Football's very DNA could be hugely changed if rule changes put forward by the game's law making body pushes through some rather drastic law changes. So we look at what they could mean.
For ages the landscape of the future of football has been under discussion with the continued talks about video referees and the VAR system currently being tested.
But now IFAB, the law making body in football, have changed the goalposts completely with a new set of laws that would completely change the game for good, or possibly bad.
David Elleray is director of IFAB and introduced the new laws. Image: PA
Advert
Former Premier League referee David Elleray, now director of IFAB, has put together a strategy document named 'Play Fair' which looks to set out new laws to increase playing time and player behaviour.
It's time to take a look at those laws in greater depth:
60 minutes of playing time, not 90 minute games:
Football might be played over 90 minutes but as an example in the 2010/11 Premier League season the ball was in play only 55 minutes and six seconds of games.
Advert
So when Sir Alex Ferguson used to complain that four minutes added on time wasn't long enough he technically had a point by about half an hour.
The stopped clock idea is like the way rugby works. Image: PA
The fix to this would be to become like rugby and have the referee be able to stop the clock at set pieces and the match to last 60 minutes of active time.
Advert
This would be the biggest change in the game and could logistically be a nightmare and furthermore in 2011/12 those average minutes were about 60 anyway.
A law change is a step too far and this one shouldn't be a goer.
Players can take free-kicks to themselves:
Instead of the long process of setting up a free kick footballers could take a quick tap and go to themselves.
Advert
This law was introduced to field hockey a few years ago and increased active playing time by five minutes, a much better way to improve that than the previous radical idea.
Not convinced Becks would have passed a free-kick to himself. Image: PA
It would also introduce new tactics to free-kick taking and defending set pieces, most teams wouldn't utilise this other than on the half-way line you'd have thought thus reducing the amount of fouls on quick breakaways.
Advert
There seems to be little downside to this rule.
Penalties conceded for back-passes:
Instead of an indirect free-kick in the area should penalties be given for pass backs?
This one's a bit murky, much like the grey area that is handballs. It would seem harsh to give a penalty for this if there was no threat of a goal but then fouls in the area are penalties regardless.
We'd miss the mayhem of 11 players lining up on the goal line. Image: PA
We'd miss the rarity of the chaos that an indirect free-kick in the area bring too.
Wouldn't change this one, I don't think...
Penalty goals awarded for goal-line handballs:
Once again like rugby. Penalty goals for handling on the line and stopping a definite goal, much like Luis Suarez.
If the ball is definitely going to go in then should the keeper really have the chance to save the spot-kick?
This would be a penalty goal, difficult to argue with. Image: PA
Like red cards and penalties are supposed to be if there's no doubt it would have been a goal then this rule definitely has some legs.
A real deterrent to handling the ball on the line, do it!
Penalty saves lead to a goal kick:
No rebounds allowed from a penalty, a saved penalty or one that hits the woodwork would lead to a goal kick.
Imagine the end of rebounds. Would be terrible. Image: PA
I'm sorry but this is utter madness. If you had a chance in the area and it was saved you might get the chance of a corner or rebound just because you were fouled before the shot doesn't mean you should miss out on that.
This rule is ridiculous, no way!
In nine months time football could be a very different sport.
What rules would you rather see implemented?
Featured Image Credit: