Changes that could improve Soccer

[Evil Genius]

Would a salary cap for players make smaller clubs more cometitive as the top players could earn as much with them as the bigger clubs,Or would Video Refs be a good thing?
Any other suggestions?

the sooner that happens the better. its worked wonders in the states esp in the nfl...

The NFL is entirely different, in two key respects. First, there are not the same alternative opportunities for an American Footballer to earn big wages outside of the USA. Whereas, any League in Europe which tried a salary cap would immediately lose its best earners to those which don't. And if the EU tried it collectively, the best players would simply move to non-EU clubs.

Second, the NFL is hardly "competitive", considering it is based on a Franchise system, without promotion or relegation. In soccer, a salary cap would have prevented e.g. the situation we are due soon, whereby two former giants in Forest and Leeds will meet in the third tier of English football. Then again, a salary cap would also most likely have meant that those two clubs would never have reached a European Final, since their best players (plus Revie and Clough) would never have stayed to work under such an imposition.

[Bogball XV]

The NFL is entirely different, in two key respects. First, there are not the same alternative opportunities for an American Footballer to earn big wages outside of the USA. Whereas, any League in Europe which tried a salary cap would immediately lose its best earners to those which don't. And if the EU tried it collectively, the best players would simply move to non-EU clubs.

Second, the NFL is hardly "competitive", considering it is based on a Franchise system, without promotion or relegation. In soccer, a salary cap would have prevented e.g. the situation we are due soon, whereby two former giants in Forest and Leeds will meet in the third tier of English football. Then again, a salary cap would also most likely have meant that those two clubs would never have reached a European Final, since their best players (plus Revie and Clough) would never have stayed to work under such an imposition.

Where exactly would the players go if UEFA affiliated clubs had a salary cap?  Don't start talking about the legal implications and anti-competition law etc, I feel that could be got around, but I can't be bothered starting into that.  What I'm saying is that in theory a salary cap would revolutionise soccer, I can't see it happening, not until people start getting bored with the status quo (that happened me several years ago).  What's the point in a team like Porto winning a champions league, when the following year they have to sell all their players to the big clubs?  As for argument about Leeds and Forest, not if the imposition were uefa (or better fifa) wide.  BTW, salary caps work in many ways, my favourite would be to give teams a budget (based on certain average stats), they can spend that on one player or a squad of 50 - it's the clubs call - it'd add another layer of strategy, it would have to invigorate the mind numbing boringness that is there at present.

[GalwayBayBoy]

One that's always bugged me is you know when a ball is rolling towards the end line and the defender uses his body to block the attacker from getting to the ball. If you tried to do that on any other part of the field it'd be a free-kick as the defender is making no attempt whatsoever to play the ball and is just obstructing the attacker from getting to it. Drives me mad.

Can't understand this either....it's blatant obstruction. The rule already covers this, and applying it would encourage defenders to play football.

This misunderstands the Rule. Referees are instructed to distinguish between (legitimate) shielding of the ball and (illegal) obstruction. The key is whether the player doing the shielding is physically capable of playing the ball should he choose, or whether he is not capable of reaching and controlling the ball, so is merely concerned with obstructing (impeding) his opponent.

The "should he choose" part is why shielding should be allowed as a legitimate part of the game. Otherwise, you end up penalising a defender who has skilfully used his anticipation, speed, strength etc to get to a position where he may control the ball before his opponent.

I have to say I think that's a load of horse manure and that's from someone who regularly plays centre-half. 95% of the time in cases like this the defender could choose to play the ball if he wanted to. He doesn't want to he just wants to stop the attacker from getting to the ball and letting it roll out of play. Personally I don't see what's skillful about simply blocking your opponent from getting to the ball. Leaning into him, sticking your arse out to block him, handing him off, etc.

And of course he never controls the ball in the first place. He never makes any attempt to touch the ball. He's only concerned with blocking the attacker much like a less violent version of a linebacker in American football.

As a centre-half it's admittedly a very handy cop-out when you're playing and one I've been thankful for many times. Instead of having to actually play the ball I can just stick my rear end out and spread my arms and block an opponent who tries to get anywhere near it.

[heganboy]

with apologies to James Mc Cartan (wee) when asked what rules would he change in a glentoran program:

I'd change it to 15 a side, have all the players be able to do what the goalkeeper does, make a goal count for 3 points, and have a point given for kicking it over the bar

[GalwayBayBoy]

with apologies to James Mc Cartan (wee) when asked what rules would he change in a glentoran program:

I'd change it to 15 a side, have all the players be able to do what the goalkeeper does, make a goal count for 3 points, and have a point given for kicking it over the bar

You're a bit late. Someone did that joke already on page 1.

[Evil Genius]

The NFL is entirely different, in two key respects. First, there are not the same alternative opportunities for an American Footballer to earn big wages outside of the USA. Whereas, any League in Europe which tried a salary cap would immediately lose its best earners to those which don't. And if the EU tried it collectively, the best players would simply move to non-EU clubs.

Second, the NFL is hardly "competitive", considering it is based on a Franchise system, without promotion or relegation. In soccer, a salary cap would have prevented e.g. the situation we are due soon, whereby two former giants in Forest and Leeds will meet in the third tier of English football. Then again, a salary cap would also most likely have meant that those two clubs would never have reached a European Final, since their best players (plus Revie and Clough) would never have stayed to work under such an imposition.

Where exactly would the players go if UEFA affiliated clubs had a salary cap?  Don't start talking about the legal implications and anti-competition law etc, I feel that could be got around, but I can't be bothered starting into that.  What I'm saying is that in theory a salary cap would revolutionise soccer, I can't see it happening, not until people start getting bored with the status quo (that happened me several years ago).  What's the point in a team like Porto winning a champions league, when the following year they have to sell all their players to the big clubs?  As for argument about Leeds and Forest, not if the imposition were uefa (or better fifa) wide.  BTW, salary caps work in many ways, my favourite would be to give teams a budget (based on certain average stats), they can spend that on one player or a squad of 50 - it's the clubs call - it'd add another layer of strategy, it would have to invigorate the mind numbing boringness that is there at present.

How can UEFA impose a salary cap? This would be in breach of the law of the land of just about every country in which UEFA operates. And even if they could, the Middle East, Japan, even the USA etc would hoover up the best players. Plus the best South American players would stay at home, instead of going to Europe.
As for your limitation on team budgets, Germany already operates just such a system i.e. teams cannot exceed revenue limits or go into debt etc, although within these limits, they can pay individuals whatever they like.
And German football hasn't been in such a parlous state for many years.

Anyhow, why impose a cap on footballers and not e.g. tennis players, golfers or rugby players? Or pop stars, accountants or City dealers?

As for saying that "in theory, a salary cap would revolutionise soccer", so would breeding a race of three legged players. In theory.

[Evil Genius]

One that's always bugged me is you know when a ball is rolling towards the end line and the defender uses his body to block the attacker from getting to the ball. If you tried to do that on any other part of the field it'd be a free-kick as the defender is making no attempt whatsoever to play the ball and is just obstructing the attacker from getting to it. Drives me mad.

Can't understand this either....it's blatant obstruction. The rule already covers this, and applying it would encourage defenders to play football.

This misunderstands the Rule. Referees are instructed to distinguish between (legitimate) shielding of the ball and (illegal) obstruction. The key is whether the player doing the shielding is physically capable of playing the ball should he choose, or whether he is not capable of reaching and controlling the ball, so is merely concerned with obstructing (impeding) his opponent.

The "should he choose" part is why shielding should be allowed as a legitimate part of the game. Otherwise, you end up penalising a defender who has skilfully used his anticipation, speed, strength etc to get to a position where he may control the ball before his opponent.

I have to say I think that's a load of horse manure and that's from someone who regularly plays centre-half. 95% of the time in cases like this the defender could choose to play the ball if he wanted to. He doesn't want to he just wants to stop the attacker from getting to the ball and letting it roll out of play. Personally I don't see what's skillful about simply blocking your opponent from getting to the ball. Leaning into him, sticking your arse out to block him, handing him off, etc.

And of course he never controls the ball in the first place. He never makes any attempt to touch the ball. He's only concerned with blocking the attacker much like a less violent version of a linebacker in American football.

As a centre-half it's admittedly a very handy cop-out when you're playing and one I've been thankful for many times. Instead of having to actually play the ball I can just stick my rear end out and spread my arms and block an opponent who tries to get anywhere near it.

As someone who played centre half for nearly 20 years and is a qualified referee, I beg to differ. OK, a player shielding the ball from another is hardly the most attractive aspect of play. But neither is the same player hoofing it into the stands when he's not allowed to shield the ball out of play. So what? It happens from time to time, but it's hardly the worst problem in the game compared, say, with diving, abusing officials, greedy Agents etc etc.

Anyhow, even if you did want to ban it, how would you do so in practice? So long as the ball is in play, how can you compel a player to play it? How do you know he's not going to play it the next instance? What about the excitement caused on occasion when the defender gets it wrong and the attacker nips in to steal it away and set up a chance, or even score?

And even if you could ban it, how do you stop players just stopping the ball before it goes over the line, and juggling it etc, in an effort to force the attacker to play the ball, as happens when a player doesn't want the ball to go out of play (i.e. when time-wasting)?

In the end, if the defending player has got there first, without pushing etc and is within reach of the ball, it is his choice whether to play it or not. Tough titty on the attacker if he was beaten to it.

[Yer Ma]

The offside law should be simplified again - if you're level you are on, but anyone behind the line of defence regardless of whether you are 'interfering' with play or not is offside. Makes life a lot easier for everyone, including linesmen who are in an impossible position enforcing this rule.

[Chrisowc]

Refs not giving penalties because they change their stance on what constitutes a foul when a challenge is made in the box. If they'd give a free anywhere else on the pitch for the tackle then its a penalty. Need refs to apply the law properly.

As well as when a corner is taken and the defender is trying to get into the attackers shirt (usually Ricardo Carvalho) and the Ref bottles it by giving a free kick to the defending team.

[rrhf]

what about doing away with offside completely

[maddog]

A proper crack down on diving. If a player goes down looking a penalty and the ref doesnt give it then the player diving has to be carded.
Backchat from players, when drogba and crew are running at the ref complaining just start dishing the red cards. They will soon shut up then.

[Goats Do Shave]

Bigger pitch! - allow more space & stop defensive teams like Chelsea  being as succesful!

[full back]

My Xmas list for Soccer

1. Less protection for goalkeepers
2. Cut out yapping at referee's
3. Divers can be punished after games by video analysis

In fact all of these changes could be applied to the GAA as well

[Gnevin]

Bigger pitch! - allow more space & stop defensive teams like Chelsea  being as succesful!

Not going to happen less players is the only realistic option

[Yer Ma]

what about doing away with offside completely

Nah, that would f**k the game up altogether.