The 2002 World Cup produced both the good and the bad. The good was the drama-packed action and amazing runs of countries like Korea and USA, whilst the bad was the atrocious refereeing, which was compounded by Fifa's grey laws and directives that offered no help. While a tighter control over refereeing standards would help, some laws need to be rewritten, and others introduced.
Despite the furore over many decisions, especially from Italy, only two teams could directly blame the referees for their exits. Belgium's Wilmots' disallowed goal against Brazil in their eighth final cost them any chance of winning the match. Wilmots' header was perfectly good, and even the referee at half time agreed he made a mistake. Although, he still has not come clean on why he disallowed the goal. Brazil scored early in the second half, thanks to a deflection, then caught Belgium on the counter late in the game. For much of the game, Belgium held their own and were desperately unlucky not to win.
Spain was the other team directly eliminated from the tournament through refereeing errors. First, like Wilmots' header, they had their very own perfect good header ruled out early in their quarter final game against Korea. Then in golden goal time, the linesman called the ball out over the end-line, when it barely even touched the line. Remember, the rule states the whole of the ball must be over the whole of the line, so this basic error was undoubtably the worst of the tournament. Though the ball allegedly went out, the Spanish player still played a cross, which went to an unmarked player and would have been headed straight into the net.
The USA might also have a grievance with their elimination to Germany in the quarter final. A shot was clearly blocked by the arm of a German player on the line, which denied a goal. However, that decision merely highlighted the murkiness of the handball rule, or, as with the Spanish out-of-bounds example above, an ignorance or varied interpretation of current laws amongst the referees. Add to that the most abused law of the game (always has been, and no doubt always will be), the offside law, and it's clear that several laws of the game need revision.
Problem: This law should be so simple. When the ball is played, the ball or two opposition players must be between the goal and the attacker. The refereeing problem lies with the fact that it means that the linesman must keep an eye on the last defender (the goalie is usually the second player that is between the ball and the goal) and also when the ball is played. I don't know how the referees are instructed, but you'd think it would a simple job to keep an eye on the last line whilst keeping track of the ball carrier through peripheral vision. It seems they can't, so Fifa has issued a directive to favour the attackers when in doubt. Clearly, the referees don't heed that either.
Solution 1: What Fifa is trying to say is that unless the referee is 100% convinced that the player is offside, only then is it to be called offside. Well, instead of making it a directive that referees are under no obligation to heed, make it a LAW so they are obligated. This season, the English Premier League has rephrased the law (as a directive) so that it reads "clearly offside". That should help. But really, an actual law is needed that reads in part: "The referee must call offside when he is 100% convinced that a player clearly has neither the ball nor two opposition players between himself and the goal when the ball is passed is".
Solution 2: The other possibility is to remove the offside law altogether, or reduce its usage in the game. While the former sounds drastic, field hockey removed its offside law several years ago with no detrimental effects on the game. If it's not already been done, maybe trial it a minor league somewhere. The latter suggestion of reducing the rule's usage is by extending the offside-exclusion zone (remember, you can't be offside in your own half) from the half-way line to possibly the edge of circle. This could also have the welcome effect of increasing space and allowing for a more fast-breaking an open game.
Problem: Passive offside is when a player is in an offside position, but not interfering with play. Rightfully, the play should continue. However, there's uncertainty as to when the player can become active - like, to poke in a rebound or something.
Solution: Remember, the offside decision is made when the ball is played. If he was deemed passive then, he, and just like anyone else on the pitch, remains passive until another ball is played. That's the end of the matter. If a shot is taken subsequently and he is offside at the time this new ball is played, then yes, he is to be called offside. Very simple. No need for retrospective decisions.
Problem: Passive offside brings up an interesting point. Passive offside only applies to players without the ball, but what about for players with the ball - especially when only just in the opposition's half. A grievance of mine is that once you're caught offside, a free-kick is automatically awarded against you even when the offside is in the most harmless of areas or has little danger. There's no mechanism for you to personally absolve yourself of the infringment.
Solution: A new rule that allows a player to run back with the ball to an on-side position, or pass the ball to a player to an on-side position. This could be that the ball travels back behind two opposition players (remembering one is the goalie), though, an easier way to officiate and also to avoid exploitation of the rule by having players camp in forward positions is for the ball to be passed back into his own half. The offside would then be rescinded and play continues. Obviously the linesman needs only to warn of infringements instead of calling them immediately, but calls them only when the player makes no attempt to get himself or the ball back on-side.
This sounds complicated, but it's not. The linesman is doing nothing different to normal other than his signals are interpreted as a warning, not a call. Once seeing the warning, the player can react. And it is his obligation to spot the warning and immediately react. Once he gets back on-side, the warning flag comes down. In fact, the main referee can make the decision of whether the player is attempting to get play back on-side. An offside-rescinding rule would speed up the game, and reduce somewhat the negative impact on a team who is wrongly called off-side.
Problem: Contentious decisions arise here because referees interpret the law differently, especially in the box and when deciding penalties. Many people felt that USA were hard done by when a shot hit a German defender on the arm, which denied a goal. However, the defender, whilst facing the player, knew little off it and had his hands by his side. The referee explained after the match that he determined that it was ball to hand rather than hand to ball - basically, accidental handball. Fair enough too. But in the England/Switzerland Euro 96 match, a similar thing occurred when a Swiss shot hit an English player's arm. However, on this occasion the arms were in the air. While there was no intentional hand to ball, there was an intentional raise of the arms, which increased the chance of a ball to hand. The penalty was rightly called.
At the other end of the scale, in the Chile/Italy match at France 98, Chile conceded a penalty because the ball struck an arm, which blocked a cross. But the Chilean had his back to the player and had no idea of it! Also, his arms were by his side. Very harsh. When Australia played Argentina in the 1997 World Youth Cup, which they memorably won 4-3, they conceded a penalty when a long range shot struck Hayden Foxe's arm - without him really seeing the ball. Clearly, the law needs revision.
Solution: Revise the law so that a handball foul is called if a player intentionally moves his arm or hand to intercept or block the ball. Yellow card and direct free kick must then be issued, or a red card and penalty if the infringement took place within the box. That covers the hand to ball scenario, or deliberate handball. An unintentional handball would be any ball to hand scenario. Fifa has two options: either an indirect free-kick or play-on. Considering the willingness of players to exploit rules, you'd have to enforce a foul, and hence an indirect free-kick. However, I'd add a further sub-law that immunes any player from a foul if their arms are down by their side. Really, arms have to be somewhere, and down by the side is the only real and judgeable precaution a player can take.
Problem: The entire concept of yellow cards is a joke. It's just a silly warning. Only if the player receives another is the team penalised - and that's an extreme punishment of a send-off. Yellow card offences are semi-serious, so there should be an immediate punishment to discourage these offences. No wonder players laugh them off. And in their wisdom to punish the team, Fifa introduces suspensions from subsequent matches when two yellows are accumulated. That sounds fine in theory, and while that does punish the team, it is not in the match to which the offence was committed, nor against the team that the infringement was committed against.
We saw in the World Cup that Germany's Ballack received a yellow card for a deliberate foul. While he received a yellow, Korea received no direct benefit from it. Ballack actually went on to score the winning goal just minutes later. But because it was Ballack's second card in the tournament, he and the team, via suspension, were punished for the next match, which in turn benefited that match's opponents - Brazil, and in the World Cup final! Brazil had an easy enough run to the final, and to provide a further advantage by denying its opponent its best player was just crazy.
Solution: Clearly, punishment for yellow cards must occur instantly, and in the match they were earned. While the team must be punished, its opponent must be rewarded. With red cards incurring a send-off, yellows should incur the logical step down - that of a sin bin. A fifteen minute immediate suspension from the game would soon force players to think twice with deliberate fouls and injury feigning. Best of all, the opposition gains an ice hockey-style power-play, which would add a totally new dynamic to the game and briefly open it up. In ice hockey - a 6-a-side game - it is not uncommon to get 4 vs 5 player scenarios. In football, a brief 10-a-side, or even 10 vs 9-a-side game, would be thrilling.
With the sin bin, most suspensions could be scrapped. I would only keep suspensions for vicious red card offences or off the ball offences. Even if the sin-bin was never introduced, I don't like the concept of two yellows in separate games meaning a suspension. It just ruins future matches and unfairly rewards other teams. At the very least, restrict the suspensions to yellow cards occurring in consecutive games meaning that if a player earns a yellow in one game and then goes through the next game without a yellow (or even misses it), that previous yellow is scrapped. We need to reward players who do redeem themselves, rather than leaving them on the precipice for the the rest of a tournament, as what currently happens now.
However, the introduction of a sin-bin would probably be sufficient a penalty. It would definitely be sufficient to reduce the current two-yellow suspension rule to a two-consecutive-yellow rule, as described above, and provided the sin-bin was of sensible duration. Sensible would mean at least 15 minutes, if players and teams are to take it seriously. They certainly don't give a proverbial about the current suspension system at the moment. If the law had been around for the past World Cup, Ballack would have been off the pitch and could not have scored. Korea, the team infringed, would have directly benefited. That's the essence of any punishment. And as for the power-play scenario, that World Cup brought up a wonderful possibility. The Germany/Cameroon game saw something like 13 yellow cards. A possible 8 vs 7-a-side game would have existed momentarily!
Problem: Fifa is talking about introducing a rule that any red-card results in immediate suspensions without a hearing. Basically, if the referee says it's red, you're guilty. This is designed to unify the rule world-wide by placing ultimate authority in the hands of the referees despite the fact that they do make serious mistakes. Furthermore, it's nothing short of a veiled attempt to wrest 100% control over all football competitions from their local jurisdictions or associations. It's a crazy notion, but one not totally expected from a governing body that lacks any form of common sense. Even with the prospect of this new rule - which I doubt all countries world-wide will adopt meaning Fifa could potentially have anarchy on its hands - in Fifa-sanctioned tournaments, a red card already ensures an automatic two-match suspension. The dilemma with this rule is that reds are issued for a variety of offences: from the down-right frivolous to acts of brutal violence. A red can be earned from two silly yellow card infringements like time wasting or celebrating a goal too enthusiastically, but also from kicking an opponent in the head. Yet the same penalty applies?
Solution: No automatic suspensions should apply. Expulsion from the game is punishment enough for most red cards. However, with acts of violence, as what already occurs in other sports like AFL and NRL in this country and in all major US sports, referees and/or authorised officials viewing footage post match, should be able to report offences that can subsequently be adjudicated at an appropriate tribunal set-up by the sanctioning body of the competition. For World Cups and Olympics, etc, that would be Fifa. For domestic leagues, that would be the local football association. Fifa can't hope to mandate all competitions worldwide. It's crazy. Control must be put into the hands of the local jurisdiction. Decisions on guilt can then be made on each individual offence with punishments, like fines and suspensions, dished out relative to the nature of the competition. A two-match suspension during a short tournament like a World Cup is obviously more harsh than two matches in a 38-match league season. It's just another variable in the complicated nature of appropriate punishments that sinks Fifa's absurd notion of blanket suspensions for red cards and blanket control over all games.
Problem: Players wasting time with fake injuries.
Solution: At present, if a stretcher enters the pitch and the player fails to use it, he is issued a yellow card. A 15 minute game suspension would then also apply with the proposed new yellow card rule. If he is stretchered off, then he simply is suspended from re-entering the game for 15 minutes. Lets see how many players feign injury under those circumstances! However, under the latter scenario, the injured player can be substituted - because the injury could be legitimate.
Problem: Disputes regarding whether the referee is playing the correct amount of injury time
Solution: Have a time keeper. Those brought up on sports like AFL, Rugby and any US sport, all of which have rigidly controlled game timing, are often dismayed at the flippancy involved with soccer's match timing. Really, no one knows how much legitimate injury time should be played, not even the referee. The fact that it's called injury time suggests that only time lost during injuries is added to regular time. But referees sometimes add time for other things like setting-up free kicks, substitutions and after goals are scored, amongst other game situations where time is lost. Yes, that's right, they only add time "sometimes". It needs to be enshrine in law what should is to be determined as "injury time".
The referee can still maintain control of exactly when time is to be added, but instead of stopping his watch, signal to the time keeper AFL-style. The time keeper can then activate the siren at the completion of full time. With that process, a law needs to also be enshrined that determines exactly when the game stops once time is up. Referees at present seem to let the game run until the ball is in a harmless location - often when it's in transit from a goalie kick. Personally, I like the rugby style of ending a game - when the ball goes dead. Once the siren sounds, often for the team defending, the game ends when a legal tackle is made, and for the offence, they just kick it out of play.
The extra injury time would no doubt potentially see length halves of over 50 minutes. That's too long, so the regular length would have to be reduced to 40 minutes. While the net time will be similar to what's current, the important thing to remember is that there is no opportunity for teams to waste time when they desire to - mainly at the end of a game. One minute of play at the end of the game has identical football value to that at any other stage of the game.
Problem: Goal keepers moving off the line before the ball is kicked. The referees can't help hope to implement this rule effectively because, just like with the offside rule, the referee has to have his eye on two spots: the goal keeper and the shot-taker. Well, he has to have his eyes on three spots because encroachment needs to be monitored. That job should be handed to the linesman so the referee cant watch the penalty being taken.
Solution: The rule needs to be rewritten so the referee only needs to look at one spot - the goalie. The current rule states the goalie can't move off his line until the penalty has been kicked. It should read that the goalie can only contact the ground in front of the line after the ball has made contact with him. That gives him the chance to dive forward whilst the ball is in transit, but not step forward, which is what the current rule is trying to achieve. Potentially that could make converting too easy, and if so, simply mark a line maybe one metre out from the goal-line to which the goalie must remain behind. Wherever he stands, the aim is to simplify the rule, make it easy to monitor, and to make penalties more a test of skill rather than how much the goalie can cheat. And with this simplified rule, there's no need for the requirement that strikers don't stutter in the run-up in taking the shot.
Problem: No fair way to end matches. Most think shootouts are unfair because they are an artificial means and involve mostly luck. Well, they are luck under the current rules with goalies moving forward all the time. The golden goal was brought in to avoid shootouts, but still they occur. So people are still looking for ways to find a fair way to end a match. A common theme is to reduce the number of players and keep reducing them as time goes on, but then that's also an artificial measure because football is designed to be played 11-a-side. Besides, are these alternatives fair anyway?
Really, goals can come from anyway, even by refereeing errors. So to end a game in such hasty fashion is unfair. In practice, the golden goal has proved anti-climatic and sometimes controversial. It's also not had the desired effect of opening the game up. Instead, teams close-down because they prefer their chance in a shootout rather than being sucker-punched with a golden goal.
Solution: UEFA have already discarded the golden goal and and replaced it with a what could be termed as a "golden half" rule. Basically, if a team is leading at half time in extra time, they win. It's yet to be put into practice, but seems fair enough in that it provides the opposition team some chance at redemption in case they've conceded unfortunately. However, another option is to try a "golden lead" rule. Basically, if scores are tied at the end of extra time, the team that scored first in extra time is awarded the match. If neither scored in extra time, it's the shootout.
Both these rules are still somewhat artificial. One ends the game prematurely and the other awards a particular goal greater value, just like the stupid away-goals rule. You don't want these sorts of arbitrary decisions about the value of a goal. A goal should mean a goal regardless of when it's scored.
The problem with all these game-ending rules is that all have been designed, not to find a fair way to finish a match, but a way to avoid the apparently unfair penalty shootout. But if penalties were refereed with the new rule as described in the penalty section, they would not be unfair. In fact, they'd be the fairest known way to decide matches, especially if you allowed the five players that take the first five penalties to be allowed to take penalties once the shootout becomes sudden death mode. That would reduce the luck element substantially because the noted penalty takers will be still involved rather than using the lesser-lights, which incidentally, includes the goal keeper. This is a system that field hockey uses, and successfully.
One fact about shootouts that no one can dispute is their being fantastic drama compared to golden goals, which generally leave an anti-climatic feeling after the game. My feeling is that if teams can't win a match in 120 minutes then they deserve to suffer the consequences of a shootout. Not that the consequences are any greater than suffering a loss to a fluky golden goal.
While shootouts seem the only way to decide football matches, they themselves can be tinkered with. Anyone who's seen American Major League Soccer will note that their version of a shootout is via a one on one with the goalie. The player has (a generous) 5 seconds to run the ball from centre circle and score. Unlike penalties, a one-on-one is a situation that all players would face during their careers. It's also easier to referee under existing rules. I've not seen enough of these forms of shootouts to determine if there are any drawbacks, but if there aren't, it's something that could be tried more widely.
Problem: What happened with the tackle from behind rule? Fifa brought it in just before France 98, yet now it's rarely enforced. Since it is impossible to win the ball by tackling a player from behind, tackles from behind were therefore deemed as professional fouls. The other contentious professional foul is when goalies dive at strikers when they are one on one. Often a yellow card is produced, when some think it should be red because it denied a goal scoring situation.
Then there is the ever increasing problem of shirt-pulling and diving for penalties blighting the game as a spectacle.
Solution: Fifa is right, a tackle from behind cannot hope to win the ball so it is a professional foul. A red card should be produced. Simply enforce the rule. But what about other fouls? It seems referees don't even know what they are. In fact, the laws of the game don't either contain a definition. So, here is a possible breakdown:
Definition of a tackle: Ball must be on the ground for a tackle to be effected. Must be step-in, block, or slide with foot along the ground, using one leg. High tackles, two-footed tackles, studs-up tackles and jump-in tackles are unsportsmanlike, and hence, a red card results..
A tackle is legitimate if the tackler has made contact with the ball before fouling the player.
A free kick results if a player is fouled whilst the tackler is going for the ball.
A free kick and yellow card results when, for all tackles other than one from behind, a player is fouled whilst the tackler has made no attempt to play the ball. That's a professional foul.
A free kick and red card results when a player is fouled after receiving a tackle from behind.
A free kick and red card results when a player is fouled whilst the tackler has made no attempt to play the ball and the player is a goal scoring situation. A goal scoring situation should be clarified to mean a player being in the penalty box or having no defenders between him and the goal keeper.
A penalty kick, instead of a free kick, is awarded for any foul where initial contact was made inside the penalty box.
Goal keeper fouls are classed similarly. Commentators are correct when they state that it's either a red card or no card when goalies lunge at the feet of attackers. Either the goalie has gone for the ball and hence fouled, or professionally fouled. Virtually all of these professional fouls would deny a goal scoring situation.
The laws should be straight forward and have clear penalties. It's also easy to tell whether a player is going for the ball or committing a professional foul. It's just a matter of ensuring the referees enforce them, and do it consistently. The only addition one might add is an unsportsmanlike rule. There's nothing that actually defines a bad tackle nor is there a law that stops a player wrestling another down. An unsportsmanlike law will cover all these circumstances.
As for shirt-pulling and diving, simply stamp it out by awarding yellow cards. Most of it is obvious. With my proposed 15 minute sin bins applying to yellow cards, it will soon stop. As previously stated, a current yellow card is simply not taken seriously enough.
Problem: Glaring refereeing errors that are caught on video.
Solution: Introduce technological aids for goal-line incidents, and maybe add video referees sparingly for off-side decisions. There's no reason why technology cannot be used to determine whether the ball has crossed a goal line. Tennis and Ice Hockey use such technology to referee their "line" laws, and especially from Ice Hockey, the system is foolproof. Basically, a sensor detects whether the puck has crossed the line, and if so, a siren sounds and light flashes above the goal.
For out-field areas, contrary to what many people think, the intrusion of video replays in American sports is minimal. Only in American football, where there's natural stoppages, is video refereeing so pervasive. Similarly with the rugby codes here, where there is a natural stoppage when a try has been attempted to be scored, do videos become apparent. And yes, they work well. However, the game is never stopped when determining forward passes. Only once a try has been scored or a tackle made will the referee instruct the video referee to review the preceding few plays. The referee actually lets play continue despite the fact an infringement may have occurred. Since he knows there will be an imminent stoppage at the end of the phase, he can do that.
Can this be transferred into football? Possibly. In football, there are no set phases of play like rugby or US football. In terms of offside disputes, only when a goal is scored is there a stoppage. The referees would therefore have to let play continue, and then signal for a video check if a goal is scored. Since few goals are scored in the game, there'd be few stoppages. If the attack amounts to nothing, then it's just play-on. Obviously blatant offsides should be called, otherwise players will exploit the leniency.
The same scenario could take place when lines - especially goal-lines - are obscured from linesman and they cannot make a decision. Currently, they err on caution and signal out. Just let play continue, and if a goal is score, check the replay.
For other contentious decisions, like whether it's a goal kick or corner, which obviously has a stoppage in play, a team can instruct for a video replay. To prevent rampant usage of such replays, a joker system can be employed that sees a team only allowed two calls for a replay for the match.
Finally, there must be a law governing the situation when the replay is inconclusive. In cricket, it's just referred back to the pitch umpires and they mostly err on the side of caution. Because of this, batsmen exploit the rule and stand their ground whenever a catch is in dispute. Since the replays are often inconclusive, the batsmen survives. In the old days, the word of the fielder was accepted and the batsmen walked. What is needed is the adoption of the American system whereby the on-field referee makes a tentative call, and the replay is only used to prove him wrong. That also places more control back into the hands of the referees.
Obviously video referees in soccer need significant trialing. They are fraught with danger and no doubt players will find ways to exploit them. Personally, I'd rather see the laws fixed before an introduction. In fact, with some of the proposed laws introduced or re-interpreted on this page, there may not even be a need for video replays. However, I favour immediate introduction of technological aids for ball-over-the-goal-line decisions.
Problem: The quadrennial bickering for World Cup places by the various Fifa confederations that claim they've earned extra spots.
Solution: Make actual World Cup performance as the sole mechanism for determining allocations for the following World Cup. Give each confederation a minimum allocation of spots for a total of 16 spots. Then, for each team that makes the final 16 knockout stage of the World Cup, grant their respective confederation an extra spot. The static 16 spots could be allocated, primarily based on number of teams in each region and secondarily on World Cup pedigree, as such: Host 1, Africa 3, Asia 3, Concacaf 2, Europe 4, Oceania 1, South America 2. I firmly believe the host's spot should not reflect on the allocation for their confederation. They must be rewarded for hosting the tournament. If there is more than one host, then the confederation can decide for themselves whether the country has to qualify or use up one of its allocations. Anyway, now add the number of teams each confederation has represented in the final 16 of a World Cup (eg: 2002): Africa 1 (Senegal), Asia 2 (Japan, Korea), Concacaf 2 (USA, Mexico), Europe 9 (Denmark, Spain, Turkey, Ireland, Germany, England, Sweden, Italy, Belgium), Oceania 0, South America 2 (Brazil, Paraguay).
Assuming that one host's spot was separate for 2002 (which it wasn't), the allocations for the 2006, compared to 2002 (in parenthesis) are such: Host 1 (1), Africa 4 (5), Asia 5 (3.5, qualifiers 3), Concacaf 4 (3), Europe 13 (14.5, qualifiers 15), Oceania 1 (.5, qualifiers 0), South America 4 (4.5, qualifiers 5). Africa is the clear loser, but they deserve to be based on performance. Equally deserved are the clear winners, Concacaf and Asia. Europe lose one and half spots (one was auto-qualifier champion, France anyway), while South America only loses half a spot. Given their respective overall performances, that's also deserved.
A very simple and logical solution that removes all the politicking that mires the decision making of Fifa. The confederations simply have to perform. If ever it comes a day when Asia gets 10 teams to the final 16, then they deserve 13 spots.There's no reason to barter for these spots because introducing such a qualifying procedure for World Cup allocations whilst retaining a confederation's right for basic World Cup representation caters for all situations.
Problem: Increasingly countries have trouble obtaining players for matches that involve any significant travel. Australia is obviously one of the worst affected teams when it comes to club versus country, but it is increasingly becoming a larger problem as more and more countries have more and more of their players concentrated in leagues outside their own country. While many once felt that players were being greedy by not committing to their country for friendlies and other unimportant matches, the reality is that travelling half way around the world for one-off matches mid-week is too much to ask of players. The popular solution to this problem, especially for Australia, is to play most of their matches in Europe. But that does not solve the problem of fans not seeing their team play. What's the point in having a national team if the fans never get to support it.
Solution: Remove the current idiot concurrent club and international seasons and introduce a separate international season that does not overlap with the club season. The current concept of international windows should be eradicated totally so that no internationals are played during the club season. The focus should solely be on the clubs. By playing their fixtures instead on these former International dates, this season would condense sufficiently to allow for a dedicated international season of around 6 weeks at the end of the season that would see national teams inheriting the sole focus of the world. If you include the regular June period that tournaments are played, the international season could extend to about 10-weeks. In fact, there'd probably be enough spare time to hold a mid-season international season in January for 3-4 weeks - a time when many leagues shut down for winter.
Club versus country is now over because there's no club season going on. During these international seasons, all friendlies, qualifiers and tournaments are played. With all players free from their clubs, there'd be less travelling, and matches would not get lost in the heavily scheduled club season as what happens now. Even the clubs benefit by not having their players injured in non-club games during the season. That's probably most of the reluctance in releasing them. And hands up from those that watch the Premier League and hate the fact it shuts down for six or so weekends per season? That won't happen again. Rugby Union segregates their calendar properly: clubs/Super 12 early in the year, with international matches later in the year. So should football.
Beside the obvious benefit of having players around for the international matches, the fact that every single national team in the world would be available for the specific international seasons means there'd be less meaningless friendlies and more tournaments could gain a foot-hold. The much talked about idea of Australia holding four-team tournaments in January and June would have no problem attracting teams. Especially the January season, where teams from outside Europe that don't have to qualify for their confederation championships, would be available. In May/June, European teams that have not qualified for their championships would be available. Friendly matches are dead. Few teams take them seriously. Most therefore don't call-up their full squad for them, especially when the matches are sprawled throughout the club season. National team football needs revitalising during non championship years, and creating dedicated international seasons is the only way to do it.
The popularity of the sport suggests there is nothing wrong with the game. However, many people (mostly those that don't really follow the sport) think the game needs more goals. That's rubbish. The lack of goals is what makes the game so magical and provides the scope for its huge upsets. And those people in this country that became so enamoured with the sport during the 2002 World Cup will no doubt agree that the lack of goals is actually what makes the game so tension packed.
However, what the game could do with is more action, more often. Not more goals, but more goal-mouth action. Sensational saves and last ditch defensive clearances are just as exciting as goals scored. No other sport provides a scenario to dig in and defend like crazy against a marauding opponent. That must never be removed from the sport. That's why the talk of bigger goals by Fifa several years ago was silly. If anything, make them smaller and that would encourage more players to go forward.
In reality, in order to open the game a bit, there are a few things that could be tried. Reduce the number of players on the pitch from 11 to 10 is a common call. Players are so much fitter these days and that's caused the lack of space available. Extend the offside exclusion zone as discussed previously, which could allow for more fast-breaking games. Allow for interchanging of players rather than substituting. This would prevent fatigue impinging on player performance and, hence, quality of the game. But set a limit of maybe five interchanges per match, and maybe two more in extra time scenarios. And please, there's no need to stop the match to make substitutions. Just let the fourth official handle it during play.
The other option to prevent player fatigue is shifting the game from two halves to four quarters of 20 minutes plus time-on duration. That's proper time-on, as proposed previously. That would make the game more accommodating to TV, not that TV should be any real consideration. But it would stop the horrific tendency of commercial TV to run advertisements during the game, as what Channel 7 did during the Uruguay games. From a footballing perspective, coaches obviously would have more impact on the game. Whether that's a good or bad thing, no one knows until it's tried. From an AFL example, it does allow for teams to change set-ups when things are not going right. Their could also be some hidden benefits that won't materialise until such a format is tried.
Football is not the world game for nothing. But that does not mean things cannot be improved. Times change, and the sport must adjust. Unfortunately, it's still in the dark ages. The idea of this editorial is to get people thinking about the game, where it stands, its rules, its future and, of course, it's problems. No longer can Fifa rely on ad-hoc adjustments that do little more than confuse referees, players and the public, or impinge badly on club and international football. It's time to plan for what's good for the actual game.