For those who don't take the EDP on a
regular basis and, therefore, may have missed my recent letter to the
editor -
Sir
If ET lands on Mousehold, I wonder
what he would make of the recent EDP
articles about the dearth of
football excitement at Carrow Road?
Perhaps he would conclude that these
earthlings will be pushovers?
After all, one of the definitions of
stupidity is doing the same thing
over and over and expecting
different results. So, if the game is
boring and pointless – change the
game! It's not rocket science. The
problem is most football supporters
believe that the Rules of Football
came down from Sinai with Moses on
tablets. Cricket and Rugby have
no such illusions. They adapt the
game to meet the modern world.
Stop complaining and do something
about it!
So, what could
realistically be done? Unfortunately, there is not much that could
be done that could be described as realistic. Why?
One word – FIFA.
“FIFA is the
international governing body of association football, futsal and
beach soccer. Its membership comprises 209 national associations. Its
headquarters are in Zurich, Switzerland, and its president is Sepp
Blatter. FIFA is responsible for the organisation of football's major
international tournaments, notably the World Cup.
The laws that
govern football, known officially as the Laws of the Game, are
not solely the responsibility of FIFA; they are maintained by a body
called the International
Football Association Board (IFAB). FIFA has members on its board
(four representatives); the other four are provided by the football
associations of the United Kingdom: England,
Scotland,
Wales,
and Northern
Ireland, who jointly established IFAB in 1882 and are recognised
for the creation and history of the game. Changes to the Laws of the
Game must be agreed by at least six of the eight delegates.”
I suggest that not
many people know this. I didn't until I looked it up. (I'm assuming
that Wikipedia are correct here!)
Still my contention
holds true.
“The role of the
International Football Association Board (IFAB) is to discuss and
decide upon proposed alterations to the Laws of the Game. FIFA and
the UK-based associations (English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern
Irish FAs) can propose matters to be discussed and ratified at the
Annual General Meeting (AGM), which usually takes place in February
or March.
These meetings take
place in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in strict
rotation, as well as locations decided by FIFA in years when the FIFA
World Cup™ is held. A representative of the 'host' association acts
as chairman. The same country also acts as hosts for the Annual
Business Meeting (ABM) which takes place in September or October.
Although the ABM can consider
general business submitted to the Board by any of the continental
confederations or any of FIFA’s 208 Member Associations and provide
decisions, it does not have the authority to alter the Laws of the
Game.
More about the AGM
Each of the IFAB
members can forward in writing suggestions or proposed alterations to
the Laws of the Game, requests for experimentation to the Laws of the
Game and other items for discussion to the secretary of the
association hosting the meeting by 1 December of the preceding year.
This is then printed and distributed by 14 December. If any
amendments or alterations need to be made to the initial proposal,
the deadline to do this is 14 January, as topics for discussion are
printed and distributed to the members of IFAB on or before 1
February.
More about the ABM
Each of the IFAB
members can forward any proposals, requests for experimentation
regarding the Laws of the Game and other items for discussion in
writing to the secretary of the host association, at least four weeks
before the date of the meeting. Any confederation or other member
association of FIFA may forward proposals, requests or items for
discussion in writing to FIFA’s Secretary General, in good time to
ensure that they can be considered by FIFA and, if acceptable,
forwarded to the secretary of the host association at least four
weeks before the meeting.
Voting and decision
making
FIFA has four votes
on behalf of all its affiliated member associations. The other
associations of the IFAB each have one vote. For a proposal to
succeed, it must receive the support of at least three-quarters of
those present and entitled to vote. The decisions of the Annual
Business Meeting of the Board shall be effective from the date of the
meeting, unless agreed otherwise.
The decisions of the AGM of the
IFAB regarding changes to the Laws of the Game shall be binding on
confederations and member associations as from 1 July following each
AGM. However, confederations or member associations whose current
season has not ended by 1 July may delay the introduction of the
adopted until the beginning of their next season. No alteration to
the Laws of the Game can be made by any confederation or member
association unless it has been passed by the Board.
Sorry, is it me? The two highlighted sections seem to be mutally
exclusive. Have I missed something? Can someone enlighten me,
please.
Before I lose you completely, this seems to be the most important
point in any exploration of how to make football a better game. The
FIFA and IFAB websites are full of the momentus news that the
introduction of goal-line technology is imminent – or sort of, kind
of, maybe. I can find no references to anyone exploring ideas to
make the game more relevant, exciting and fair. Looks like I'm on my
own again.
This brings us neatly back to the “down from Sinai” argument and
how other sports deal with the governing laws. In my original letter
to the editor I mentioned cricket and rugby. Interestingly both
sports are about as old as football – a least in the codifying of
the laws.
“The work to draw up the first rules
of Rugby football started on 25 August 1845 and ended on 28th August.
The work was done by three senior pupils at Rugby School after they
received instructions to codify the game of Football.”
There is a very good resource on the web site:
http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/laws.htm
What is clear is that the Rugby laws have been consistently updated
and continue to be revised almost every year.
The story in cricket is generally the same - “The basic rules of
cricket such as bat and ball, the wicket, pitch dimensions, overs,
how out, etc. have existed since time immemorial. In 1728, the Duke
of Richmond and Alan Brodick drew up Articles of Agreement to
determine the code of practice in a particular game and this became a
common feature, especially around payment of stake money and
distributing the winnings given the importance of gambling.[7]
In 1744, the Laws of Cricket were codified for the first time and
then amended in 1774, when innovations such as lbw, middle stump and
maximum bat width were added. These laws stated that the principals
shall choose from amongst the gentlemen present two umpires who shall
absolutely decide all disputes. The codes were drawn up by the
so-called "Star and Garter Club" whose members ultimately
founded MCC at Lord's in 1787. MCC immediately became the custodian
of the Laws and has made periodic revisions and recodifications
subsequently.
In modern times the
Body Line series forced a change in the Laws to take account of “leg
theory”, thereby consigning Jardine's attempts to nullify Bradman
to the scrap heap. The introduction of DRS has further brought the
game into the 21st Century. (Interestingly, I can remember moves in
the 80's to somehow nullify the West Indies all-pace attacks of that
era. They were quite rightly resisted. - aside – I wonder how the
Don might have fared faced with Michael “Whispering Death”
Holding, Joel “Big Bird” Garner, Andy Roberts and Colin Croft –
I suspect he would have scored runs but his average would have truly
suffered.)
Summing up: my
contention that those (perceived) hide-bound and traditional sports,
rugby and cricket, embrace change where it is likely to improve the
game – both for players and spectators. So, why should football be
different?
I contend that it
should not, and there are a few things that could easily be done to
improve the game and not critically affect the way it is played.
There have been
experiments in football. Tinkering with the off-side rule, messing
with the goal-keepers options, etc. do not actually lead to more
goals, which is, the point of the game – to score goals.
Here is something
simple that would lead to more goals and not affect the fundamentals
of the game. Make the goals bigger.
Don't
forget the size of the goals and pitch were set when equipment and
players were far different. Why not update? Add 30 cms to the height
of the goals. Add 60 cms (30 each side) to the width of the goals.
Result? Better game with more goals.
Complaints
about the different referring decisions in different countries should
be investigated. Referees should apply the laws in the penalty area
– not just in other area of the pitch. Players should be booked
for feigning injury – it's a form of cheating.
Simples.
Are
these fundamental changes? I contend not. Is this changing the
nature of the game? I contend not. Are the authorities even
considering anything like this? I suspect not. Why?
See
all of the above.
