What would you change in football?

[cp40]

Rush goalie.

 

 

Ian, hes getting on a bit, knows how to score a goal tho.

[TaylorJ_01]

Any man. Would be a larf.

[NJS]

Said this before but allow the ref to award a dive which then allows the non-fouler to kick the cheat as hard as he likes up the arse.

 

 

 

[indi]

Video review is easy when play has stopped (i.e if a goal has been scored), but what if it's the reverse situation where a goal is NOT given and play continues.  Then how do you review the goal.

 

If play continues (while the 4th official turns on SkySports) and something happens in the game, what do you do if the missed goal is really a goal. 

 

Suppose, ball is hooked off the line by the defender and Ref says play on. (4th official starts reviewing video) meanwhile play goes end to end and the other team scores. During celebration Ref hears from 4th official that the other play was really a goal. Therefore play should have stopped and anything that happened afterwards should be disregarded. You'd have a riot if a team thought they had saved a goal and then scored themselves only to have their goal taken away and the other goal awarded.

 

Another issue - Even if goals like Henri's were reviewed.....how long before a goal should you consider the play reviewable.  Henri's handball was 2-3 seconds before the goal....what if it was 5 sec or 10 or 30sec. At what point does the Statute of Limitations run out.

 

In game Video replay is perfect for NFL due to it's stop/start nature, or even MLS Baseball. I don't think it's workable in a game that does not have regular breaks in play when a review can be performed without impacting the game that is in progress.

 

How often does that happen  though? Not very.

 

If someone scores then they score and it should be given. Nine times out of ten it takes a matter of seconds for a replay to show if it was a goal or not, if it wasn't then play continues and no damage is done, if it was then play should be brought back, the goal given and the match continues from there like it would have if the ref had seen it in the first place. It'd be a minuscule number of occasions where a goal was scored, but not seen by the ref and the other team went down the other end and scored. Even if they did, then that's tough-shit on them, as far as I'm concerned. They conceded a goal first and so anything that occurred following that is fundamentally flawed as it is due to a mistake on the part of the ref.

[Exiled in Texas]

.... so anything that occurred following that is fundamentally flawed as it is due to a mistake on the part of the ref.

 

OK - another possibility.  Ball cleared from defender in the goal (but will soon be shown to be a goal). Ref waives play on, meanwhile there is an immediate foul worthy of Yellow Card. Can you still card a player for a foul that cannot have taken place in the game because that part of the game will be replayed?. The game is retroactively put back to the time of the goal.....so can the foul actually have taken place?

 

What if more serious.... as ball is cleared Keeper takes a swing and punches attacker in the mouth. Red Card.  Meanwhile 4th official says goal. And game resets to time of goal.  What do you do with the Carded Keeper.

 

 

I would say that the game should be stopped for replay, and then restarted with either GK or IFK to Defending team, but that might impact a teams ability to take a second shot or make a new play.

[Skirge]

I'd make Nile Ranger run around more. Using someone like Xisco as a role model.

 

Swear to god Dave man.. spatt fkn coffee alover the fkn monior reading that

 

  :mackems:

[indi]

.... so anything that occurred following that is fundamentally flawed as it is due to a mistake on the part of the ref.

 

OK - another possibility.  Ball cleared from defender in the goal (but will soon be shown to be a goal). Ref waives play on, meanwhile there is an immediate foul worthy of Yellow Card. Can you still card a player for a foul that cannot have taken place in the game because that part of the game will be replayed?. The game is retroactively put back to the time of the goal.....so can the foul actually have taken place?

 

What if more serious.... as ball is cleared Keeper takes a swing and punches attacker in the mouth. Red Card.  Meanwhile 4th official says goal. And game resets to time of goal.  What do you do with the Carded Keeper.

 

 

I would say that the game should be stopped for replay, and then restarted with either GK or IFK to Defending team, but that might impact a teams ability to take a second shot or make a new play.

 

Pretty sure that people can still be carded even if the ball's not in play. I'm sure I've seen people sent off after the half and full-time whistle's been blown. It'd be at the ref's discretion, but obviously you wouldn't really want to see someone get a yellow for something trivial in that situation.

 

I think that it's worth creating a couple of potential small problems in order to solve a big problem, especially as they'd only happen once in a blue-moon. Apart from anything, the situation you describe already exists under the current rules, when the linesman sees something that the ref doesn't, an offside in the run up to a goal for example. No-one's too bothered about pulling the play back in that situation and this isn't that different in my view.

[NG32]

Salary cap for teams in the top two divisions of every league in the world.

[Exiled in Texas]

Pretty sure that people can still be carded even if the ball's not in play. I'm sure I've seen people sent off after the half and full-time whistle's been blown.

 

Absolutely.  When the ball is not in play, it's a misconduct but not a foul.  Defender punches a forward in the Penalty area as a corner kick is inswinging and it's a Penalty kick and a Red Card.  Defender punches a forward in the Penalty area while waiting for a corner to be taken and it's only a Red Card - restart with the original Corner Kick.

 

That might be a possibility to deal with this type of infraction. If a misconduct happens during a period of time that is retro-actively not part of the game, then treat it as if the ball were not in play.

 

So in the instance that a foul/misconduct occurs in play during the "review period"......if the goal scores. Then goal stands and player is Carded for Misconduct (time of misconduct is time when clock would have been stopped).  If no goal, then foul awarded and player Carded for Misconduct.

[indi]

So that means there's no real problems with it then.

 

[Exiled in Texas]

So that means there's no real problems with it then.

 

After working through the scenario.......no. No real problem  

[indi]

So that means there's no real problems with it then.

 

After working through the scenario.......no. No real problem  

 

Good man. So that's it then, motion carried: chop chop Sepp, get it done.

[Groo]

Asking football to self regulate is like asking a child to spend the night in a sweet shop and just take one sweet.

 

Greed has destroyed what was once a great game, now there is no real competition and no dreams left for the fans of smaller teams.

 

Nothing can be done to change this whilst the ones influencing decisions are the ones filling their pockets. When was the last time a major decision was made to benefit the whole structure and not just the elite few.

 

The only way it can will ever change is 2 senario's, 1 is the collapse of the TV revenue, which would be the end of those teams that 'take' the most. The other is for governments to come in with a way to enforce clubs to follow authority rules, the big one would be to only allow to play with a license.

 

Therefore if a club wants to play, it has to follow the rules, it cannot use the 'form a  new league' threat has been brandished so succesfully to the detriment of the majority of teams. The Prmier League would never have been formed, teams would still have a fair share of rewards and the whole structure would still have been more even had this been done 20 years ago.

[The Prophet]

Would scrap the UEFA and the League cup. Top two qualify for Europe and for the sake of competition 3rd-6th go into a play off for the last spot, would also give others more of an oppertunity to qualify.

 

Introduction of a video ref.

 

World wide wage cap of some form.

 

Would also consider scrapping transfers. Players play for their clubs until the end of their contract and could move on. Players would have the option of negotiating relegation escape clauses and what not. Would protect smaller teams and would bring some meaning to signing a contract

 

[Groo]

Players would have the option of negotiating relegation escape clauses and what not. Would protect smaller teams and would bring some meaning to signing a contract

 

 

 

My answer to that is a lot simpler and something I cannot understand being the way it is.

 

No matter what league you are in, the players contract should have a level per division, therefore if relegated the players would be paid a salary appropriate to the division they find themselves in.

[indi]

Here's yet another problem with the wage-cap idea; exchange rates.

 

For it to work the cap would have to be the same everywhere in the world, but there's simply no way of doing that, due to exchange rates, cost of living, taxation, and so-on, all of which fluctuate outside of the control of the authorities. Sport works best when it's not manipulated to handicap the successful - surely it's about the best team winning at the end of the day isn't it? - and unfortunately that means that the rich usually win.

[Groo]

Here's yet another problem with the wage-cap idea; exchange rates.

 

For it to work the cap would have to be the same everywhere in the world, but there's simply no way of doing that, due to exchange rates, cost of living, taxation, and so-on, all of which fluctuate outside of the control of the authorities. Sport works best when it's not manipulated to handicap the successful - surely it's about the best team winning at the end of the day isn't it? - and unfortunately that means that the rich usually win.

 

The problem now is the gap in rewards is so immense. Where does all that money go?

 

The big teams swallow the money like a whale algae. The money then pours OUT of football, via the pockets of overpaid footballers.

 

The best team will always have the better chance of winning, the financial unbalance now means that the best team is the one who can buy all the best players. The current system means all but a few teams are handicapped and in a big way.

[indi]

Here's yet another problem with the wage-cap idea; exchange rates.

 

For it to work the cap would have to be the same everywhere in the world, but there's simply no way of doing that, due to exchange rates, cost of living, taxation, and so-on, all of which fluctuate outside of the control of the authorities. Sport works best when it's not manipulated to handicap the successful - surely it's about the best team winning at the end of the day isn't it? - and unfortunately that means that the rich usually win.

 

The problem now is the gap in rewards is so immense. Where does all that money go?

 

The big teams swallow the money like a whale algae. The money then pours OUT of football, via the pockets of overpaid footballers.

 

The best team will always have the better chance of winning, the financial unbalance now means that the best team is the one who can buy all the best players. The current system means all but a few teams are handicapped and in a big way.

 

But the only difference between now and how it's always been is one of scale, the richest teams have always dominated ever since the sport went professional - and probably before that too. There's just a huge amount of money in football at the moment and the reason for that is simply that everyone's fallen back in love with the game since the eighties, it's become fashionable again and so the only way that things are going to change is if that's reversed somehow. Then you're left with the question of whether the cure is worse than the disease. It's a bit like what's happening to us right now; personally, I'm enjoying this season more than I have done for a long time, we're winning games, in no danger of going down, the Championship is a "proper" league, with "proper" teams, "proper" fans and so-on. I suspect I'm not the only one who feels like that, but I'm willing to put real money on none of us wanting to stay here for anything more than a single season. People hark back for the "olden days" when they [mis]remember money playing no part in football, but if we did go back to then they'd soon come to regret it, I reckon.

[Groo]

You are wrong on so many fronts.

 

How did it use to be:

 

1. Teams shared the match proceeds (this was when TV money was not as big as now, so match proceeds mattered even in the first division. Teams with 50K crowds would get the proceeds forma 50K crowd every other week and at all other times share the smaller gates. This meant that the bigger supported teams had a bigger pot over the season and could give themselves an edge.

 

2. The Football League took the TV money (plus whatever sponsorship) and awarded prizes throughout the leagues. The winners had the lions share but the difference was not the gulf we get today.

 

3. Money was reserved for developement of the game.

 

 

What changed?

 

It started for me with Manchester United's campaign to keep all the gate money, not satisfied with the edge that extra money every other week gave them they wanted it all. The League buckled under pressure and changed it so the home team kept the home gate.

 

There were numerous threats of breaking away as the 'bigger' teams wanted more of the TV money but the League would not give on this, hence when Sky appeared on the scene and offered sums of money never seen before in the game, the opportunity was taken by the bigger teams to break away.

 

The Premier League was formed on behalf of the 'bigger' teams so that they could cream the TV recenue.

 

The League had to come to some compromise to retain a way into the money for other teams.

 

 

I'm not saying that the winners should not have rewards, its just the rewards are now on a scale totally unjustified and makes the top end of the Premier League a 'privileged members club'.

 

 

A well run small team always had a chance, the likes of Ipswich, Burnley, Derby all won the League, it cannot happen these days.

 

 

Some clubs have far too much power and they have syphoned the money into their pockets to mismanage and drop down the drain.

 

 

 

 

You seem to be mistaking teams buying success with earning success. The wealth in the game right now could make for an enteraining league, isn't it funny, at a time when there is more money in football than at any other time, the number of teams in financial trouble is at record levels.

 

 

[Chrisjraby]

Sepp Blatter

[indi]

You are wrong on so many fronts.

 

How did it use to be:

 

1. Teams shared the match proceeds (this was when TV money was not as big as now, so match proceeds mattered even in the first division. Teams with 50K crowds would get the proceeds forma 50K crowd every other week and at all other times share the smaller gates. This meant that the bigger supported teams had a bigger pot over the season and could give themselves an edge.

 

2. The Football League took the TV money (plus whatever sponsorship) and awarded prizes throughout the leagues. The winners had the lions share but the difference was not the gulf we get today.

 

3. Money was reserved for developement of the game.

 

 

What changed?

 

It started for me with Manchester United's campaign to keep all the gate money, not satisfied with the edge that extra money every other week gave them they wanted it all. The League buckled under pressure and changed it so the home team kept the home gate.

 

There were numerous threats of breaking away as the 'bigger' teams wanted more of the TV money but the League would not give on this, hence when Sky appeared on the scene and offered sums of money never seen before in the game, the opportunity was taken by the bigger teams to break away.

 

The Premier League was formed on behalf of the 'bigger' teams so that they could cream the TV recenue.

 

The League had to come to some compromise to retain a way into the money for other teams.

 

 

I'm not saying that the winners should not have rewards, its just the rewards are now on a scale totally unjustified and makes the top end of the Premier League a 'privileged members club'.

 

 

A well run small team always had a chance, the likes of Ipswich, Burnley, Derby all won the League, it cannot happen these days.

 

 

Some clubs have far too much power and they have syphoned the money into their pockets to mismanage and drop down the drain.

 

 

 

 

You seem to be mistaking teams buying success with earning success. The wealth in the game right now could make for an enteraining league, isn't it funny, at a time when there is more money in football than at any other time, the number of teams in financial trouble is at record levels.

 

 

 

It's normal practice when you think someone is "wrong on so many fronts" to offer up an argument that contradicts what they said, rather than backs it up. All of that is about scale.

 

Some clubs have always bought success, it's [again] just on a bigger scale now, hence why it's harder for a well run small team to win something.

 

You can't take the influence of money out of football, it's simply not possible, people who think it is are deluding themselves. There are ways that it could be made more competitive - perhaps a restriction on senior squad size or something like that - but a wage cap isn't one.

[cp40]

^The Genie is out of the Bottle^

[Guest]

Bring back the old European trophy system. As in the old European Cup, UEFA Cup and the Cup Winners Cup. The UEFA Cup used to be a fantastic competition which is now an absolute farce.

 

I'd keep it how it is in terms of entrants, but change the groups to a straight unseeded knockout tournament. If Real Madrid drew Barcelona in the First Round, tough shit.

[Stifler]

World wide:

Wage caps

Transfer budget caps (no team can spend a total of say £50m a season)

Maximum transfer fee (no player can be bought.solf for more then say £25m)

Squad limit

Youth intake limit

75% of the squad and youth teams should be of the home nation

 

In Britain:

Merge the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish leagues together to from a big football league system, of say about 10 leagues, also merge the cups.

Champions League to be for the Champions of each top league of each country, the 2 cup winners, last years winner and the Europa League winner, should also be a knockout round only competition.

Europa League, given to the 2nd placed team in each country the cup runners up, and the fair play league winner from each country. This should also be a knockout round only competition.

 

 

[Thespence]

Clubs can only loan out a max 3 players per season.