CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Sports › Soccer › Rule Change

Rule Change

Started by crimsondriver54 · · 👁 5 views · 18 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants crimsondriver54Peter White43urbanhawk17Lisa Baker2Harold Taylor6amberjackal8Jessica Rogers2placidnomad50goldenwalker42Alex CookMichelle Palmer6Richard Wilson4
crimsondriver54 crimsondriver54 MemberOP
34 messages
joined Mar 2009
#1 ·
If you had the power to rewrite the rules of soccer, what would you change?

I’ve been indulging in some hypothetical thinking lately, such as
reducing the squads from 11 players down to 10. Excluding goalkeepers, that would mean 18 players on the pitch instead of 20, creating much more room to maneuver—a concept once championed by the legendary Brazilian star Socrates.

Alternatively, rather than relying on a single match delegate, we could implement a three-person review committee. They could analyze disputed plays on monitors and overturn a referee's call if they spotted an error, similar to how tennis works. This would prevent a single bad call from dictating the entire outcome of a game.

We might also consider a rule limiting teams to a maximum of three foreign players. It feels somewhat disheartening when many top clubs across the major leagues have almost no domestic talent left on their rosters.

So far, the only significant changes I've seen are the away goals rule, stoppage time, and the fact that jersey numbers aren't restricted to 1 through 11 anymore.

These are just a few musings of mine, and I am quite curious to hear your thoughts on these or any other ideas you might have.
Peter White43 Peter White43 Member
23 messages
joined May 2010
#2 ·
Personally, I’m actually a huge fan of the idea to move toward five substitutions... plus, I think it would be awesome if they finally scrapped the away goals rule entirely and just let things play out more naturally, much like how they do things over in the Premier League!
urbanhawk17 urbanhawk17 Regular
575 messages
joined Mar 2020
#3 ·
😉
crimsondriver54 crimsondriver54 MemberOP
34 messages
joined Mar 2009
#4 ·
urbanhawk17 said:😉

Fair enough; you did initiate a discussion centered on the rules of soccer.
However, those regulations have been a constant for ages.

My point concerns the culture surrounding the sport—things that could be fundamentally transformed, yet have never even existed before now.
Lisa Baker2 Lisa Baker2 Newcomer
2 messages
joined May 2009
#5 ·
I’d overhaul the away goals rule. I'd adopt the US Open Cup style, where the away goals rule only kicks in during extra time. If you're sitting at a 2:1 lead and the opponent scores once to make it 2:2, you don't just exit immediately after 90 minutes. You get an extra thirty minutes to hunt down that comeback...

Then again, maybe we should just go straight to penalties. It feels inherently unfair giving the home team an extra half hour of advantage on their own turf in the second leg...

Thirdly—and most importantly—you should limit teams to a maximum of five players who didn't come through the club's academy. Personally, I’d cap it at three. Transfers would still happen, but it would level the playing field across the league, which would likely lead to more diverse champions instead of the same few teams winning everything...

Fourth, the sheer number of clubs qualifying for European competitions from certain leagues is excessive. For instance, I’d slash the slots for Italy, England, and Spain down to just three clubs for the Champions League.
Peter White43 Peter White43 Member
23 messages
joined May 2010
#6 ·
Lisa Baker2 said:I’d overhaul the away goals rule. I'd adopt the US Open Cup style, where the away goals rule only kicks in during extra time. If you're sitting at a 2:1 lead and the opponent scores once to make it 2:2, you don't just exit immediately after 90 minutes. You get an extra thirty minutes to hunt down that comeback...

Then again, maybe we should just go straight to penalties. It feels inherently unfair giving the home team an extra half hour of advantage on their own turf in the second leg...

Thirdly—and most importantly—you should limit teams to a maximum of five players who didn't come through the club's academy. Personally, I’d cap it at three. Transfers would still happen, but it would level the playing field across the league, which would likely lead to more diverse champions instead of the same few teams winning everything...

Fourth, the sheer number of clubs qualifying for European competitions from certain leagues is excessive. For instance, I’d slash the slots for Italy, England, and Spain down to just three clubs for the Champions League.


Ugh, someone please fix this color scheme... it's seriously hurting my eyes!🤣
Harold Taylor6 Harold Taylor6 Member
34 messages
joined Mar 2009
#7 ·
Peter White43 said:Ugh, someone please fix this color scheme... it's seriously hurting my eyes!🤣

Well, you could always just copy and paste it three more times—that should make it even more painful to look at! 😉
amberjackal8 amberjackal8 Member
45 messages
joined Dec 2013
#8 ·
Honestly, I’m half-tempted to just ban the color red from all football discussion threads altogether! 🤣
Jessica Rogers2 Jessica Rogers2 Active Member
54 messages
joined Feb 2010
#9 ·
Harold Taylor6 said:Well, you could always just copy and paste it three more times—that should make it even more painful to look at! 😉

🤣 🤣
I really think league standings should be decided by head-to-head records rather than goal difference. It just feels more fair. Look at how things actually play out: some powerhouse club (Team A) might absolutely demolish a struggling underdog (Team B) 6-0 or 7-0 early in the season when Team B is already dealing with a bunch of injuries or suspensions. Then, a month later, another solid team (Team C) comes along, and by then Team B might have recovered a few key players and managed to scrape together a decent result, maybe losing only 2-0. But over the course of the season, Team C ends up beating Team A twice. At the end of the year, Team A and Team C are tied on points, but Team A looks way better on paper just because they padded their stats against that one weak team. To me, that feels rigged. 🤷
placidnomad50 placidnomad50 Active Member
67 messages
joined Dec 2007
#10 ·
The state of modern football 🙏 🙏
even if things are a total mess right now, I wouldn't change a single thing about how it stands...
to hell with all those "tactical geniuses" and their pseudo-intellectual nonsense. That just isn't what the game is about. 🤷
Harold Taylor6 Harold Taylor6 Member
34 messages
joined Mar 2009
#11 ·
Personally, I’m all for adopting a system similar to what we see in hockey or football. You’ve got those replay monitors right by the center of the field—allowing the official to actually verify if they made the right call instead of just guessing. Plus, in American football, every coach gets one or two challenges per game to contest a ruling. It just adds a layer of fairness that's hard to argue with!
goldenwalker42 goldenwalker42 Newcomer
2 messages
joined May 2009
#12 ·
The away goals rule matters. It shouldn't be scrapped. There’s still such a massive gap between playing at home versus being on the road. If you get rid of it, every visiting team will just park the bus. Even with the rule in place, Chelsea showed zero attacking intent at Camp Nou. Imagine how much worse it would be without it. Every single team would play purely defensive when traveling.

We can't have more than three substitutions. Too many changes during friendlies just dilutes the quality of the game.

Just because we're layering tech onto the game doesn't mean football actually gets better. It's rarely that simple.
Turns out even "smart" tech isn't exactly foolproof.
Reviewing replays mid-match is a dangerous game. Once a ref gets caught making a mistake on screen, they lose all authority with the players, the coaches, and the crowd instantly. It makes finishing the game smoothly nearly impossible; after that first blunder, every single call is going to be met with hostility. A referee needs to maintain total control from start to finish. This isn't tennis. In tennis, you can just flip a call and move on, but the atmosphere in an American stadium is a completely different beast.

Reducing the number of players on the field would just kill the tactical depth of the game. Eleven is the magic number. You need four in the backline, and any serious club needs at least one defensive anchor in the midfield, leaving five for the attack—assuming you aren't playing with overlapping fullbacks. The pitch is too wide; if you cut the roster, organizing a decent defense becomes impossible. We’d end up with endless 5-3 or 7-4 shootouts. That isn't real soccer. It’s not just about scoring goals; it's about organized, disciplined defending, not some frantic track meet where every other play ends in a goal.

The changes I’d make...

We need to cap clubs that rely on home-grown talent for at least 70% of their roster. That includes anyone coming up through the academy without having signed a pro deal elsewhere first. Just my two cents.

Putting officials behind the goal line. Seems like a way to make calling fouls on set pieces, box entries, or goal-line decisions any easier. Just more eyes for the same old mess.
Harold Taylor6 Harold Taylor6 Member
34 messages
joined Mar 2009
#13 ·
goldenwalker42 said:The away goals rule matters. It shouldn't be scrapped. There’s still such a massive gap between playing at home versus being on the road. If you get rid of it, every visiting team will just park the bus. Even with the rule in place, Chelsea showed zero attacking intent at Camp Nou. Imagine how much worse it would be without it. Every single team would play purely defensive when traveling.

We can't have more than three substitutions. Too many changes during friendlies just dilutes the quality of the game.

Just because we're layering tech onto the game doesn't mean football actually gets better. It's rarely that simple.
Turns out even "smart" tech isn't exactly foolproof.
Reviewing replays mid-match is a dangerous game. Once a ref gets caught making a mistake on screen, they lose all authority with the players, the coaches, and the crowd instantly. It makes finishing the game smoothly nearly impossible; after that first blunder, every single call is going to be met with hostility. A referee needs to maintain total control from start to finish. This isn't tennis. In tennis, you can just flip a call and move on, but the atmosphere in an American stadium is a completely different beast.

Reducing the number of players on the field would just kill the tactical depth of the game. Eleven is the magic number. You need four in the backline, and any serious club needs at least one defensive anchor in the midfield, leaving five for the attack—assuming you aren't playing with overlapping fullbacks. The pitch is too wide; if you cut the roster, organizing a decent defense becomes impossible. We’d end up with endless 5-3 or 7-4 shootouts. That isn't real soccer. It’s not just about scoring goals; it's about organized, disciplined defending, not some frantic track meet where every other play ends in a goal.

The changes I’d make...

We need to cap clubs that rely on home-grown talent for at least 70% of their roster. That includes anyone coming up through the academy without having signed a pro deal elsewhere first. Just my two cents.

Putting officials behind the goal line. Seems like a way to make calling fouls on set pieces, box entries, or goal-line decisions any easier. Just more eyes for the same old mess.

I have to disagree here. If you've got a top-tier official, they’ll make the right calls. I really don't care about their "authority" if they're blowing calls like some amateur! Honestly, I think bad decisions impact the fans way more than any potential video correction ever would.
Alex Cook Alex Cook Active Member
157 messages
joined May 2009
#14 ·
Maybe we should eventually bring in some Hawkeye tech for those tricky calls on the field. As for the whole salary cap mess... well, that’s more of a legal headache than anything else.
goldenwalker42 goldenwalker42 Newcomer
2 messages
joined May 2009
#15 ·
Harold Taylor6 said:I have to disagree here. If you've got a top-tier official, they’ll make the right calls. I really don't care about their "authority" if they're blowing calls like some amateur! Honestly, I think bad decisions impact the fans way more than any potential video correction ever would.

Being a high-quality official doesn't guarantee a perfect game. Even the best in the league make mistakes. But if one of those blunders is caught on live TV for the whole country to see, that official's reputation is shot. Once you lose that trust, people will question every single call they make from then on, no matter how accurate it actually is.
On the flip side, constantly stopping the flow to review every single minor foul is just nonsense. And giving coaches only two challenges? It’s a joke. If two suspicious plays happen in the first twenty minutes and they burn through those challenges, the rest of the match is back to the ref doing whatever they want without oversight.

What I'm getting at is that instant reviews won't stop errors entirely; they just make the official's life miserable during the match.
The only real way is to analyze the footage after the whistle, have the official explain themselves, and hand out heavy sanctions if the mistakes were significant. We have systems like that now, but no rulebook can perfectly eliminate human error in practice.
That amateur from Norway will probably still be officiating major games, even with enough evidence to warrant a lifetime ban and a massive fine. That's just how the system works.
Then again, even back in 2005, officials had to admit to that irregular Chelsea goal that sent them through. Everything comes full circle eventually. This is soccer. It isn't just about what happens on the pitch; it's about the media circus and the endless debates over questionable moments.
Modern technology would just turn everything into something sterile and cold.
Michelle Palmer6 Michelle Palmer6 Regular
432 messages
joined Sep 2018
#16 ·
crimsondriver54 said:If you had the power to rewrite the rules of soccer, what would you change?

I’ve been indulging in some hypothetical thinking lately, such as
reducing the squads from 11 players down to 10. Excluding goalkeepers, that would mean 18 players on the pitch instead of 20, creating much more room to maneuver—a concept once championed by the legendary Brazilian star Socrates.

Alternatively, rather than relying on a single match delegate, we could implement a three-person review committee. They could analyze disputed plays on monitors and overturn a referee's call if they spotted an error, similar to how tennis works. This would prevent a single bad call from dictating the entire outcome of a game.

We might also consider a rule limiting teams to a maximum of three foreign players. It feels somewhat disheartening when many top clubs across the major leagues have almost no domestic talent left on their rosters.

So far, the only significant changes I've seen are the away goals rule, stoppage time, and the fact that jersey numbers aren't restricted to 1 through 11 anymore.

These are just a few musings of mine, and I am quite curious to hear your thoughts on these or any other ideas you might have.

Is there even any room to breathe on this pitch? This setup is honestly a mess. It feels totally off, especially when you consider that the Socratic argument was that limited space gives physical teams the edge over technical ones. To me, that seems completely backwards—if you have more space, you need more athleticism to cover the ground, which should actually favor the more physical sides.

crimsondriver54 said:If you had the power to rewrite the rules of soccer, what would you change?

I’ve been indulging in some hypothetical thinking lately, such as
reducing the squads from 11 players down to 10. Excluding goalkeepers, that would mean 18 players on the pitch instead of 20, creating much more room to maneuver—a concept once championed by the legendary Brazilian star Socrates.

Alternatively, rather than relying on a single match delegate, we could implement a three-person review committee. They could analyze disputed plays on monitors and overturn a referee's call if they spotted an error, similar to how tennis works. This would prevent a single bad call from dictating the entire outcome of a game.

We might also consider a rule limiting teams to a maximum of three foreign players. It feels somewhat disheartening when many top clubs across the major leagues have almost no domestic talent left on their rosters.

So far, the only significant changes I've seen are the away goals rule, stoppage time, and the fact that jersey numbers aren't restricted to 1 through 11 anymore.

These are just a few musings of mine, and I am quite curious to hear your thoughts on these or any other ideas you might have.

People have been pushing for this for a while now, but if you ask me, it’s going to kill the game's momentum. It feels like we're heading toward a situation where someone is bound to complain that the flow is gone, but honestly, it just reminds me of hockey or those scenarios where everything grinds to a halt because everyone is waiting on a video review. It’s frustrating!
Let’s not forget that there was also a fair amount of disagreement among the commission members regarding how the whole situation unfolded.

crimsondriver54 said:If you had the power to rewrite the rules of soccer, what would you change?

I’ve been indulging in some hypothetical thinking lately, such as
reducing the squads from 11 players down to 10. Excluding goalkeepers, that would mean 18 players on the pitch instead of 20, creating much more room to maneuver—a concept once championed by the legendary Brazilian star Socrates.

Alternatively, rather than relying on a single match delegate, we could implement a three-person review committee. They could analyze disputed plays on monitors and overturn a referee's call if they spotted an error, similar to how tennis works. This would prevent a single bad call from dictating the entire outcome of a game.

We might also consider a rule limiting teams to a maximum of three foreign players. It feels somewhat disheartening when many top clubs across the major leagues have almost no domestic talent left on their rosters.

So far, the only significant changes I've seen are the away goals rule, stoppage time, and the fact that jersey numbers aren't restricted to 1 through 11 anymore.

These are just a few musings of mine, and I am quite curious to hear your thoughts on these or any other ideas you might have.

Impossible Quotes

crimsondriver54 said:If you had the power to rewrite the rules of soccer, what would you change?

I’ve been indulging in some hypothetical thinking lately, such as
reducing the squads from 11 players down to 10. Excluding goalkeepers, that would mean 18 players on the pitch instead of 20, creating much more room to maneuver—a concept once championed by the legendary Brazilian star Socrates.

Alternatively, rather than relying on a single match delegate, we could implement a three-person review committee. They could analyze disputed plays on monitors and overturn a referee's call if they spotted an error, similar to how tennis works. This would prevent a single bad call from dictating the entire outcome of a game.

We might also consider a rule limiting teams to a maximum of three foreign players. It feels somewhat disheartening when many top clubs across the major leagues have almost no domestic talent left on their rosters.

So far, the only significant changes I've seen are the away goals rule, stoppage time, and the fact that jersey numbers aren't restricted to 1 through 11 anymore.

These are just a few musings of mine, and I am quite curious to hear your thoughts on these or any other ideas you might have.

Did I miss anything? 😕
crimsondriver54 crimsondriver54 MemberOP
34 messages
joined Mar 2009
#17 ·
On the flip side, it would be utterly absurd to halt a game constantly just to scrutinize every minor foul; it’s simply impractical. Even if coaches were granted only two challenges per match, we wouldn't actually solve anything. If two questionable calls happen in the first twenty minutes and a coach burns through both challenges, the rest of the game is once again left entirely to the whims of a referee who can call whatever he likes without interference.

We shouldn't be reacting when a ref is doing a decent job—or even a slightly suspicious one—but rather only when there's a blatant, obvious blunder. Currently, it feels like the officials just stick together like a pack of stubborn mules, refusing to overturn a call out of pure ego or perhaps a bias toward a specific team. Or, heaven forbid, it's something more nefarious. There wouldn't be any chaos or shouting matches with the official if things worked differently; a bystander (or a few spectators, if you will) could watch a replay and immediately validate a perfectly legal goal that the ref tossed out for reasons known only to himself. Humans—referees included—can lie or miss things, but the technology doesn't.
Essentially, we would only be correcting those catastrophic errors that directly dictate the final score. I don't believe this would waste much time, considering we spend so much time watching slow-motion replays anyway.
I am aware this idea has been floated before and subsequently abandoned, but the mere fact that it was proposed suggests it is a viable possibility.
Richard Wilson4 Richard Wilson4 Veteran
2K messages
joined Sep 2009
#18 ·
Winning by two or more goals should grab you 4 points...
Lisa Baker2 Lisa Baker2 Newcomer
2 messages
joined May 2009
#19 ·
Peter White43 said:Ugh, someone please fix this color scheme... it's seriously hurting my eyes!🤣

Oh, great. Now I have to deal with this pink one.🙂

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads