LFC London

Welcome, Guest. Please login or Register. View details of Membership benefits.

Blindsided - Should we kick the current rules into touch?

By JARhead

Born into a family of Saints on my father’s side and sinners on the other (Chelsea fans), but with not one taking me under their wing, I was left under the sole influence of a sibling four years my elder, an extremely talented and dedicated footballing sister who made a life-impacting decision based on the cheeky charm of the silver fox that is Gary Lineker.

Fortunately for me, her lack of taste led me to the Crown Jewels (Paints) of Merseyside (and a lifetime, to date at least, of bragging rights & ecstasy). This honour bestowed upon me at the tender age of four has remained henceforth both a passionate endeavour and endless bane of my very existence; a ‘burden’ I’ll gratefully shoulder though forevermore, regardless of what the future may bring (and in the current economic climate & with our current owners, anything is possible).

Born in ‘82, a red since ‘86, I found it very hard to relate to the violence and aggression rife in the game at that time. Born & bred not too far from the Den (a ground I’d eventually allow into my heart), & following the horrors of various clashes on the terraces throughout the country in the late eighties, I felt like I always wanted to keep football at arm’s length; a game I’d play tirelessly at every given opportunity, but as a supporter I’d reserve only a seat by the telly.

The majority of parlance with my fellow jóvenes (& in fact men decades my senior, on occasion) was predominantly split between 2 rather tedious (after having to repeat myself for the umpteenth time!!) & controversial (to all but me) subjects. This consisted of the alleged glory-hunting of an OOT being a proud aficionado of the most prestigious & glorious club of all the land, & being labelled by all and sundry as a sporting double-agent to be kept at arm’s length.

The latter is what I’d like to discuss with you all today. I am talking, of course, about my love of both football and rugby. It’s a topic of debate which never even takes off the ground whenever I dare, heaven forbid, broach the subject. I think the derision it receives is clearly borne from the lack of humility widespread in football today, which ironically adds weight to the very argument it tries to subdue.

As I entered my teenage years, there were 2 major changes to be observed; the emergence of Sky TV as a genuine force to be reckoned with, looking to seize the lucrative opportunities in the marketplace & progress it to a level never before imagined; the other was to be sent by my parents to a private school (on a par with Eton), a place where only “wrongly” configured balls are revered. This was probably the most difficult challenge of my teenage years – having to accept that football wasn’t necessarily going to be a major part of my life any longer, as rugby muscled in on my first love and tried to win over my heart.

For an entire year I managed to elusively side-step & cry off without raising alarm, before finally falling foul of the rugby coaches. It was at this point that I had to make the coaches aware that football was my priority, my first love, and rugby would always come a distant second. If I had a footie match on, I wasn’t willing to even be considered for the starting XV. And I made them well aware of the fact. That was that; that told them!

But when I was finally given an ultimatum, I caved under the pressure and managed to find a compromise whereby I could play rugby Saturday mornings, compete in x-country Saturday afternoons, & do football outside of school on Sundays. As taxing as my schedule was at the time, I relished the opportunity to shine on all fronts as well as burn off some of my boundless energy!

Surprisingly, it was rugby thereafter that really grabbed my attention and always left me wanting more. To an extent I think that was down to the challenge it offered me and being made to feel a valuable part of the team; you cannot underestimate the importance of feeling like you fit in; the very same thing happened to me at college, and again at university. Football “sorts” are a special breed, and not ones with which I have shared very many memorable moments (though www.LFCLondon.co.uk is now changing all that!).

The more I played rugby, the more I learnt about the game, my horizons broadened, I became more tactically astute & became a better player. This transition led me from the wing to number 15; the round-balled equivalent would involve moving from the old-fashioned winger position to the almost-extinct sweeper role.

Never losing touch with my roots, through witnessing my sister’s rise to prominence in the women’s national first division as a lioness, via Wembley, to becoming myself the first 5th former to be selected for the then newly-formed Upper Sixth Football Team at Trinity School for Boys, I always tried to think laterally & apply logic across the board of my sporting interests. Being both a keen mathematician and chess player at school, I was on the right intellectual plane to challenge the sporting norms and suggest innovative improvements to our beloved game. Many of these changes are ones I still vehemently encourage today and strongly advise the IFAB (International Football Association Board) to consider. However, I feel that this is extremely unlikely given the changes we’ve witnessed in the past 2 decades, so put my ideas to you instead.

Remember that in the past 2 decades the biggest changes we’ve noticed, some of which have now faded into total obscurity, include the following –

  • Replacement of the GK 4 step rule in 1997 by the 6 second rule
  • Implementation of the Back-pass Rule in 1992
  • Recent abolition of obstruction in favour of “impeding” – though rarely blown for
  • 3 Substitutions without Restriction in 1995. As of season 2008/09 7 substitutes can be named in EPL games (coming into line with European football)

When reading these suggestions please bear in mind that I don’t suggest implementing them all, nor unveiling them at the same time; a staggered introduction of 3 or 4 of them over a set period of time would probably best serve the game we couldn’t live without.

My first suggestion is a very simple one, and that is to stop the clock as and when the referee decides. The men in black have already made the technological leap by being wired up to one another and so should make full use of this relatively new line of communication. The boundary can be set purely for injuries, or opened up to substitutions and every time the referee wants to stop play to discipline a player. It would eradicate any controversy over time allocation at the end of the game, and make the process more transparent as a result. It is clear to see in rugby union that this is an efficient measure not to be argued with.

I think something we would all like to see is greater teamwork, or dare I say parity, between referees. In rugby, for example, all 3 officials on the pitch appear to command the same amount of respect equally from the players, and there is also an obvious respect between the officials so that when one sees something that the other doesn’t, they take their colleagues at their word and award the decision accordingly. In football it is very clear that the referee is more prominent and wields more power! It removes an element of bias if there are 3 (or however many) equally-empowered officials working as part of a team, just within different parameters of the pitch (as opposed to the game) & not 1 narcissus (as is often the case, e.g. Jeff Winter) with 2 subordinates whose advice they often overrule despite clearly having an inferior (and often unclear) view of the incident. This isn’t a dig at referees as this is partially a media-indictment (one which is also fully merited), but there are some (such as Mike Riley) who don’t give the others a good name!

An extra dimension that could be added to the game to aid supporters in understanding why decisions have been made and to further facilitate communication (it’s important to remember that communication is important on multiple levels, between officials and players, between officials and staff, between the officials themselves, and also between officials and the fans, without whom football would barely survive) is the introduction of a device currently being “pioneered” (on a national if not global stage) in rugby union – “Reflink”, a device which allows the fan to listen in on any conversation the referee has with his staff or the players during the match. This is both entertaining and informative, and actually aids accountability on all levels.

A previous FIFA experiment with one referee in either half of the pitch was deemed a failure, but they haven’t given up searching for alternatives; Michel Platini, President of UEFA, has a fresh idea which was recently tested in the U-19 European Championship qualifier between Georgia and Cyprus & is currently under consideration. The principle principal (!) involved is simple – 2 more officials, also referred to as “goal-line patrollers”, designated solely to officiate in the penalty area. The results of this experiment will be discussed by FIFA and their international board in February.

Another alternative to the above idea is to use technology to facilitate the decision-making process for officials. People who criticise the fact that it would waste too much time waiting for decisions to be made by the “video ref” obviously haven’t noticed that football matches don’t actually last for 90 minutes! The first and final whistles (half-time break aside) may be separated by 90 minutes, but the ball is rarely in play for HALF that time. So that particular argument against is flawed. The other main barrier is demarcation; where exactly do you draw the line and allow the referee to make the decision. One negative side-effect of rugby which can be INCREDIBLY frustrating, though completely understandable if a referee is under more-than-usual pressure (media, employer or player related), is the occasional game in which the referee will refer every single incident to the 4th official. And, even then, the mechanism isn’t foolproof! So of course it needs to be made clear from the outset, if implemented, the exact role of the “video ref” (in terms of what type of decision they should have an input in, and how long they ought to take per decision before delivering their verdict). Thirdly, and most pertinent, perhaps, in this evermore technological age, is how redundant do we want the man in the middle to become? Would we miss not having anything to complain about if technology were to be sanctioned? Forums such as www.LFCLondon.co.uk may become almost obsolete if the element of controversy is removed. For example, with technology we may have witnessed Manchester United losing to Spurs had a certain Alonso-esque Mendes strike been awarded back in January 2005. Similarly, we would undoubtedly find ourselves in pole position right now had Stevie’s 100th goal v Stoke been given little over a month ago.  Thinking of the bigger picture, do we want the game at the highest level to reach a point where it can’t be even closely (let alone fully!) replicated at grass-roots level? Transparency is essential, but I agree with FIFA that simplicity is equally vital if football is to continue to evolve successfully.

Recently introduced to the Premier League this year, thanks to the Respect for Referees campaign, only captains are supposed to be able to “liaise” with referees these days; the days of players intimidating the referee and opposition players antagonising them and adding to frustrations are supposed to be over. But until referees are strong enough to dish out the appropriate punishments for such behaviour, it won’t be taken seriously and in 5 years time we’ll see another toothless campaign unveiled, all fireworks and slogans but zero substance. In theory, it is a fantastic approach to the “gamesmanship”, attitude and even arrogance portrayed by some players – The captain gets to convey the thoughts of the players on a specific incident or perhaps the decision-making style of that particular referee, and in some matches and with certain referees may even hold some sway (see our very own captain and the way he now approaches referees, on first name terms appearing to comply with their wishes); if skilful & intelligent enough, the captain may be able to substantially influence the referee. Done calmly, man to man, one on one, a friendly 2-way chat every now and then to avoid excessive breaks in play and penalisations is a realistic goal for all, and can help to eradicate intimidation as well as level out the playing field. This process will only work though if players respect the rules; if they don’t it is imperative that they receive the appropriate disciplinary measures, and some! As soon as the project gains momentum and receives media coverage, players will soon take notice and the days of harassment ‘til submission (of the ref) will be a thing of the past!

The suggestion which I believe merits attention most right now, though, is the current in-game individual penalisation system. What I find most irritating is if a player commits a cynical foul, a prime example being Ivanovic’s blatant body check on Clichy earlier today (when he looked like he was going to be through on goal), and gets away with it! In my opinion, the system should be such that a player who commits such a foul should be punished to the advantage of the team they have committed the foul against. Obviously being booked early on in a game has a certain effect and impacts on that player’s decision-making process for the remaining time, knowing that he may well be sent off and reduce his side’s playing numbers by one. But it is fair to say that, especially in the last 20 minutes or so of a game, a player will happy enough to accept a yellow card to prevent what he believes to be a dangerous situation for his team, knowing as he does that the overall impact on him and his team by conceding the free-kick will minimise the damage. That’s all well and good, except there is NOTHING to be gained by this from the attacking team, unless the resulting set-piece leads to a goal-scoring opportunity. What I’d like to see is something along the lines of a sin-bin (as England found out to their cost in their final autumnal test against New Zealand on Saturday) system whereby players know that when they are booked (currently every booking is categorised and assigned a name by the referee) for certain offences they will be sent off temporarily (i.e. 10 minutes). On receipt of a second yellow card you are permanently sent off. This would basically require a 3rd coloured card being introduced (e.g. green) so that bookings don’t become confusing (ala Graham Poll) and the system would be able to function concurrently alongside the current system without a hitch. This would lead to better behaviour by the players if implemented correctly as they know that they would be putting their side under a huge amount of pressure for that period of time. It would solve perennial issues such as shirt-pulling, simulation & dissent, or whatever it is that the powers that be decide to classify as worthy of a grade up from (what is currently) a yellow but not quite worthy of total dismissal.

There are certain aspects of the general framework that fall apart during a match situation, but no-one seems to really comment about them anymore. The straw that broke the camel’s back for me recently was Deco’s sending off in the Champions League against AS Roma for taking a quick free-kick against the wishes of the referee – how ridiculous is that?! Surely a team awarded a free-kick ought to also get some kind of advantage from said free-kick, not penalised! They should be allowed to take the free-kick as quickly as they want at least 90% of the time (it is fair to allow the ref, on occasion, to stop play if reprimanding a player) regardless of the introduction in 1996 of the law stating that players need to ask permission from the referee before taking a quick free-kick. I couldn’t believe how much debate arose after Henry’s fantastically taken goal against Chelsea 4 years ago! And in fact if the opposition argues, abuses or confronts the referee, or keeps the ball in their possession to slow down the game to allow the team’s defensive line to form and adequately prepare itself, the attacking team should be rewarded with the advancement of the free-kick a further 10 yards up the field towards the goal (as in rugby union). Deco’s sending off has proven to be a low-point in recent abysmal refereeing performances, but I don’t think they are aided by the cancerous grey areas clouding the laws of the game.

The advantage rule goes hand in hand with the above; why isn’t this extended, just like in rugby, to cater for an entire phase of play to see if a real advantage may arise, as opposed to a 2 second window which rapidly evaporates, is beyond me. People need to understand that the game could flow so much better than it currently does if more common sense was applied. I’m not suggesting a 2 minute phase of play as this is unrealistic (unless, perhaps, you’re a gunner from the other side of town), but perhaps could best be summarised as “a period in which the ball is no longer advancing up the pitch towards the opposition goal, is lost to the opposition, out of the boundaries of play or a foul committed by the team due an advantage.” Give this period an amount of time, say 10 seconds, and that is easily implemented whilst the referee is still stocked up with batteries!

I have recently been told that this next suggestion is a pipe dream and should be written off here and now, and I tend to agree, but shall open it up to debate anyway. I said recently to a friend that I don’t understand why football doesn’t have something similar to the blood-bin in operation at the highest level. I seem to remember us sacrificing the lead to Scumchester Utd a fair few years back as Hyypia needed to go off before HT for stitches; the entire complexion of the game and subsequently the result was impacted by the lack of opportunity to put on a temporary replacement to fill a void whilst “mending” a vital cog in our defensive machine. Why should a team suffer due to such a circumstance? Rugby goes further and allows a substitute to re-enter the field of play in certain pivotal positions, such as when a hooker has been taken off only for the replacement to then become injured; the equivalent position in football would of course be the goalkeeper. Another suggestion is an obvious one – If a game goes into extra time a further substitute ought to be permitted to take into account the effect the subsequent period of play will have on each team.

Thinking about games that go beyond the usual 90 minutes (Istanbul, Alavés & Birmingham all spring to mind), are there any ways to “jazz up” the chaos that can often ensue? I’m not sure Liverpool fans really care, given our success in these sorts of situations in the past. But wouldn’t it be a spectacle if, in place of penalties off the spot, football tried to replicate Ice Hockey with players having a set amount of time (say 20 seconds) to each run with the ball from the halfway line and have a shot at goal (could limit it to one or two attempts). On a recent edition of Soccer AM, Paul Daniels suggested using Boxing’s template of a team winning on points – that is to say whoever, for example, has the most attempts at goal during the game, would win. It is certainly worth exploring or at least considering different options such as these.

In the same show the nation’s favourite magician also made the very same suggestion I made over a decade ago. He wants to see more creativity with regards to set-pieces in football and I tend to agree. Multiple moves are a must in modern day rugby, and in fact growing up I had 10 or 15 moves to learn for various field layouts; football players don’t seem to have the same creativity or at least focus when it comes to such matters; imaginations are “misused” to invent celebrations as opposed to focusing on finding new and innovative ways to win! The best modern day example for LFC has to be Agger’s sweet finish in a recent important champions League tie against Chelsea at Anfield, but even then it wasn’t hugely complicated. A dummy runner diverted the attack whilst the defence was terrified of a Stevie special, creating space for the nimble Dane to dart to the near post and divert a sweeping drive into the bottom corner to the delight of us all. Since then we haven’t been treated to even ONE well thought out set-piece! As Paul Daniels suggested, why don’t we see four players hovering behind the ball (like backs behind a mid-field scrum in rugby union) then charging towards goal at different angles to confuse & wrong-foot the defence and, ultimately, score a decisive goal?

All in all, football is a fantastic game that we all hold very close to our hearts. But how much more can we take of Ronaldo’s belly flops and Rooney’s nosedives? As Brits we love to have something to moan about, and with global warming maybe the weather will no longer be a Monday morning option. So perhaps football should stay exactly as it is and leave us all with something to discuss when we get into work on a Monday or over a beer after work on a Friday.  But the well known phrase “Rugby is a thug’s game played by gentlemen; football is a gentleman’s game played by thugs” still wrangles. We have to strike at the very heart of the many issues dogging the nation’s number one sport, and this has to start with a change in attitude. Once we start to accept that the game CAN improve, the necessary changes can be made and it can go to yet another level and further increase its already spectacularly-wide audience. I will always love both games for different reasons, but football can never “pwn” rugby and claim total superiority until it decides to embrace the 21st century and lead by example.