My Thoughts on Marco Van Basten's proposed rule changes

Yesterday, FIFA technical boss Marco Van Basten put forward what can only really be described as a 'radical blueprint' for the future of football. Now whether these ideas will come into play is unknown as there is still plenty of debate needed, but today I give my thoughts on his main points.

No more Offsides?

The first of his changes and arguably the one that's caused the most uproar is the removal of the offside rule. His reasoning for this was 'I think it can be very interesting watching a game without offside. Football now is already looking a lot like handball with nine or ten defenders in front of the goal. It's difficult for the opposition to score a goal as it's very difficult to create something in the small pieces of space they give you. So if you play without offside you get more possibilities to score a goal.' Now I'm majorly against what he says here for a few reasons.
 Firstly, his point about 'nine or ten defenders being in front of the goal.' He's giving the impression that in every game, there's one team that's playing defensive and essentially parking the bus, this couldn't be further from the truth. In most games, both teams are going for it, but it's all about taking calculated risks. Does he expect teams to throw every player forward in the first 30 minutes? That would just be asking to get counterattacked and concede. When a team is fighting for survival or playing against one of the top teams in their respective league, then they have to play the system that gives them the best chance of winning. You can't expect a team like Hull City for example to try and control possession against Chelsea, because they don't have the quality in the squad to do that, so why not try and even things out financially, so every team has a better chance of beating each other.
 Secondly, he says 'It's difficult for the opposition to score a goal as it's very difficult to create something in the small pieces of space.' It shouldn't be easy for a team to score a goal, I question what he is hoping to achieve, every game being something ridiculous like 7-6. He's right in the sense of it being difficult to create something in a small space, but isn't that what we all, as fans, pay to see....someone producing that moment of magic that you'll talk about for weeks. The best teams pay ridiculous amounts of money for players who have the ability to create these moments, this is what the top players get paid massive wages to do. All that scrapping the offside rule is going to do is push the defence back into the box to deal with a 6ft5 striker, it's just going to be long balls pumped into the box for 90 minutes. Doing this would leave no space in the box, therefore making those small pieces of space he complains about even smaller. What a genius.....
 I really can't see what this would achieve, other than even more small kids being told, I'm sorry you're not tall enough to make it, no matter how technically good they are. It would take away the magical moments like that goal Messi scored in the Copa Del Rey Final against Athletic Bilbao where he dribbled the ball through five or six players before scoring, and, would just see two teams of Peter Crouch's just hoofing the ball into the box with the hope of the striker heading it. He says he thinks it'll be 'enjoyable to watch', I think many would disagree as it would take away from the enjoyment of the game, the magical goals would be even less frequent and the crowd levels and viewership would no doubt decrease as games would lack quality more so than ever.

Introduction of Sin Bins?

This is something that has been hinted at before and an idea that seems to divide opinion from what I've seen, the introduction of sin bins. His thoughts on this were 'Maybe an orange card could be shown that sees a player go out of the game for 10 minutes for incidents that are not heavy enough for a red card.' Now this in 'orange card' would be brandished for offences that are deemed worse than a yellow card, yet not deemed bad enough to warrant a straight red card. This confuses me in so many ways as there's so many variables that would make this complicated, why is he trying to make football, a simple sport, complicated to the point that new viewers won't understand half of the things that are going on.
 The main flaw with this is, what is a foul nowadays? What kind of challenge warrants a yellow, an orange or a red card? Every fan, pundit, commentator and official seems to have their own interpretation of what a foul is. You see it every game, for example the penalty that wasn't given on Sterling in the Everton game. Souness thought it was too hard for the referee to see and didn't think it was in real time and Henry thought it was a penalty at first glance. So if we can't decide whether a foul is a foul now and whether it deserves a yellow or a red, then how can we add another card into it. Surely that would just spark more debate and more controversy. What needs to be done, is the rule book needs to be simplified, so that everyone is clear, what a foul is and which fouls determine either a yellow card or a red card, then everything would be much more simple. For example, the whole pulling a player's shirt in the box from a corner, some refs give it as a penalty, others stop play and others give nothing, it makes no sense and we all need clarity on it, not further complication.
 He says that sin-binning players would 'frighten teams' as 'it is harder to play 10 against 11.' My argument against this is that having either one player or multiple on a yellow card frightens a team regardless. The attacking team has the chance to take an advantage against players on a yellow card, by focusing their play mainly against that player. Force him into positions he doesn't want to be in and he'll make an error. It's up to that team to capitalise on the situation against and force them into making a foul, the mentality of that player, knowing that they can't make a silly tackle, essentially makes it like playing 10vs11 in a sense, meaning there's no need to punish a player further and forcing them to sit out for 10 minutes.
 Finally, what happens if a player has a yellow card, then can he be sin-binned? If he gets an orange card and then a yellow card is he sent off? Will the player be fined of suspended for getting a certain number of sin-bins? If Van Basten is going to put these ideas out for the public to discuss, don't say it brief, it leaves too much to discussion. He has to come with all the facts behind the rule, he can't just say that he wants sin-bins introduced without every possible outcome being discussed. If a player or two gets injured and they have to stay off, is the sin-binned player allowed back on? If there's less than 10 minutes left, does that players' sin bin timer carry over to another game? If there is a fight between five or six players, can they all get sin-binned, as then people are paying a lot of money to watch 7-a-side, doesn't sound great does it?
 As you can see, this rule change would bring too many questions and no doubt, would see too much controversy to be an effective change. What FIFA should instead be focusing on, as highlighted earlier, is making the rules more understandable for everyone, from the fans to officials themselves. Sure, it won't be perfect as human error will always be on the cards, but it'll be so much more simple than introducing sin bins and an additional card.

Abolishing Extra Time and Changes to Penalties

The next one of Van Basten's 'intelligent' ideas is to scrap Extra-Time and make a drastic change to penalties. There's been so many great games that have been decided in extra-time over the years, whether it be internationally or domestically, extra-time brings some cracking moments. It allows the teams two 15 minute periods in which they can throw everything they've got left at the opposition. For me, extra time is cruel yet rewarding, it's a mental challenge to pick yourself back up and fight for that extra 30 minutes, but if you want it more than the opposition, it shows in this period more than any other. A late goal winner in extra-time is one of the greatest feelings, just as a late defeat is a real kick in the gut. I don't see why he even thinks this needs to go, apparently he said it's 'a burden on the players' but if it's on a footballer to play more football, then I'm sorry but you're not cut out for it and will never succeed in it.
 Onto the change to penalties, here's what he said 'Maybe the player should start 25 metres from goal and then you can dribble the goalkeeper or shoot early.' Now for those, that have never seen this before, it's basically like a penalty in ice-hockey. It was tried in the MLS and it just doesn't have the same intense feel to it. When you're 12 yards out, looking eye to eye to the keeper, it adds that feeling of in-tenseness and nerves, making it feel even more satisfying when you get the better of the opposite player. However, by making a player do what's practically a training drill, it's even harder for both players in my opinion and is quite an unfair way to do it. For example, if Chelsea played Margate in the FA Cup, game goes to penalties, it's going to be so much harder for Margate's players to beat Courtois from outside the box then it would be for Eden Hazard to beat Margate's keeper, because technically, Chelsea's players have better ability. Why make it more difficult, penalties are more than adequate enough for players and spectators right now, they don't need any changes.
 He also had this to say on the matter 'But you have to make a goal within eight seconds. It's more skill and less luck. It's maybe a bit more spectacular. It's more football but it's still nervous for the player.' Players having eight seconds to shoot just makes it so random and complicated, faster players are going to have a massive advantage as they'd be able to get closer to goal, bigger physical players would have to shoot from what maybe is an awkward position. I agree that it would take more skill and less luck as better players are more likely to score and it's easier for the keeper to tell where the attacker is going to go. It would take away from the greatness of a penalty shootout though as, the chances of the better team have of winning, goes up massively and for me that's quite dull. A bit more spectacular though? I think not. At the moment penalty shootouts are great and have the potential to go all the way and ending up being 13-12, for me that's spectacular. This change would be the opposite, the better team is more likely to win 3-0 or 4-1 for example, and that's just going to be a dull watch. The final bit aggravates me though, 'It's more football.' If it's more football that he wants to see, then why is he thinking of scrapping extra-time when that's half an hour of as intense football as you're going to see. It's nail-biting the majority of the time and tends to be a better watch as a neutral. So if it's more football he desires then keep extra-time and there's no need to change penalties.

Less Games?

The last point of his I'm going to address is his idea that less games need to be played in order for quality to be higher. He said 'We have to promote quality instead of quantity. We are playing too much football now. We have to defend players because they have to play so much and are not fresh or fit anymore.' It would seem like he's making sense as, less games would mean the players are more fresh for the game and should perform better. However, he's proved wrong, because, how many times have we seen teams have a week off while other have played or after international break and they look poor. He's clearly another one of those who thinks that professional players are incapable of playing 180-270 minutes a week, which is ridiculous. They're professional athletes with exceptional training facilities, they're perfect capable of playing three games a week when needed. If non-league teams can play five games in ten days then I'm sure that the 'professionals' can play twice a week.
 He then goes onto say, 'Even in June when the big tournaments are played players cannot perform to their maximum because now if players are really successful they can play up to 75 official games in the year. I think that's a bit too much and maybe they should stop at 55 or 60.' So he's essentially saying that players are burning out by the time of international tournaments, even though they tend to start 3-4 weeks after the season ends. Well Real Madrid won the Champions League last year and Ronaldo played every game in the Euro's and he played fairly well and Portugal won the Euro's last year so, he's played more than most and he was fine. In England, where arguably the most games are played for the bigger teams in the country, reaching the final of the Champions League, FA Cup and EFL Cup is a total of 25 games. Then 38 league games, sees the total official games at 63, begging the question where he's got the number 75 from. The majority of main players will miss 5-6 games as teams play younger players/fringe players in the early rounds of the cups meaning they do play the amount of games he wants them too, so there's no need for change to the fixture list. If a player's not fit, then it's the responsibility of the player and the manager to make the right decision of resting that player, scheduling has nothing to do with it. Rotation of the squad is key in football, don't take away more fixtures as it's the fans who will really suffer as they'll see their team play less.

As you can see, some of his points are just 'radical' to say the least. Suggesting things like; no more offside rule, that ridiculous change to penalties, no more extra time, making it so teams don't play in two cup competitions is just mad. Teams in lower leagues can play in three cup competitions alongside the league and there's no complaints. He says,'We are trying to help the game, to let the game develop in a good way.' If these ideas came through, then they'd do a better job of killing the game rather than helping it. I question whether those in either FIFA or the FA have a clue what they're talking about or even have the love for football, that we as fans of the game, show week in, week out. When they come out with things like this, it does beg the question of what their motive really is, because rarely is it to promote the game we all love in a better way.