As if revamping the tournament proper was not enough, FIFA’s plans to revamp the game has again been met with incredulity and understandable outrage. To top it all off, it was a former decorated footballer who suggested the rule changes – three-time Ballon d’Or winner Marco van Basten.

The former Dutch footballer is now a Technical Director at FIFA and suggested a number of proposed changes to “improve the game”. Some of these changes have been hailed as innovative while other laws are considered too sacrosanct to change or scrap.

Also read: How FIFA’s plan for a 48-team World Cup will allow teams to cheat without breaking the rules

Scrapping the offside rule?

This is by far the most ridiculous change that, if implemented, will completely alter the game. The beauty of the game is characterised by attack vs defence and abolishing the offside law leaves the goalkeeper very vulnerable.

“It’s difficult for the opposition to score as it’s very difficult to create something in the small pieces of space. Without offside you get more possibilities to score a goal.” – Van Basten

The beauty of the offside law lies in its implementation. Having defenders work together in tandem rather than focus on individual battles is the key to teamwork – one of football’s defining facets.

Football is not only about scoring goals; it is also about stopping them from going in. And while defending can look ugly and sometimes cringeworthy, nothing illustrates the beauty of the game more than a four-man defence playing a high line and stepping up like they were telepathically linked to trap a player in an offside position.

With regards to ‘parking the bus’, there is no hard and fast logic to suggest that scrapping the offside law will allow teams to score more goals. Two banks of four defending in their own box will still deny opponents space to work with. The probability of scoring a goal may increase – but at what cost?

Teams that park the bus usually do so when they have a sufficient lead and/or know they cannot compete with their opponents. What we then witness is a pure battle between possession and counter-attack instead of two teams negating each other on the pitch. And scoring a goal against such a team only becomes all that more rewarding.

Also read: 5 players who were too smart for the offside trap

25-metre run ups for penalty shootouts?

This is, quite frankly, a bizarre change to implement. Asking players to dribble from 25 metres out à la ice hockey again leaves the goalkeeper at the mercy of the goalscorer.

The idea works in ice hockey because the goalkeeper can cover almost the entire frame of the goal. However, a football goal is four times the size of an ice hockey goal! Forcing the goalkeeper to advance only gives players taking the penalty kick (penalty run?) more space to work with.

Dutch legend Dennis Bergkamp was once deemed guilty of going overboard in scoring beautiful goals by trying to chip the goalkeeper. But his logic was undeniable: “There is more space above the goalkeeper.” His intelligence was unparalleled at the time and he claimed it wasn’t because it looked good but more so because it was easier than going to the goalkeeper’s left or right.

Forcing the goalkeeper to come off his line and charge the player thus gives the penalty taker an extra option to score. Not left, not right – but dead centre and over the goalkeeper’s head.

If there is one thing statistical analysis has proved in recent years is that penalty shootouts have little to do with luck. Coaches pore over hours of video highlights to study each goalkeeper’s weakness and each player’s penalty taking skills to come up with the best strategy to win in a shootout.

Shootouts have always been a matter of keeping one’s nerves. So the argument that players will be nervous does not hold any water either. There is nothing more humbling and nerve-wracking than taking the long walk to the penalty spot to take the decisive penalty in a shootout.

Also read: 5 rule changes that will improve the game of football

What Van Basten said…

First of all, have there been any complaints regarding the ‘attractiveness’ of football? It is by and large the world’s most popular sport and over 210 countries now have a national team. The sport’s popularity has only grown in recent years and FIFA’s trickle-down effect has helped a number of smaller footballing nations develop the game.

“There are lots of variations which need to be tested in the coming years.” – Van Basten

Television deals for the telecast of tournaments and various leagues have only become more lucrative as fans voraciously consume a product with an almost never-ending supply of matches throughout the calendar year – be it club football or international football.

To further understand how attractive the game and the product is, one need only look at the number of sponsors lining up and falling at the feet of various clubs to have their name (their brand) associated with the team in any way possible – be it the kits, the stadiums or even naming training complexes.

The real reason for such drastic changes

Luckily, Van Basten is not the one who decides such radical overhauls of the existing rulebook. That responsibility lies with the International Football Association Board (IFAB) – the sport’s law-making body.

IFAB has been averse to making too many changes to the laws of the game in the past. It took them ages to approve the use of video replays and Goal Line Technology only because they wanted a completely fool-proof system in place that did not affect the flow of the game.

Van Basten’s proposed changes have a deeper underlying agenda, though. Just as T20 cricket matches brought in increased fan engagement and renewed interest in a game that was seeing dwindling attendances, FIFA believes that such drastic changes will make football a better brand, bring in new viewers and thereby increase revenue.

What they do not realise is that football is not in any need of such a revamp. While there are a few rule changes that may help improve the game, such drastic measures only serve to reduce a beautiful sport to a circus show.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

0 votes