The one improvement that I would make to Football is:-

[eddie]

Twenty's plenty.

[Rampage]

sage, when you get three hours to spare,please explain the offside rule in full and why so many supporters are confused on occasions.

This could be the last time, this could be the last time. Promises, promises.

[sage]

This could be the last time, maybe the last time, I don't know, Oh no Oh no.

FT(different post, so it doesn't count)FY

[AmericanRam]

I hate for cup/tournament games to be decided on penalty kicks;bring back the Golden Goal.

[Duracell]

I'd replace the away goal rule with a high-scoring rule. Whichever team scored the most in one go goes through when the aggregate score is tied. For example, a team might win 4-1 at home and then lose 3-0 away, and go out on the away goals rule. That doesn't seem right - 4-1 is a more comprehensive victory and it's worth more in the league or group stages, where goals scored is the next decider after goal difference.

The away goals rule rewards teams who can defend well at home, whereas with this rule, it rewards whoever can score the most goals - wherever you get them from. 

[Rampage]

G

FT(different post, so it doesn't count)FY

Get on with it, break a leg, jump off the cliff, what is that smell? Almonds? You are not evil, only semi evil, pseudoevil, the diet coke of evil. 

[Rampage]

A fourth official who has the last word on every decision, having watched it on tv would work most of the time.

No penalties awarded without video evidence. Retrospective bans regardless of whether the Ref saw them.on the day.Upgrades to sending offs re penalty incurred even if ref already gave a booking.?

[RLACML]

I'd replace the away goal rule with a high-scoring rule. Whichever team scored the most in one go goes through when the aggregate score is tied. For example, a team might win 4-1 at home and then lose 3-0 away, and go out on the away goals rule. That doesn't seem right - 4-1 is a more comprehensive victory and it's worth more in the league or group stages, where goals scored is the next decider after goal difference.

The away goals rule rewards teams who can defend well at home, whereas with this rule, it rewards whoever can score the most goals - wherever you get them from. 

Is 4-1 really a more comprehensive win? I'm not sure about that. Given the choice between the two scores, I'd pick 3-0 every time.

[IlsonDerby]

Ain't a bad idea but could maybe introduce a third card for this. The equivalent of a yellow. You can get a yellow card for an accident, or misfortune. Yellow cards where you "take one for the team" should warrant the sin bin card. What I mean is if a team is breaking and someone just takes the guy out with no attempt to get the ball, takes the yellow card and his team regroups with the opposition having a free-kick 40 yards from goal.

Would certainly stop incidents like that, although with the decision whether to sin bin or just yellow card the player, the referee will be open to even more abuse.

Knowing when to bring down a player to stop a counter attack and taking a yellow card that you know is coming your way is all part of the game. It takes a good head to judge when to take that yellow card for the team and I think them walking a tightrope for the rest of the match is punishment enough. 

 

Limit number of players 1 team can loan out, stop the big clubs sucking all the young talent up and then loaning them out for a number of years until they are  consistently good. Might make youngsters think twice about early moves to clubs they won't play at for yrs. Therefore stay loyal to local teams rather than all end up at Chelsea, Man U, Arsenal etc.

Min 2 subs have to be under 21 

This is spot on! How many do chelsea have on loan? How many will ever play for the first team? I know they use it to get around FFP but its just not right. They're stunting so many young player's careers by selling them this dream. 

 

I'd replace the away goal rule with a high-scoring rule. Whichever team scored the most in one go goes through when the aggregate score is tied. For example, a team might win 4-1 at home and then lose 3-0 away, and go out on the away goals rule. That doesn't seem right - 4-1 is a more comprehensive victory and it's worth more in the league or group stages, where goals scored is the next decider after goal difference.

The away goals rule rewards teams who can defend well at home, whereas with this rule, it rewards whoever can score the most goals - wherever you get them from. 

Would disagree. I'd rather we win a game 3-0 than 4-1. Much harder to not concede than to score an extra goal and then concede an extra goal. Besides you could argue that the team who lost didn't lose as 'badly' because they managed to score a goal where as the person who lost 3-0 only conceded 3 yet couldn't score...

 

 

[IlsonDerby]

The main ones I want removing are players feigning injury and players surrounding the referee. 

It's simple really -  anyone who goes down injured HAS to leave the pitch for 5 minutes AND only the ref can stop play, if a player kicks the ball out the opposition should be encouraged to NOT give them the ball back. < This eliminates players going down easily, feigning injury and stopping a team with the ball.  It also allows a player to get thoroughly checked by a doctor on the sidelines before being allowed back on after dangerous head injuries. 

 

I'd also like to see many more yellows and reds for the way players speak to referees. Swearing at a ref should be a straight red, we know it happens we can lip read when its on sky. 

[Tombo]

I'd like to see 11 substitutes, with no limitations to how many can come on.

It allows for a more competitive game, perhaps more youngsters blooded in earlier and most squads can cater for such a thing.

If you have an injury at left back, and you only have a right back on the bench, you have your hands tied for the rest of the game purely because of an unfortunate injury. The skeptic in me thinks that some managers will even tell their players to pinpoint such holes before a game as well.

It's a far-out suggestions but it could work. 

I would have an 11 man bench with 3 subs still being the limit. Except in cup games where we play extra time as normal when the scores are tied. If the scores are still tied after 120, extra time continues with the old golden goal rule. Rolling subs and no sub limit, breaks every 30 mins for 10 mins, until there is a winner by golden goal. The reason for rolling subs is so you can rest a player who's been playing for over two hours, give him a sit down for 10 minutes, treat his cramp, and get him back on.

[Bris Vegas]

I'd replace the away goal rule with a high-scoring rule. Whichever team scored the most in one go goes through when the aggregate score is tied. For example, a team might win 4-1 at home and then lose 3-0 away, and go out on the away goals rule. That doesn't seem right - 4-1 is a more comprehensive victory and it's worth more in the league or group stages, where goals scored is the next decider after goal difference.

The away goals rule rewards teams who can defend well at home, whereas with this rule, it rewards whoever can score the most goals - wherever you get them from. 

 

Is 4-1 really a more comprehensive win? I'm not sure about that. Given the choice between the two scores, I'd pick 3-0 every time.

I quite like that rule, would reward the more attacking team and could prompt a high-scoring second leg!

I think the only only problem with away goals is that it doesn't reward the attacking team. I don't see how it can be fair, especially if the tie goes to extra time and all of a sudden, the away team's goals count for two.

I remember when Atletico Madrid played Barca in the CL two seasons ago and scored at the Nou Camp via a 35-yard pot shot early in the second half. The ensuing 120 minutes of football was just horrific, with Atleti happy to sit on that away goal and lap up all the cynical feigning of injuries, five-minute subsititions etc.

PSG beating Chelsea last season on away goals was one of the most rewarding victories I've ever seen. A real two-fingers up at the defensive team looking to exploit the rule.

[Ewe Ram]

Stop giving yellow cards for taking off of shirts. That's just daft. 

Give a retrospective yellow card for diving if caught later. No matter that it's seemingly unfair to the teams on TV more, don't care, it's not fair to dive.  It would just add to the count so if you're on 4 then get one added you're serving a ban. 

[Joe.]

Get rid of injury time, stop the clock when the ball goes out or a player is down 'injured' instead of adding the time on where more time wasting occurs

[zaragozaram]

sage, when you get three hours to spare,please explain the offside rule in full and why so many women are confused on occasions.

Reminded me of this.....

The "offside rule" explained for women:

You're in a shoe shop, second in the queue for the till. Behind the shop assistant on the till is a pair of shoes which you have seen and which you must have.

The female shopper in front of you has seen them also and is eyeing them with desire. Both of you have forgotten your purses.

It would be rude to push in front of the first woman if you had no money to pay for the shoes.

The shop assistant remains at the till waiting.

Your friend is trying on another pair of shoes at the back of the shop and sees your dilemma.

She prepares to throw her purse to you.

If she does so, you can catch the purse, then walk round the other shopper and buy the shoes!

At a pinch she could throw the purse ahead of the other shopper and "whilst it is in flight" you could nip around the other shopper, catch the purse and buy the shoes!

BUT, you must always remember that until the purse has "actually been thrown", it would be plain wrong for you to be in front of the other shopper and you would be OFFSIDE!

 

[IlsonDerby]

 

I quite like that rule, would reward the more attacking team and could prompt a high-scoring second leg!

I think the only only problem with away goals is that it doesn't reward the attacking team. I don't see how it can be fair, especially if the tie goes to extra time and all of a sudden, the away team's goals count for two.

I remember when Atletico Madrid played Barca in the CL two seasons ago and scored at the Nou Camp via a 35-yard pot shot early in the second half. The ensuing 120 minutes of football was just horrific, with Atleti happy to sit on that away goal and lap up all the cynical feigning of injuries, five-minute subsititions etc.

PSG beating Chelsea last season on away goals was one of the most rewarding victories I've ever seen. A real two-fingers up at the defensive team looking to exploit the rule.

Again though surely BOTH teams are more attacking in a 4-1 win than a 3-0 win... 

How can you reward a team for being more attacking when they've both 'been more attacking'. A team scoring 1 goal instead of 0 is just as much 'more attacking' than a team who scores 4 instead of 3. 

 

End of the day away goals should be scrapped and it should just go to extra time and penalties regardless of the individual match scores as long as on aggregate it is level. 

[Ramkesian]

Make prem teams put £10,000,000 each out of their sky increase into a pot, they would only spend it on wages anyway.

Give £2,000,000 each to the remaining 72 league teams ( would ensure survival for most lower league teams ).

The remaining £56,000,000 can then be ploughed back into grass roots football to ensure future generations can enjoy the great game.

 

[IlsonDerby]

 

I quite like that rule, would reward the more attacking team and could prompt a high-scoring second leg!

I think the only only problem with away goals is that it doesn't reward the attacking team. I don't see how it can be fair, especially if the tie goes to extra time and all of a sudden, the away team's goals count for two.

I remember when Atletico Madrid played Barca in the CL two seasons ago and scored at the Nou Camp via a 35-yard pot shot early in the second half. The ensuing 120 minutes of football was just horrific, with Atleti happy to sit on that away goal and lap up all the cynical feigning of injuries, five-minute subsititions etc.

PSG beating Chelsea last season on away goals was one of the most rewarding victories I've ever seen. A real two-fingers up at the defensive team looking to exploit the rule.

Another point is that if you go 1-0 down you're more likely to not attack and try and equalise if you know that going 2-0 down and losing 2-1 is deemed as better for the winning team than a 1-0 win. You'd get people running the clock down in 1st leg matches when they want to just control tge damage

[IlsonDerby]

Make prem teams put £10,000,000 each out of their sky increase into a pot, they would only spend it on wages anyway.

Give £2,000,000 each to the remaining 72 league teams ( would ensure survival for most lower league teams ).

The remaining £56,000,000 can then be ploughed back into grass roots football to ensure future generations can enjoy the great game.

 

Would be a fantastic gesture but football is a capitalist game now so unfortunately would never happen  

[We'll be back in 81]

Bring in safe standing in around the bottom tier of the horse shoe it would be amazing.  Bring back the golden goal for cup games in extra time.

Play offs - make the team that finishes 6th play away to the team that finishes 5th, then the winner of that plays away to the team that finishes 4th and the winner of that plays in the final away to the team that finishes 3rd.

Make the prem 18 teams and the championship 20 teams, then the next division 22 teams with the next two divisions split north and south. And kick off the season in september..

Sorry that was more than one but they just kept coming to me.