and other improvements to the great game of Football
Algis Kuliukas, July 1996
Contents...
What is wrong with the game as it stands?
A Second 'Video Enabled' Referee for Big Matches
Introduction
Having just witnessed Euro 96 ~ a great football tournament ~ I, like many others I'm sure, feel somehow a little frustrated with the game (and not only because of the bitter disappointment of England's Exit in the semi-finals!) In this document I attempt to summarise these frustrations and promote a series of simple measures which would alleviate them.
What is wrong with the game as it stands?
Not much, I'd say, is actually wrong with football. I think the game is the most free-flowing, entertaining, spectator team sport there is. Its ever-growing popularity is indicative of this. The changes I promote here are consequently very minor because I think the game's rules and general nature are fundamentally good.
However some aspects of Euro '96, and other international tournaments lately, indicate something's wrong.
The six points above are all symptoms of minor defects in the game that could all be put right very simply for future tournaments and football competitions generally with these simple modifications... 1, Make the goals bigger, 2, Revise the golden goal system, 3 Modify the Off-side rule slightly and 4, help referees with another, radio-linked official with video play back facilities.
The size of the goals in football has been fixed at 8 yards by 8 feet now for over 140 years. The same 192 square feet has been defended by goalkeepers and defenders ever since the game began. The fact that those goalkeepers and defenders have grown in stature and skill has never been compensated for. So it is not surprising to find that the average goals per game in English league matches has dropped over the years. In the first eight years of the English League (1888-1896) matches averaged at more than four-goals a game. The cup matches before the league started had an even higher average. Quickly the average dropped to around three goals a game where it stayed for years until the early sixties when it declined further to around 2.5 where it has largely remained, despite the introduction of 3 points for a win.
Basically, the balance of the game has swung from the goal scorers to the defenders. That fewer goals are being scored than when the games rules were fixed is not necessarily a bad thing on its own - the quality of the play has improved immeasurably over the same period - but consider these points...
Although draws can be entertaining, they can also be very frustrating. This is especially true in knock-out competitions when a team cannot prove its superiority during normal play and the match ends up having to be decided on penalties. Three points for a win has been introduced in many leagues with the idea of reducing the number of draws and rewarding teams that go out to win games. But although the idea was good and has changed attitudes it has not resulted in fewer drawn matches in the English league. The problem now is not so much the lack of desire to attack, simply that it is too difficult to score goals - or rather that it is too easy to stop the other team scoring. There are just not enough goals per game to discriminate between two well balanced teams often enough.
The probability of seeing a drawn match in the English League is about 33%. This is already too high, but in tense top level international matches the chances are even greater. The simplest way to make draws less likely is to make goals more likely.
And why not?
My main point then, is to make the goals bigger, to restore the philosophy of the game back to where it was originally: "Let's score more goals than them, and win" instead of "Let's stop them from scoring so we don't loose".
Making the goals bigger would be very simple to do. It requires no change to the laws of the game except to state a new 'maximum' height and width of goals that would be allowed. This, remember, is already the nature of the law when it comes to pitch size. Clubs who wanted to attract more fans or television audiences could then increase their goal sizes. Smaller clubs who didn't want the expense needn't do so if they so wish.
The only law that need be changes is: Law 1 - The Field of Play ~ 6: The Goals
It would only need to be changed to:
"The goals shall be placed on the centre of each goal-line and shall consist of two upright posts, equidistant from the corner-flags and between 8 and 11 yards apart (inside measurement), joined by a horizontal cross-bar the lower edge of which shall be between 8 and 11 feet from the ground. The ratio of the width to height shall be 3 to 1...."
The emboldened text indicates the only changes necessary. It would then be up to each national football association or football league to set its own rules on the size of the goals depending on how important it was for the competition to increase the number of goals and make the football more appealing to spectators.
How much bigger? I use 11 yards by 11 feet above as an example. I am not sure what the actual maximum size should be, but it should be big enough to allow competitions to significantly increase the average goals per game. Personally, I would like to see the goal frequency doubled to average 5 goals a game. I don't think the size of goals would need to be increased much to achieve this. If the maximum height was increased to 11ft and the width to 11 yards it would double the target area of the goal, and although it would not make a great impact on a pitch visually, I suspect this size would increase the goals ratio perhaps too high. Maybe it's time the goals size was finally made metric, to something like 9 meters x 3 meters. I can just imagine the English Traditional Lobby cringing at the thought!
Unlike many of the TV critics in Euro 96 I like the idea of a sudden death goal to decide a tied match. Why should a team get another chance to tie the match again when they've just conceded a goal in extra time. The 30 minutes extra time is, after all, supposed to be a tie break. Nearly all other sports use some form of sudden death to decide close matches.
The problem in the modern game (Euro 96 in particular) is that goals only come every 45 minutes or so on average in normal play, so nobody is likely to score when teams tighten up and become even more defensive. If goals were made bigger, the golden goal idea would work very well without modification. But there's just one thought. If the goals are made bigger and still no golden goal arises, a penalty competition would be even more nerve racking and unfair than ever. (Imagine players going up for their third penalty because nobody had missed yet in 44 attempts!)
So, to avoid this, I suggest extending the golden goal period. The idea would be to just carry on playing until a team scores. To make this certain to happen, every fifteen minutes there would be a short break when managers would be required to take off three players. This would mean the game would still be decided on normal rules football but with 8-a-side to start with. In addition to the players skill and stamina it would be a test of the tactics and skill of the manager. It would also greatly penalise a team that had players sent off. After 30 minutes the teams would be down to five-a-side, (players would be allowed to come back on and rejoin the match) and then, if still no goal had arrived after 45 minutes, down to two-a-side. If it ever did get to this stage, it would only be a matter of moments before two players combined to score a goal. The game would be decided, on average, much quicker than it takes to hold a penalty shoot out, which would then be a thing of the past.
The off-side law is the only complex law in the game of football. It serves a useful purpose ~ to stop 'goal-hanging'. However, the rule should be more strictly observed and players 'caught' off-side by defenders springing an off-side 'trap' should be deemed on-side. Also, just like you cannot be off-side from a corner it should be the case that you cannot be off-side from a free-kick taken anywhere inside the opponents' half.
A Fourth Official to Help Referees
I want to add my voice to the growing call for a fourth official sitting in the stands with the aid of video replays. For big matches, today's technology can help to guarantee what we all want to see from referees - the correct decisions. I don't think the introduction of the 4th official would be too obtrusive. There would need to be a direct communication link with the ref on the pitch. If the 4th Official spotted something he could call the ref to reconsider his decision. Although this could stop the flow of the game on occasions, I think with experience the officials would learn to work it efficiently. Let's face it, most controversial incidents arise when play has already stopped, when there would be time to consider.
If you agree with me that these small changes would help the game improve, why not tell FIFA. Send them or me e-mail.
