* how the last 15 seconds of a basketball game take 15 minutes, and the ontological debates over whether the edge of someone's foot is in contact with a small piece of painted hardwood.
7: Eh. Diving is what it is, and it's already punishable. You could shift the balance via advice to referees. But the thing a lot of people miss about soccer (beyond the Pepe incidents) is that if someone disrupts you with minimal contact, you should often go to ground a) to protect yourself and b) because you've been put at a disadvantage.
6: Eh. "Replace it with ... I don't know" is not super compelling. If money in sports bugs you, you can support your local club.
5: No. Keep the rules simple.
4: No. Smacks of Arena Football "innovation". Also see 5.
3: Eh. This used to be solved with replays, and we did away with those. All the various Golden Goal-type experiments tend to lead to ultra-defensive play. Plus you get to see great players choke in career-defining ways (or not).
2: No.
1: No.
Fan in the stands a slingshot and 10 marbles - that would make soccer far more entertaining.
or
Give the opposing coaches the ability to tazer players.........
Um;
Am I crazy, or doesn't the Premier League (England) and most recently in the World Cup, already use goal line technology?
From wikipedia, also in Serie A (Italy), Bundesliga (Germany), Ligue 1 (France).
10. Use goal line technology.
Since this was in place for the World Cup, there is no reason not to do this.
9. Offsides is reviewable on goals.
This should be a no-brainer and could easily be done with a combo of review and the same technology also used for goal line tech and would not require a change to stoppage time rules
8. Stop the clock when people are injured.
I like the idea
7. Yellow cards for being Pepe.
This needs to be done.
6. Dump Financial Fair Play and replace it with… I don't know.
Might as well try and fix the NCAA paying players...but it should somehow be dealt with
5. Allow refs some discretion on PKs.
Sounds good
4. Free kicks resulting from fouls that draw yellow cards should be more dangerous.
Meh. Maybe, but it's fine how it is.
3. No shootouts in finals.
I have mixed feeling on shootouts, I like the drama, but it is fundamentally different than the actual game. If there was a way to implement something akin to College Football overtime, they should do that. Something like you get the ball at the 3/4 field mark, and have 3 minutes to score. If you don't the other team gets the same attempt.
2. All throw ins must have a totally rad flip before them.
Lol.
1. Teams have the option of putting a guy on field with skates. Offsides does not apply to him. Goals he scores count double.
I hate it much less than I used to, now that I understand offsides. Still:
- A running game clock with only vaguely definite "extra time" is shameful. Any sport that thinks this is a good idea may just be beyond saving.
- BUT if you must have this ridiculous excuse for a clock, then injuries that last for more than a 10 count (a'la boxing) requires that player is removed from play for 5 mintues (at least)
- Diving is also a 5 minute man advantage penalty the first time, and ejection with man advantage for the second offense.
- No ties are allowed, ever.
- Run the clock if you must, but there needs to be a 20 second throw clock on trhow-ins, That stalling at the end of the game by pretending to look around for someone to throw to as the clock winds down is paletable also indicates that the sport may be beyond saving.
I will never understand the casual fan's problem with a tie game - both in soccer and hockey.
Goals per game are much lower than in hockey, so ties at the end of regulation are very common. 28% of EPL games in 15-16 ended in ties. If you got rid of ties, you'd get 20-25% of games going to shootouts and you'd see teams just load up on defensive and PK specialists to try to win 0-0 shootouts. It would be the most boring brand of soccer imaginable.
Alternately, you could get rid of shootouts and have every game go until someone scores to break the tie. This would result in a lot of 3-4 hour marathon games and would not work at all unless you drastically changed the substitution and squad size rules.
I like that a tie is worth less than half a win. That encourages teams to play more aggressively.
removing the goalie . . . uh no. Thats less soccer than a shoot-out.
How about each team loses 1 player per minute of overtime.
1st min of overtime it's 10v10
2nd min is 9v9
etc.
etc.
pretty soon someone is going to have an exhausted, yet epic break away.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Tap the brakes, there, Pele... Get defensive much? We love our purely American sports, but that doesn't mean we can't find fault with them, just like we do with Soccer. It's all in good fun, kind of like lobbing urine bombs at the oposing team.
Comments