NOTE: A somewhat different version of this list had already been displayed by me on the net a few years ago on a different site.
Football has devolved a lot in recent decades. Sure, the brawling and yowling chimps in the stands wouldn't agree with this assessment, but that's because to them football is just an excuse to get drunk and throw bottles at millionaires, an excuse to shout nonsense for 90 minutes. What do they give a crap about what goes on on the pitch? They're too busy buying beer and lighting up torches.
There are way more broken legs than goals in this "modern" football. Just how much dumber does this game need to get before the outdated rules are finally adjusted?
Far too many whistle-aborted "offside" attacks and dozens of bone-shattering offense-destroying tackles are reducing the number of goals, resulting in an increase of pathetic scores such as 0:0, 1:0 or 1:1. Rules heavily favour defense over offense i.e. brawn over talent.
Furthermore, professional footballers have become professional actors as well, constantly influencing match outcomes by faking fouls, while acting up like dumb little children.
The game has become so stupid it's almost unwatchable, yet still I don't see anything being done to alter the downward spiral i.e. this transformation from a game that was once dominated by skill to a 22-player mess dominated by tactical bullshit, faking, and senseless violence. South Africa had given us the lowest scoring average in the history of the World Cup. Can we really count on mobsters such as Sepp Blatter to do something about this?
This is a list of changes that need to be made in order to make football exciting again, to decrease the influence of the incompetent and helpless yet all-powerful referee. Right now football is a bloody joke of a sport that maintains its appeal to zombies whose tiny violent brains seem to only enjoy chaos and silly bullshit. No wonder so many knuckleheads enjoy football so much - it has been reduced to being one of the stupidest games in the world. But it somehow remains the most popular sport on the planet because 95% of the Earth's human population are uncritical dopes.
So no, I don't want these changes to be made for the easy-to-please sheepy (m)asses who clearly don't see anything wrong with football, I want them for myself, so that I can watch this dumb game again - without getting so utterly bored.
17 Rule Changes That Are Badly Needed in Football
 |
| 1. Curbing the Goalie's
Dominance The area in which the Gloved One can put his grubby hands on the ball is currently far too large, almost as big as a basketball court. It should be much smaller. High balls in particular rarely turn into goals because the 7-foot goalie can simply box them out. He's got way too much power and leverage in his "domain" - especially considering what a skill-free klutz he usually is. How about a smaller area: 4-by-3 meters? That would make the dummie sweat a bit for a change - but more importantly it means more goals for us bored viewers. Don't you idiots want more goals? Tons of goals! Just picture Oliver Khan screaming angrily at the top of his lungs in German every 3 minutes! It'd be worth it for that ALONE. Does a score such as 15:26 appeal to you? May be too much, but it still beats a friggin' 1:0! (This text was written a while ago, hence the dated Kahn reference. The bastard has retired since. But feel free to insert almost any other German keeper in Kahn's place: Schumacher or Neuer, German national-squad goalies are usually insufferable psychopaths.) Admittedly, the problem with a score like 11:14 would be that most football fans can't count that high. It would confuse many of them. |
 |
| 2. The Offside & Other Tactical
Bullshit The offside: hands-down the dumbest thing about modern football. That rule should only be valid if TWO or more attackers are offside. Why does the offside rule suck? Several reasons. 1) Watching a row of four talentless leg-smashers form a defensive line to trick the skilled attacker (or break his bones if they fail in that) truly makes me sick. Just think about the absurdity of this common situation: the opposing team is on the attack, and yet the defenders react to an attack by going forwards - instead of backwards toward their own goal! How asinine is that?! This fun-killing bullshit strategy results in many aborted offside attacks, giving football fans even less goals. Strategy should never be more important than natural skill. Is this fucking Warcraft III or a SPORT? 2) A very large number of exciting attacks inevitably end with the referee's whistle just because an attacker's foot is 3 inches closer to the goal than it should be - and this is a total fucking letdown every single time. For a sport that is so vague and imprecise about its flawed rules, it sure is hilarious that linesmen abort an attack just because the attacker may have had his foot in front of the defending players. A whole foot: yeah, let's abort that attack then! It might result in the first goal after an hour - and we wouldn't want THAT! 0:0 is so much sexier, 0:0 looks like a pair of tits! Let's all collectively masturbate after 93 minutes and that exciting goal-less draw! My penis goes stiff after 93 minutes of no goals! 3) It's as obvious as the lobotomy in Sean Penn's tiny head that neither the referee nor the linespeople are capable of deciding what is and what isn't an offside - the proof of this being a plethora of irregular goals, and reversely many regular goals being disallowed. This reduces the game to a bloody lottery in which the luckier team scores more goals - all depending on the referee. Chaos and random chance: the deciding factors in too many match outcomes. 4) The referee's incompetence and the random-luck nature of the offside rule also allows for corruption. The offside rule (along with the dodgy 11-meter penalty rule) give mobsters easy access to match-fixing. In a sport with such low scores, every major refereeing screw-up drastically affects the outcome of the match. The offside rule is one of the main culprits in making football an extremely unfair sport - and along with boxing one of the most corrupt as well, because vague rules make it so easy to fix results. Football and boxing are every mobster's wet dream. Improving the offside rule would curb the ridiculous power that is wielded by the usually incompetent yet self-important referees. SOLUTION: One attacker should be allowed to be ANYWHERE on the pitch at all times - and that includes leaning on the goal's posts, even yawning or snoring there if he so chooses, sitting on a chair or reading a comic-book - while waiting for a ball to come by so he can just guide it in with one easy stroke. What would this mean? More fucking goals! I'd rather have such goals than NO goals. Or do you wanna bray like a happy donkey for shitty results like 1:0 for the rest of your life? Football fans are minimalist sheep. Give them a few breadcrumbs and they are thankful to their masters for them. Besides, it would be hilarious to see how defenders and the goalie deal with this privileged attacker - this persistent nuisance - who is allowed to hang around their goal at all times! Additionally, long adventurous passes toward this attacker would make the game more exciting and unpredictable hence varied. Not every attack would have to be meticulously planned and so damn slow. The attacker already has enough problems trying to outrun and evade defenders (who have the freedom to break his legs - often without punishment) to have to additionally constantly look around to check whether he is standing offside or not. The attacker should be only concerned with scoring, not with whether the precious offside rule is broken or not: he's got no time to look around at where all of the defenders are! Why should he give a shit where they are? Let the guy score! This is an example how once-functioning games are ruined: by making the game too tactical thereby leaving little room for intuitive and skill-orientated plays. Screw the offside rule! It was invented by bureaucrats and accountants. Annoying nit-picky dorks in other words. |
 |
| 3. Outs Do I even have to say it? The out balls should be shot out with FEET and not HANDS. After all, it's called bleedin' FOOTball, not HANDball. In basketball, out balls aren't executed with legs, are they? In tennis, the service isn't executed with the player's ASS, is it? It's a racket sport - hence you use the bloody racket to start the ball rolling! Whichever 19th-century bird-brain asshole came up with the idea of players using HANDS to shoot out an out ball in a game called football should have all his current descendants sent to a North Korean gulag - or fed to Putin's bears. I personally volunteer to feed them to Australia's hungry crocs! I've had it with those mindless defenders who kick out the ball three miles out just to buy valuable time for their team. By the time the dim-witted ball-boy finally finds and brings the ball back to the attacking team (or throws them a spare ball, which doesn't spare much time either), the defending team already had all the time in the world to move all the way back hence the attacker's moment of surprise is over - and this of course means that even the slim chances of an actual GOAL being scored pretty much go out the window. Finally allowing the foot (just a reminder: it's called FOOTball) to kick the ball from the out line would help the team that is attacking to punish the other team with a much quicker attack - and it would speed up the game. Furthermore: Each defender should be allowed to kick the ball outside only three times. After that he gets expelled from the match. Important: Whoever disagrees with these proposed rule change is a nose-picking booger-eating traditionalist cretin. |
 |
| 4. Too many damn players allowed to defend Get these cock-blocking apes out of the way! How the hell is the attacker supposed to score when a wall of assholes is blocking nearly every single shot toward the tiny goal? (It must be tiny because the average score is only 1:1!) SOLUTION: Allow only one of them to form a "wall" - and then watch him tremble with fear - providing additional fun for the viewer. Football rules were devised more than a bloody century ago, at a time when the game was untainted by overly defensive tactical bullshit and when it was a much slower game very different from today - which is why so many rules are outdated. Purists are bed-wetting morons. Shitty old rules are turning this once-great sport to a dreary combination of unpunished fouls, fake fouls and offside-aborted attacks. Back in the 19th century, without the benefit of hindsight, the people who wrote up the rules had no idea how extensively defense-orientated teams would one day learn to exploit the various loopholes - resulting in defense gaining HUGE leverage over offense, hence the diminishing number of goals. The most obvious proof of rules favouring defense over offense is the damn stupid offside rule: not even one attacking player is allowed to be the closest player to the opponent's goalie - and yet the rules allow to have the ENTIRE defending team in the goalie's area! In other words: The attackers are given limitations - whereas the defenders aren't. Dumb dumb dumb. How much bloody sense does that make? With such stupid rules, it's a miracle that ANY balls find their way into the damn tiny net! Which is why there should be a rule about how many defensive players are allowed to help out the goalkeeper. If you limit the freedom of offensive players - then you should also limit the freedom of the defense. How can this be best achieved? Forbid more than 5 defending field players to be inside the goalie's area at any given time. I.e. at least 5 other defending field players need to be outside of it during the other team's attack. In order to enforce this awesome rule, there should be two extra referees whose only duty it is to count the players. Surely FIFA can find a few mouth-breathers who can count to five...? Furthermore, at least one player from each team has to be on the opponent's half at any given time - which would fit in neatly with New Rule no. 2. This would prevent a defensive WALL from being built, a wall which totally destroys the game when misused by tactically-savvy coaches i.e. assholes who want to win at any cost by trying to desperately hold on to pathetic scores such as 0-0 or 1-0. Like for example that shitty Iranian team in Brazil 2014. Or that shitty Iranian team in Russia 2018. Or that shitty Iranian team that's likely to play this kind of ugly defensive football yet again in Qatar 2022. (Qatar?! It's the world capital for funding terrorism and ISIS! Fuck FIFA.) What's the point of giving so much power to defense and so little opportunity to offense? Do we want the sport to prevent goals or to encourage goals? I don't know about you, but most sports fans are more impressed with scoring than tactical defense bullshit. Most football fans are too dumb to understand strategy anyway. |
 |
| 5. Penalty
Kicks 11-meter penalty shots. Almost 90% of them go in: YAWN! Too bloody easy! How can you miss a 7-meter-wide goal from that distance with a stationary ball and no interference? Yes, I bitch a lot about a lack of goals, but I don't wanna have 20% of all goals occur from these annoying penalty kick-outs - most of which are dubious anyway due to extremely poor refereeing i.e. players constantly feigning fouls in the goal area. (This text was written before VAR.) Almost 90%! So boring and predictable, unless you watch golf and cricket as well - in which case absolutely NOTHING can bore you about football. A half-assed quasi-foul results in a penalty kick, and that stupid undeserved penalty goal suddenly decides the outcome of the whole match: end-result 1:0. Is that a proper victory? No, actually it's a bullshit "victory". The other team could just as easily have obtained their own penalty kick goal - if only the all-powerful referee had been in the mood to give them one as well. Aren't you sick and tired of watching referee fuck-ups decide who wins? I certainly am. (Referees still hold great power, too much power, despite VAR, because FIFA/UEFA mafiosi want match-fixing to remain an easy option, because what are FIFA and UEFA but high-profile mob corporations. That's why FIFA often proudly declares: "VAR is there just as a tool for the main referee, it is still he who ultimately decides everything". Say what? So the referee can still theoretically disallow a goal despite VAR proving that it was legit! Why would one man hold so much power? Especially in this day and age of advanced technology.) The only worse thing than a goddamn goal-less draw is a 1:0 pseudo-victory through an undeserved goddamn penalty kick. SOLUTION: What I'm saying is that the penalty kick should be executed from a distance of 14 meters. This would make it much more difficult to score, hence unpredictable, hence more interesting and less unfair (in case the penalty-kick resulted from a bogus foul). Besides, that way referees don't have to worry too much about handing out penalties, because many won't go in anyway! 16 meters? 20 meters even? Why not. Now that would require real skill and power! Not to mention that 20-meter penalty kicks would be far more powerful. There would be none of those "cool-cat" 5 mph flips into the goal. The only drawback is that this new rule would make asshole goalkeepers such as Oliver Kahn happy. But it's a sacrifice worth making, especially since it would piss off pricks such as Robben or Neymar. |
 |
| 6. Overcrowding Let's face it: football has basically become a game of 22 O-legged idiots bumping into each other for 93 minutes... and when a goal FINALLY does occur (on average every 45 minutes) it's usually someone's screw-up that made it happen, rather than actual skill. SOLUTION: 7 or 8 field players instead of 10. Because: too many players = overcrowding = too few goals hence fewer players = plenty of space = more goals! Which part of this simple equation is confusing to you moronic purists? Football needs more ROOM. In order for an attack to develop, there needs to be space - not a forest of players cock-blocking 95% of all attempts to score. Or do you suggest we build football fields the size of Mexico City to accommodate the 22 pumpkinheads? Indoor football, which is played on a smaller pitch with less players, is far more attractive and fun despite smaller goals precisely because player density is lowered. Far less tactical bullshit, far more skill. Far more fun. How many of those astounding long-distance goals do we see these days in modern football? Very few. The reason is very simple: too many players blocking the path to the goal! Reduce the number of players on the pitch, and we shall have more of those spectacular blast-goals rather than relying on all those pathetic little goals scored from a meter away from the goal - which is how damn close you have to get to the goal these days in order to have any chance of scoring! Think about it: if we did the opposite i.e. if we placed 30 players on each team, how many goals would get scored? ZERO. It'd be like a game of flippers i.e. total chaos, like a bunch of atoms hitting each other randomly - with nothing to show for it. At the other extreme on the other hand, if we allowed only 3 players per team, how many goals would we have? Dozens. This is common sense. Player density. Space. 10 field players is too much, 3 is too little, because we don't want 50 goals per game either. Let's settle on 7 or 8 players per team. Admittedly, less players means they each need to run more, hence more injuries and shorter careers. But who wouldn't want shorter careers for pricks such as Shearer, Klinsmann, Neymar, Suarez or Keanne? Less players would also lessen the financial burden on clubs i.e. less players to pay, feed, clothe (and supply prostitutes for)! |
 |
| 7. Bench-Warmers I mean, just look at them! A bored army of illiterate tattooed nose-pickers. Apathetic and unmotivated, because they know that most likely only 2-3 of them will play - for a few minutes each - on that day. They look like depressed unemployed slackers pissing away their best years. What's the bloody point of bringing HALF the team to the game when you know that only a maximum of 3 of them might eventually play? Are they there to provide moral support? To cheer? Should they dress up as cheerleaders and sing chants instead? Or are they there to warm their asses? To warm the bench perhaps? Are they Christmas decorations? They might as well stay home and pick their noses there. WIN-WIN SOLUTION: Teams should be allowed to change players 8 times, not just 3. It should be like proper sports such as ice-hockey or basketball which are dynamic games partly because fresh blood is injected into the game on a regular basis. This ties in neatly with Rule Change no. 6. By allowing most bench-warmers to play, those 7 or 8 starting field players (see Rule Change no. 6) that have been running their asses off since the first minute can have a breather more often. The "fresh blood" will keep the game moving at a brisker pace throughout the 93 minutes. And there would be less injuries. Everyone wins: the fans, the players and the greedy club. |
 |
| 8. Protecting the Talented
Attacker or Awesome Dribbler From The Bone-Crushing Cro-Magnon, part 1 Every top club has that one gifted player who cannot display all his qualities because he is constantly being tackled, fouled, dress-pulled, and beaten by brutal, skill-free defenders who ruin the game. SOLUTION: Each team can select one player who gets to wear a large X sign on his shirt. This privileged X-player will have special protection from fouls! (It's ironic, because most players are O-legged.) New rule: every time player X is fouled, the guy who fouled him is taken out of the game for 10 minutes. Nah... make that 30 minutes. Furthermore, if a player repeats a foul against the "X" player, he gets a Red Card. Should the protected "X" player try to misuse his protected status by faking fouls, his team immediately loses their "X special-protection" status for the duration of that match. It is a no-brainer that almost every club would choose their most skilled player to wear the "X" - either their top scorer or their mid-field play-maker. This would result in MORE DAMN GOALS, not to mention more fan-pleasing dribbling and other skill-related fancy stuff. Can you imagine the kind of awesome plays a guy like Messi could produce every 5 minutes with this special protection? |
 |
| 9. Protecting the Talented
Attacker or Awesome Dribbler From The Bone-Crushing Cro-Magnon, part 2 Are you not sick and tired of the game's most gifted players being allowed to display only 15% of their skill, just because defenders have the right to brutally tackle them every 5 minutes? FIFA has called for stricter use of those dumb little "yellow cards". However, referees are obviously not implementing this "change": they are still hesitant to give out yellow cards even when bones are crushed - hence new measures must be taken! SOLUTION: Every player who causes a serious injury to another player with a foul (even if the seriousness of the injury becomes obvious only AFTER the match) should be banned for as long as the injured player can't play. And he should also pay for all of his hospital bills. So, when one of those blood-thirsty German defender-robots considers breaking an attacker's legs - they'll think twice about it. They'll think about it very very very carefully. In other words, if the fouled/injured player ends up not playing for 15 months - then that's exactly how long the abusive, violent bone-breaking prick won't be allowed to play also: for his own club as well as the national squad. This would: a) increase the number of goals, b) reduce unnecessary interruptions, c) diminish the number of injuries, AND d) give the attackers more chances to exhibit their skills. Anybody have any objections? You do?... Well, you must be a moron then. Additionally: If the heavily injured player happens to be the club's most expensive player, then the club's fans are allowed to beat up the leg-breaking asshole for an entire 10 minutes - a spectacularly violent event that should take place live in front of TV cameras, to be supervised by a special team of doctors, dentists, and surgeons (just in case the angry fan lynch mob goes too far). If the leg-breaking asshole is sufficiently pummeled during this "legalized beatdown", his ban will be lifted - but, ironically, it won't do him much good because now he won't be able to play anyway, because the other club's fans would have broken several of HIS bones! Poetic justice is a bitch. |
 |
| 10. Tackling: Too Many
Breaks And No Play Make The Viewer A Dull Boy Or girl. Just look at that poor thing yawn. She's liable to break her jaw watching Sepp Blatter's inferior mafia football! Tackling has become so violent and so common that every thirty seconds the game is stopped because some dumb ape decides to slide into someone's legs. Do we want football to become as dull and brutal as American Football i.e. Egg-shaped Football? It's on its way to becoming as violent and boring as that damn stupid boring American caveman game. So-called "purists" are against "changing the traditions of our game". I have just one question for these morons: Where was your "purism" when the game had drastically changed from normal fouls to grass-sliding brutal tackling? The game had changed extremely from the 50s to the 80s, yet I don't see any of these "purists" complaining about that. That's because these "conservative" glue-sniffers don't remember football the way it used to be played i.e. with finesse and more goals, but have grown up only on this brutal American football version of soccer which has little to do with soccer as it was initially played. SOLUTION: EVERY time a player brutally tackles another player from behind by sliding his legs into him, he immediately gets ejected and does not get to play until the next match. Further-fucking-more, each player is allowed only 2 non-brutal fouls per game. After he commits foul no. 3, he is kicked out of the game. Basketball is a great game, precisely because its rules are logical and involve consequences. In football, there are very few consequences. Football is a lunatic game in which the inmates run the asylum. The result of this change? M-o-r-e g-o-d-d-a-m-n GOALS. More dribbling. More technique! And more flow i.e. less boring breaks. |
 |
| 11. Drama Queens No sport in the world involves as much soap-opera bullshit as football, and frankly it's becoming very embarrassing to watch 22 grown men (or infants such as Neymar) act like pre-menopausal women. It's embarrassing to watch grown tattooed men bitch, fake and whine their way to victory like bratty children, mental cases, and pop music divas. All this animated gesturing, posturing and acting up has got to stop. They need to start behaving like men again. Yes, I know: expecting millennial males to behave like actual men might be an impossible proposition, but let's try it at least. Nowhere is this more obvious than when it comes to the petty crap that goes on in the goal area. SOLUTION: Any player who fakes a foul in the penalty area - in order to get that 16-meter penalty kick that we talked about - should be banned for 2 months. Post-match analysis of the video footage should help in finding out who faked it. This rule does NOT contradict Rule Change no.1. The penalty area will still remain the same, while the goalie's "hands-on" area will reduce. Hence we shall have two areas around each goal: a small one in which the goalie is allowed to touch the ball with his hands, and a large one - same one as now - for the area in which any foul garners a penalty kick. A real foul, not a bullshit foul. |
 |
| 12. Dress-Pulling Pre-menstrual girly behaviour doesn't end with faking fouls. There's also dress-pulling. SOLUTION: Any players caught on tape (or by the referee) pulling another player's dress should get a 10-match ban. Furthermore, the devious dress-puller will be forced to personally wash the dresses of the entire opposing team after the game is over. A special FIFA delegate will be there to make sure the player washes all the stinky shirts - and with his bare hands. No washing-machine allowed. Dress-pulling is not only a damn embarrassment for this supposedly macho game, but it slows things down - and makes the 22 morons look like a bunch of sneaky high-school teenie-boppers. What's next? Hair-pulling?? Nail-scratching? Biting??? Are they men or hos? They are hos. They certainly act that way. Many modern football players are Mohawk-wearing tattoo-covered fucktards who look like low-IQ escaped convicts - and yet behave like hysterical school-girls: whining, bitching, pulling dresses, pulling hair, spitting, bitch-slapping one another from behind, not to mention wildly gesticulating to referees like overly animated drag queens. They have to decide: "are we going to be bitches posing as tough convicts or are we going to act like real men?" This new rule might help them decide. Yes, I know: millennials... real men... might not work. |
88888.JPG) |
| 13. Coca-Sniffing
Cheats Any player who scores with his hand on purpose (like that mafiosi Commie bastard in 1986) gets an immediate 15-month suspension. A long enough period during which he hopefully gets so lost in whores, booze and drugs that he becomes useless by the time his ban expires. Same goes for dopers. ... And he should not be allowed to get involved (in any kind of function) with his nation's World Cup team ever again. |
 |
| 14. Duration Stop-watch regulation of the "90" minutes of play should be introduced, just as it's been around in ice-hockey, basketball and other civilized sports that aren't stuck in the Middle Ages. This should not be the referee's job - because he can't even handle his present duties - but someone off the pitch should do this. It's a job so easy even a rain-forest-howling blue-balled colobus monkey can be trained to do it! In fact, a monkey should do it; it'd give the spectators something fun to look at when the game gets dull (or even duller). Monkeys are never dull - whereas football often is. Or are those clownish organizations FIFA and UEFA too incompetent to find enough people (or monkeys) who are able to click "stop" and "go" on a stopwatch for an hour and a half? |
 |
| 15. Instant
Replay In basketball - a fast-moving sport where scoring occurs almost every minute - there is never any controversy over whether a basket is regular or not (at least if no foul is involved). A ball either goes down the hoop or it doesn't: not even a bullshitting scheisster-lawyer such as Jimmy Cochran could spin that around. And even if there was controversy, so many points are scored that two or three referee errors very rarely affect the outcome. In football - a sport in which scoring happens once in a blue Moon despite all the kilometers of senseless running - referees regularly allow non-goals, give match-deciding penalty kicks that were faked, and disallow regular goals, thereby heavily influencing the outcome and making a mockery of this dumb sport. I don't know about you, but personally, I don't get a hard-on from watching matches that are decided not by players' skills but by those incompetent whistle-blowing fey nerds. Sepp Blatter says he is against technology because it "eliminates the human factor". He is making it sound as if we plan to replace humans with Schwarzenegger-looking cyborgs! Sepp, you criminal cabron, are you referring to "human factors" such as blindness, incompetence, corruption and arrogance? I could certainly do without those. Sepp is a bonafide sociopath mobster, so of course he doesn't want the game to become clean: it goes against his mafiosi instincts. Of course eliminating the "human factor" would diminish the huge corruption which he is a part of. How would all the seppites of the world fix matches if the game is structured in a way that minimizes errors and random chaos? Much more difficult. Tennis, for example, had introduced the challenge fairly recently, and it turned out to be very popular with the crowds. Sports fans don't hate technology: they hate corrupt and ineffective FIFA officials who act as if they own all copyrights to the game. To avoid instant replay being abused every 5 seconds, each team should have the right to ask for it 4 times during a match. Obviously, I am insisting on instant replay (which is expensive) being utilized where it is most necessary, i.e. in World Cups, CL, UEFA Cup, the Euro etc. I don't care at all whether or not they introduce it in Norway's 5th junior women's league... (Hey, guess what: 5 years after I'd written this VAR had been introduced. One down, 16 to go...) |
 |
| 16. Back
Passes Too many pointless back passes slow down the game. In the early 90s FIFA finally had the sense to ban passing the ball back to the goalie's hands by foot. That's not enough however. Players shouldn't be allowed to pass the ball back to their goalie - full stop. Not in any situation and with no part of the body. Whole chunks of every match get wasted while defenders pass the ball around as if they were playing with their kids in the garden. Watching the ball go back even further - toward the goalie's non-skilled feet - is insult to injury. We know what happens next: a bored/desperate attacker makes a run for it, but the goalie has all the time in the world to pass the ball to his team-mate who's only a few meters away. And so the silly dull bullshit continues. |
 |
| 17. Winless Draws What the hell is a draw anyway? It serves no purpose, it doesn't resolve anything, it is DULL. Very few sports have this nonsense. A draw does not tell us that the two teams were equal. There is no such thing as equality in sports - or anything else, for that matter. (Yes, you dumb SJWs, you gullible idealistic snowflakes, you read that well: there is no equality in anything.) A draw pretty much negates the purpose of having the match in the first place. After all, the score was 0:0 before the match. You start with a draw, you end the game with a draw. The point? None. The players might as well have stayed in the locker-room and massaged each other. SOLUTION: Ban the draw. Shoot post-game penalties as they do in the J-League. This would be interesting/fun for the crowds, it would end the match on a high note, and it would give at least a semblance of purpose to the pointless nonsense that had transpired in the previous 93 minutes. Even little children have the sense to end a football game only once one of the teams has gained a lead. They play on until there is a winner. Of course, if "only" half the changes proposed on this list were implemented, the goal average would shoot right up, hence draws would be very rare, hence I wouldn't even have to include this Rule Change No. 17. |
Conclusion:
If these rule changes were applied, we'd have a much better game: quicker, less embarrassing to watch, more spectacular long-distance goals, less bitchy behaviour and play-acting, fairer, and with a higher goal average. Only confused baboons could possibly have anything against that. And mobsters.
Right. I forget. Most football fans are chimp-like. How many decent, half-way intelligent people can regularly watch a sport as unfair, chaotic, corrupt, random and ridiculous as football?
So-called "football purists" whine about any rule changes despite the fact that the game has drastically morphed in the last 50 years anyway, but this doesn't seem to bother these supposed traditionalists.
But at least we can all agree that Neymar is an imbecile and must never win the World Cup.
But at least we can all agree that Neymar is an imbecile and must never win the World Cup.
Find out why Sereno should not be playing on the WTA:
