I should write to the world's best loved sports administrator, Herr Joseph Blatter, to suggest a number of measures that are sorely needed to improve the world's best loved sport. Here are my proposed measures:
1. Matches will consist of two halves of precisely 30 minutes each. The clock will only run when the ball is in play, as in basketball and waterpolo. The time will be kept by "table officials" who will replace the supremely irritating fourth official, whose only functions presently seem to be those of prancing about holding up numbered boards, and getting on both team coaches' nerves.
The advantages to be gained by this measure are obvious, but since it doesn't seem like it's being considered at all by FIFA, despite its being so easy to introduce, maybe I need to spell them out. It will eliminate all time-wasting tactics once and for all, since any faked injuries, delays in resuming play, unnecessary substitutions in the last minutes of the game, with the sole intention of blatantly wasting time, will become be ineffective as they would stop the clock.
The present system of subjective addition of a few minutes is untransparent, inconsistent, and untrustworthy. Effective timing will put an end to this farce.
2. The procedure for substitutions. There's no need for a solemn ceremony, comparable to the swearing in of a president, to carry out a simple substitution. The present system disrupts the flow of play unnecessarily. All that's needed is for the coach to indicate the intention to carry out a substitution, and the numbers of the players concerned, to the table officials. Without any interruption of play, as happens for example in ice hockey, the coach ensures by any means that the substitution takes place, while the table officials supervise the regularity of the whole procedure, and in particular that both players are not on the pitch at the same time.
3. There will be no limit to the number of substitutions, and players may still come in again after being taken out. Presently, a player who is substituted feels almost as if he has been expelled from the match. He may have entered very much in the spirit of the contest, and wishes to achieve a lot more for his team, but suddenly it's all over. This is too drastic, and it's why very often players react so badly to a substitution. It doesn't need to happen. The system used in basketball and waterpolo should work just as well in football, more so with substitutions not interrupting the flow of play (point 2 above). Another advantage of this rule is that most of the line-up will at some point participate in a match, instead of watching disconsolately from the bench for its whole duration.
4. Technology that helps officials reach correct decisions will be encouraged, subject to regulated procedures. The game has become much too fast, the pitch is much too large, and the stakes are much too high for a human to be certain of taking correct decisions in a split second. Moreover, a dubious decision too often mars the positive spirit of a match and the lucidity of the referee himself. A quick video verification would dispel most doubts, and ensure better and fairer decisions. The referee should be able, at any time, to consult a video replay for uncertain episodes. He would be aware that this cannot happen too often, as it would ruin his reputation. However, each team coach can officially ask for a video verification, to challenge the referee's decision, once in each half. The referee will then take a final decision.
Electronic sensors, backed up by computer technology, can in fact easily be used to reach difficult decisions regarding whether the ball has completely entered the goalmouth, or gone over the playing perimeter. Goals/non-goals, like the one "scored" by England in the 1966 World Cup final, will immediately become a thing of the past.
In the meantime, there will be further research into technology to help referees take correct decisions regarding other decisions, particularly including offsides. With further advances, the role of the referee will gradually become that of supervising play, deciding on foul play, disciplining or calming players when necessary, providing the human element in controlling a match. This can never be achieved by a machine.
5. Any time the ball hits a player's hand, a free kick is awarded to the opposing team, even if it was unintentional. Most cases of hand-ball are part-intentional and part instinctive, the latter part giving rise to the "unintentional" interpretation. A defender instinctively raises his arms wide to increase coverage, and a shot from 1 metre away hits his arms - that's not an "unintentional" handball, and it happens very often in penalty areas. I'm quite certain that with abolition of the "unintentional" interpretation the number of such cases will decrease dramatically, and players will ensure that the ball does NOT hit their arms and hands.
6. Discipline. A good referee is able to impose contol on the game without relying too much on yellow cards. During a football match, a flare-up between two players can happen very easily. A strong challenge followed by an instinctive retaliation need not result in showers of yellow and red cards. A stern word of caution to both players, followed by a handshake, and play can normally resume without further ado. Referees must be discouraged as much as possible from using yellow and red cards, except in cases of violent or intimidating play and bad sporting behaviour. Particularly, and most definitely, no one should be sent off if a penalty is awarded. The rule as it is now is so harsh. The penalty kick by itself is more than enough to sanction any infringement in the penalty area, unless there is violent play involved.
A yellow card will result in an automatic and immediate 10-minute expulsion. A second yellow card, or a red card, will result in expulsion for the rest of the match. ONLY for that match. It's only very serious incidents that should result in suspensions in subsequent matches. It's utterly stupid that players are disqualified from participating in important matches, just because in the (sometimes distant) past they had picked up yellow cards for some frivolous incident.
I'm quite sure that the above changes would greatly improve on the fairness and quality of this sport we love so much.
There are other possible changes, about which I'm not so sure. I wonder, for example, how football would be if there were no offside rule at all. This, together with penalties, is by far the most controversial rule. It also kills so many scoring chances.
And what if the penalty kick were only reserved for a foul in the penalty area on an attacker with a clear scoring chance? Otherwise it's a direct free-kick, with a defensive wall on the goal line, and a yellow card. I wonder. Perhaps we would have much less desperate appeals, diving and hysterical reactions. It might actually be more interesting.
If they really like them, referees will be able to keep their telephone receptionists' mikes and earpieces...
The Sunday Times of Malta seems very happy with the new dimension added to the Republican Presidential candidacy, through Sarah Palin, who is bringing "God, guns to the Republican ticket" http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080831/world-news/palin-brings-god-guns-to-republican-ticket
