Football Manifesto – Update

Posted by Rob Shepherd on Monday, June 19, 2017

Never let it said that Rob Shepherd doesn’t listen to feedback! The focus groups have finished, the experts have been asked. I even asked “Dodgy Dave” his views on the off-side rule and if it should be a legal requirement for every team to have a fat back-up goalkeeper.

These views and more are discussed in this article.

Are the BBC Bugging My Office?

I’m not normally a huge fan of conspiracy stories (except the Hitler one, he did escape and went to Argentina, had plastic surgery and became the “Man From Delmonte”, honest!) but I am starting to suspect that the British Broadcasting Corporation is covertly listening to my brainstorming on articles to cover.

Sounds farfetched? I pitched the idea of a “Summer Football Survival guide” to a colleague and the next day, that exact idea was on the BBC website. Suspecting foul-play I didn’t verbally mention my next idea (Football Manifest Part One) but just two days after my article was live, the BBC published an article “Football Reforms” – spooky or what?

Joking aside, the article on the BBC sports page, lists proposed ideas by the International Football Association Board. Some of the suggestions are good and thoughtful, others, not so impressive but you’ll see. In this article, I wish to look at the recommendations and decide if I would adopt them into my own manifesto.

Time Wasting / Ball in Play

One of the biggest frustrations I have in footy is the periods of “non-football”, when you watch a game of ninety minutes but the graphic on the screen shows the ball was only in play for 60 minutes. You may not be aware but the main cause of lost time is when the ball goes out of play and fouls and time is not added on for them (added time is added for substitutions, goals, sending offs and injuries).

The proposal is that 45 minute halves would be cut to 30 minutes but the clock would be stopped anytime the ball goes out of play. Another proposal is for the referee’s watch be synchronised with the stadium clock.

I really do hate time wasting, when a team takes a lead and all the petty tricks to delay the game, it’s just cheating. I do like this idea; however, I would like the time keeping taken out of the referee’s hands. I think a dedicated time keeper would be a good solution as they will be unbiased and only concentrating on the time element. I’m not sure about reducing the time from 45 to 30, we should have 90 minutes of ball in play!

One ex-player who is in favour of reducing the time to 60 minutes is Chelsea legend Gianfranco Zola. Talking on the subject he said, “I personally like this rule because there are so many teams who try to take advantage of it because they are winning and wasting time – so I think it is not a bad rule.”

“”Football is fast enough. Some of the changes I don’t like very much, but this is a good one”.

My Verdict: Winner, has potential and would like to see it in action. Supporters pay a fortune to watch football so let us give the fans value for money.

End of 1st Half / Game

This is a suggestion I think is brilliant and so simple you wonder why we don’t already do this. This text is taken direct from the proposal;

Half-time and full-time whistle: only blown when ball out of play – sometimes the referee blows the whistle for the end of the 1st or 2nd half just as a shot is going into the goal or a team has a promising attack/scoring opportunity. To remove this controversy and create more excitement, the Law could be changed so that the referee can only end the 1st or 2nd half when the ball is out of play. This could give an attacking team the incentive to keep the ball in play and try to create a goal-scoring opportunity and should save referees from the error/embarrassment of blowing for ‘time’ as a shot is going into the goal.

What common sense! So many times your team is chasing an equaliser and the ref has been a twat all game, you know he’s going to blow, just as a great looking ball is lofted to your striker!

My Verdict: Winner, do it now! This is not even a debate.

Rebounds on Penalties

There is a strange inconsistency in the rules of football. A penalty during the game is subject to the laws of the “rebound”. However, when a penalty shoot-out occurs, we abandon the rebound rules and they are not allowed. This always puzzled me as a kid as I assumed the rebound would just be as exciting (image a Rabona against the bar, it comes back and then the player does a scorpion kick to score the best peno ever to win the shoot-out… Am I wrong?).

This is the suggestion from the International Football Association Board’s recommendation;

Penalty kick – same restrictions as a kick from the penalty mark so the only outcomes are a goal or no goal (to stop encroachment etc.) – at most penalty kicks, players from both teams enter the penalty area before the kick which annoys people as referees rarely punish them, often because their focus is on the kicker and goalkeeper.

If the kick is not successful, the referee would stop play and award a goal kick. There would thus be no need for players to crowd on the edge of the penalty area ready to run in early. To discourage them further, if an attacking player enters the penalty area before the penalty kick is taken the kick is ‘missed’; if a defending player does the same and the kick is missed/saved it is retaken.

To their credit, they also recommend that the penalty taking order is also changed (I believe this is already being trialled in some competitions) to stop the “greater mental pressure” on the team going second in a penalty shoot-out.

The format which is easy to remember if you are familiar with the works of the greatest pop group to come out of Sweden, ABBA. In the new format team A goes first then team B, Team B again and then team A.

My Verdict: Winner, Yep, like this! Both proposals sound sensible. Although allowing rebounds in a penalty shoot-out shouldn’t be totally discounted.

Have No Friends? Pass to Yourself!

This is a really interesting one. They propose that you can “Self-pass” at a free kick, corner kick and goal kick.

What I like about this concept is that free-kicks do ruin the flow of the game, no question about it. All the players move position, Peter Crouch has to amble forward..etc. So, allowing a player to just restart a dribble causes huge pressure on the defence and ultimately could make for a better spectacle.

My Verdict: Winner, “And it’s a million percent yes from me”, as Simon Cowell would say if he wasn’t a multi-trillionaire pop mogul and was instead a poor sports writer suffering in the heat of the four days of sunshine we will get this year in the UK. Seriously, it’s a good idea.

Anything You Don’t Agree With?

Hey this has been really positive so far hasn’t it? I’m surprised myself!

One issue I do have is this recommendation;

The referee should be able to award a goal if a defender stops a goal being scored by handling the ball on (or very close to) the goal line.

Any regular readers of my articles will know that I don’t trust the footy authorities. The more chances of dodgy decisions, the more chance someone will try and exploit this. Awarding a dodgy penalty still gives a chance that justice will prevail but a referee awarding a straight goal? I’m not sure about that!

Perhaps as a compromise, we send it to video referees who can analyse if a goal should be given.

If you are interested in reading the recommendations of the PLAY FAIR strategy, you can find a copy here. It is a good read and it is nice to hear sensible recommendations for a change.