# data[].attributes.body
https://www.blackandredunited.com/opinion/2013/11/20/5116626/rule-changes-top-5-mls-should-adopt-now-major-league-soccer-laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Soccer is a sport that doesn't make rule changes lightly. It's a sport of great tradition, one in which famous matches of the past are still played by the same general rules that are used today. But, even soccer's rules are changed from time to time to modernize the game. For example, when I played in a previous millennium, an attacking player had to be behind the second to the last defender to be onside (all other elements of the offside rule aside)--if the attacking player was level, he/she was offside. Also, defenders could pass the ball back to the goalie (who was allowed pick it up), and teams could play passing games to move their keeper around the box since the goalie was limited to only four steps with the ball. Finally, winning teams also used to only get two points in a tournament for a victory rather than the three they get today.

So, what changes could MLS make now to improve the game without fundamentally changing its historic nature? While I'll advocate that Major League Soccer should take the lead in instituting these rule changes, I fully understand that they probably have to get permission from all sorts of organizations to make this happen: their sanctioning body, US Soccer; the International Football Association Board, composed of FIFA and Great Britain's four constituent soccer associations ( England's FA, Scottish FA, FA of Wales, and Northern Ireland's FA). Yes, Northern Ireland gets a direct vote on soccer's Laws of the Game, but Brazil doesn't! And maybe even CONCACAF, just because.

Also, we live in an amazing age of technology. Why resist using it when it can help determine the correct outcome of a match? For me, the entire purpose of having referees officiate a soccer match is to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that two teams play within the laws of the game while determining the result. We don't trust two teams to play each other and stay within the laws, so neutral referees who are dedicated to enforcing the laws are assigned to officiate. But, referees make mistakes from time to time that prevent the laws from being correctly enforced. Why not use technology to help them enforce the laws (which is of course why we have referees)? Of course, the use of technology shouldn't detract from the flow of the game, but I think the recommendations below can be implemented without interfering with the game's celebrated fluidity.

With all that said, here are the Top 5 rule changes I'd like to see adopted in MLS (and around the world, or at least in the world's biggest leagues and tournaments):

1. Institute goal-line technology now. In the last World Cup, England was famously robbed of a clear goal against Germany. Although Frank Lampard's shot visibly crossed the line, the goal was not awarded. It was a huge embarrassment to FIFA since it was immediately clear to everyone watching that the referees had missed a clear goal. I'm sure it was horribly embarrassing to the referees as well.

Frank Lampard's Disallowed Goal v Germany 2010 + Post Match. (via ClassicEngland)

While England went on to lose this game 4-1, who knows the impact of not being awarded the tying goal in the first half? Fortunately, goal line technology isn't often needed, but when it is called into action, it has the potential to keep the gravest of soccer injustices from occurring, namely a legitimate goal not being awarded. And, as professional tennis has shown, this type of technology can be used both quickly and definitively to make the right call. Fortunately, FIFA will start using goal line technology at next summer's World Cup, and the English Premier League is using it now. When will MLS follow?

[Note: The US Men's National Team almost certainly would have been awarded a goal in their friendly against Austria yesterday if goal line technology had been in use (see sequence starting at 1:35.]

2. Every time the referee calls back a goal, review the call using video replay. Goals are precious in soccer, and just one can mean the difference between a championship and failure (with all the career ramifications that failure can have for coaches, front office types, and players). So, any time the referee is calling back a goal (i.e. the ball is in the back of the net and the referee is waiving it off), that call should be reviewed using video technology. To overturn the referee's call and restore the goal, use the standard we hear in gridiron football all the time, "incontrovertible visual evidence." This still may result in some deserved goals not being allowed, but at least it will afford the opportunity to avoid absolutely horrible calls that are immediately evident to everyone watching that they are wrong. Plus, the replay can occur during a natural stoppage in play while the ball is being retrieved from the net and the aggrieved team is inevitably protesting to the referee and the assistant referees (more about that below). Adopt the procedures Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League use by centralizing reviews at MLS HQ to improve the consistency of replay calls. An example of when to apply this procedure was the clear goal Sporting Kansas City scored against D.C. United at RFK back in May that was disallowed in route to a 1-1 draw. The goal was good, and should have been awarded.

3. Change the interpretation of the offside rule so that if any part of the attacking player (arms excluded) is level with the second to the last defender, the play is onside. Currently, the official FIFA interpretation of the offside rule, or Law 11 as FIFA regally refers to it, states the following (see page 35 and 108):

"A player is in an offside position if: he is nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent...In the context of Law 11, the following definitions apply: "nearer to his opponents' goal line" means that any part of a player's head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition"

Again, with goals being in such short supply in soccer, why be so restrictive when determining if an attacking player is in an offside position when he/she is level in some way with the second-last defender? Change the interpretation such that the attacking player need only have any part of his/her "head, body or feet" level with the "second-last opponent" to be onside, and we will probably see more attacking soccer and a few more goals (and Houston Dynamo may have a 1-0 lead on Sporting Kansas City in this year's Eastern Conference finals heading into the second leg).

4. Increase post-game reviews for simulation, and have mandatory 2-game suspensions when it is clearly detected. Soccer gets a bad rap in American sports for diving (i.e. simulation). I wish I could say it doesn't occur, but it does and it is very unattractive. No, the bad rap is because other sports also suffer from similar antics (e.g. NBA flopping, NFL faked injuries to slow down hurry-up offenses, etc...). Soccer isn't unique in this regard, but that doesn't mean diving/simulation shouldn't be harshly dealt with when detected. To MLS's credit, their Disciplinary Committee reviews for "simulation/embellishment", but the punishments should be severe to help reduce simulation's frequency and impact on the game, and make the referees' job easier. Oh, and FIFA needs to get serious about simulation. If the amateurish performance that Costa Rica's Joel Campbell used to get Matt Besler a yellow card (and subsequent suspension from the US- Mexico World Cup Qualifier) only results in a "reprimand", then the system is broken (see sequence starting at 5:40 in the video below). I say Joel Campbell should have received a 2-game suspension, minimum.

MNT vs. Costa Rica: Field Level Highlights - Sept. 6, 2013 (via U.S. Soccer)

5. Increase respect for match referees by strictly enforcing dissent rules. After making all the recommended rule changes above, MLS will have done a lot to help make the referees' jobs easier. The referees will have more tools to deal with big, controversial moments in a game. In addition, I'd give them a break from the confrontation and intimidation they frequently face by players and coaches. According to the FIFA Laws, a player should receive a yellow card for "dissent by word or action" (see page 38). In my perfect world, only team captains would be allowed to speak to the referee and no other player would be allowed to dissent directly to the referee. Additionally, head coaches would be allowed to talk to the fourth official. That's it. Anyone else who directly dissents with the referee, the assistant referees, or the fourth official should get an immediate yellow card. It's become comical and routine that a referee's decision to award a penalty kick or a red card (and at other less critical times as well) is immediately followed by angry players directly confronting the referee and other match officials in an aggressive manner leading to extended delays in the match. Again, credit to MLS for trying to tone this down by creating and enforcing its mass confrontation policy (although enforcement is somewhat opaque). Strictly enforcing the existing dissent rules would certainly require a global cultural change in the sport, but other sports enforce such a culture (hat tip to rugby) and MLS should start making the change now.

Referee Nigel Owens tells off Tobias Botes - 'This is not Soccer' (via ballsoddshaped)

If MLS makes the changes above, somewhere down the road perhaps they can make further changes to review all goals and penalty kick calls with real-time video replay to ensure they are correct, figure out how to use technology to help improve the accuracy of offside calls in real time, etc...all while protecting the character of the game.
What do you think? Should MLS institute the rule changes above? What rules would you change? Or, do you prefer that referees, like players and coaches, be allowed to make mistakes since it's part of soccer's human element?
More from Black And Red United:

Follow @blackandredU Follow @SBNationSoccer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Soccer is a sport that doesn't make rule changes lightly. It's a sport of great tradition, one in which famous matches of the past are still played by the same general rules that are used today. But, even soccer's rules are changed from time to time to modernize the game.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.blackandredunited.com/opinion/2013/11/20/5116626/rule-changes-top-5-mls-should-adopt-now-major-league-soccer-laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Soccer is a sport that doesn't make rule changes lightly. It's a sport of great tradition, one in which famous matches of the past are still played by the same general rules that are used today. But, even soccer's rules are changed from time to time to modernize the game. For example, when I played in a previous millennium, an attacking player had to be behind the second to the last defender to be onside (all other elements of the offside rule aside)--if the attacking player was level, he/she was offside. Also, defenders could pass the ball back to the goalie (who was allowed pick it up), and teams could play passing games to move their keeper around the box since the goalie was limited to only four steps with the ball. Finally, winning teams also used to only get two points in a tournament for a victory rather than the three they get today.

So, what changes could MLS make now to improve the game without fundamentally changing its historic nature? While I'll advocate that Major League Soccer should take the lead in instituting these rule changes, I fully understand that they probably have to get permission from all sorts of organizations to make this happen: their sanctioning body, US Soccer; the International Football Association Board, composed of FIFA and Great Britain's four constituent soccer associations ( England's FA, Scottish FA, FA of Wales, and Northern Ireland's FA). Yes, Northern Ireland gets a direct vote on soccer's Laws of the Game, but Brazil doesn't! And maybe even CONCACAF, just because.

Also, we live in an amazing age of technology. Why resist using it when it can help determine the correct outcome of a match? For me, the entire purpose of having referees officiate a soccer match is to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that two teams play within the laws of the game while determining the result. We don't trust two teams to play each other and stay within the laws, so neutral referees who are dedicated to enforcing the laws are assigned to officiate. But, referees make mistakes from time to time that prevent the laws from being correctly enforced. Why not use technology to help them enforce the laws (which is of course why we have referees)? Of course, the use of technology shouldn't detract from the flow of the game, but I think the recommendations below can be implemented without interfering with the game's celebrated fluidity.

With all that said, here are the Top 5 rule changes I'd like to see adopted in MLS (and around the world, or at least in the world's biggest leagues and tournaments):

1. Institute goal-line technology now. In the last World Cup, England was famously robbed of a clear goal against Germany. Although Frank Lampard's shot visibly crossed the line, the goal was not awarded. It was a huge embarrassment to FIFA since it was immediately clear to everyone watching that the referees had missed a clear goal. I'm sure it was horribly embarrassing to the referees as well.

Frank Lampard's Disallowed Goal v Germany 2010 + Post Match. (via ClassicEngland)

While England went on to lose this game 4-1, who knows the impact of not being awarded the tying goal in the first half? Fortunately, goal line technology isn't often needed, but when it is called into action, it has the potential to keep the gravest of soccer injustices from occurring, namely a legitimate goal not being awarded. And, as professional tennis has shown, this type of technology can be used both quickly and definitively to make the right call. Fortunately, FIFA will start using goal line technology at next summer's World Cup, and the English Premier League is using it now. When will MLS follow?

[Note: The US Men's National Team almost certainly would have been awarded a goal in their friendly against Austria yesterday if goal line technology had been in use (see sequence starting at 1:35.]

2. Every time the referee calls back a goal, review the call using video replay. Goals are precious in soccer, and just one can mean the difference between a championship and failure (with all the career ramifications that failure can have for coaches, front office types, and players). So, any time the referee is calling back a goal (i.e. the ball is in the back of the net and the referee is waiving it off), that call should be reviewed using video technology. To overturn the referee's call and restore the goal, use the standard we hear in gridiron football all the time, "incontrovertible visual evidence." This still may result in some deserved goals not being allowed, but at least it will afford the opportunity to avoid absolutely horrible calls that are immediately evident to everyone watching that they are wrong. Plus, the replay can occur during a natural stoppage in play while the ball is being retrieved from the net and the aggrieved team is inevitably protesting to the referee and the assistant referees (more about that below). Adopt the procedures Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League use by centralizing reviews at MLS HQ to improve the consistency of replay calls. An example of when to apply this procedure was the clear goal Sporting Kansas City scored against D.C. United at RFK back in May that was disallowed in route to a 1-1 draw. The goal was good, and should have been awarded.

3. Change the interpretation of the offside rule so that if any part of the attacking player (arms excluded) is level with the second to the last defender, the play is onside. Currently, the official FIFA interpretation of the offside rule, or Law 11 as FIFA regally refers to it, states the following (see page 35 and 108):

"A player is in an offside position if: he is nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent...In the context of Law 11, the following definitions apply: "nearer to his opponents' goal line" means that any part of a player's head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition"

Again, with goals being in such short supply in soccer, why be so restrictive when determining if an attacking player is in an offside position when he/she is level in some way with the second-last defender? Change the interpretation such that the attacking player need only have any part of his/her "head, body or feet" level with the "second-last opponent" to be onside, and we will probably see more attacking soccer and a few more goals (and Houston Dynamo may have a 1-0 lead on Sporting Kansas City in this year's Eastern Conference finals heading into the second leg).

4. Increase post-game reviews for simulation, and have mandatory 2-game suspensions when it is clearly detected. Soccer gets a bad rap in American sports for diving (i.e. simulation). I wish I could say it doesn't occur, but it does and it is very unattractive. No, the bad rap is because other sports also suffer from similar antics (e.g. NBA flopping, NFL faked injuries to slow down hurry-up offenses, etc...). Soccer isn't unique in this regard, but that doesn't mean diving/simulation shouldn't be harshly dealt with when detected. To MLS's credit, their Disciplinary Committee reviews for "simulation/embellishment", but the punishments should be severe to help reduce simulation's frequency and impact on the game, and make the referees' job easier. Oh, and FIFA needs to get serious about simulation. If the amateurish performance that Costa Rica's Joel Campbell used to get Matt Besler a yellow card (and subsequent suspension from the US- Mexico World Cup Qualifier) only results in a "reprimand", then the system is broken (see sequence starting at 5:40 in the video below). I say Joel Campbell should have received a 2-game suspension, minimum.

MNT vs. Costa Rica: Field Level Highlights - Sept. 6, 2013 (via U.S. Soccer)

5. Increase respect for match referees by strictly enforcing dissent rules. After making all the recommended rule changes above, MLS will have done a lot to help make the referees' jobs easier. The referees will have more tools to deal with big, controversial moments in a game. In addition, I'd give them a break from the confrontation and intimidation they frequently face by players and coaches. According to the FIFA Laws, a player should receive a yellow card for "dissent by word or action" (see page 38). In my perfect world, only team captains would be allowed to speak to the referee and no other player would be allowed to dissent directly to the referee. Additionally, head coaches would be allowed to talk to the fourth official. That's it. Anyone else who directly dissents with the referee, the assistant referees, or the fourth official should get an immediate yellow card. It's become comical and routine that a referee's decision to award a penalty kick or a red card (and at other less critical times as well) is immediately followed by angry players directly confronting the referee and other match officials in an aggressive manner leading to extended delays in the match. Again, credit to MLS for trying to tone this down by creating and enforcing its mass confrontation policy (although enforcement is somewhat opaque). Strictly enforcing the existing dissent rules would certainly require a global cultural change in the sport, but other sports enforce such a culture (hat tip to rugby) and MLS should start making the change now.

Referee Nigel Owens tells off Tobias Botes - 'This is not Soccer' (via ballsoddshaped)

If MLS makes the changes above, somewhere down the road perhaps they can make further changes to review all goals and penalty kick calls with real-time video replay to ensure they are correct, figure out how to use technology to help improve the accuracy of offside calls in real time, etc...all while protecting the character of the game.
What do you think? Should MLS institute the rule changes above? What rules would you change? Or, do you prefer that referees, like players and coaches, be allowed to make mistakes since it's part of soccer's human element?
More from Black And Red United:

Follow @blackandredU Follow @SBNationSoccer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Soccer is a sport that doesn't make rule changes lightly. It's a sport of great tradition, one in which famous matches of the past are still played by the same general rules that are used today. But, even soccer's rules are changed from time to time to modernize the game.

# data[].attributes.body
https://worldsoccertalk.com/news/as-soccer-evolves-so-must-the-rules-5-changes-to-consider-20220618-CMS-389933.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recently, the International Football Association Board (IFAB) approved the permanent adoption of the use of five substitutes, giving top-level competitions the option to allow up to five subs in a match (restricted to three substitution windows, plus halftime). This was a temporary rule change adopted in 2020 as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but it proved to be a successful and popular amendment to the laws of the game, enhancing player safety and giving teams more flexibility to make moves during a match.

Soccer certainly isn't the same game it was when it was first played in the 19th century. It has grown and evolved with the times, just like every sport has. Over time the players change, the strategy changes, and sometimes, the rules must change as well to improve both the integrity and quality of the game.

But has it done enough, or perhaps too much?

Another relatively recent addition to the sport is VAR (video assistant referee) and Goal Line Technology, intended to make sure results aren't affected unjustly by incorrect or missed calls. As noble as these technological efforts have been, they are certainly not perfect and can cause just as much controversy as before, but some of that comes down to the rules of the game themselves - rules that leave a lot of human subjectivity in the process, and thus are subject to error.

So, let's take a look at five other rule changes that could help improve the sport. Some are major changes, some are tweaks, but all of these could potentially enhance and elevate the game.

Rule 1) Extra Time - Eliminate Shootouts

Though they have provided much drama and excitement (especially for neutrals), it's tough to argue that the penalty shootout from the spot is a fair way to decide the winner of a match - especially when you consider that the method is only used to break a tie in knockout situations, which by definition are high-stakes games. Imagine working for an entire season, a career, even a lifetime in many cases, to have a chance at winning a major trophy as a player or coach (or a fan), only to lose in what amounts to an almost random skills contest. No other sport allows something like a championship game to be decided in such a frankly ridiculous manner.

A solution that has a bit more balanced odds between the keeper and shooter is the hockey-style shootout, used by the NASL in the 1970s and by MLS in its early years, where the shooter has 5 seconds to dribble in from 35 yards out and get a shot off, with the keeper allowed to come off their line and defend. Personally I think this style of shootout is much more entertaining, and more fair, but it still amounts to a sort of All-Star game skills display, not suitable to decide the winner of a game, season, or in the most extreme case, a World Cup. This type of penalty shot does have its place (more on that later), but it's not to decide a winner of a game.

Rule Change:
The best way to break a tie in an elimination game has been tried before by FIFA, and is still used by NCAA college soccer in the USA: Golden Goal.

It's a simple rule. If teams are tied after 90 minutes, you keep playing, and the next goal wins. You play the same traditional two 15-minute periods of extra time, but if anyone scores, the game is immediately over. If still tied after the extra 30 minutes, you go to a shootout. But we want to get rid of shootouts, so here's where this can be tweaked and improved:

#1 - For the first two 15-minute periods, play the "silver goal" variation. This means if someone scores, the game isn't immediately over, but if the period ends and the score isn't even, then a winner is declared. This prevents an unlucky or otherwise fluke goal early in extra time from outright deciding things, giving each team a fair chance.

#2 - After 30 minutes if you're still tied, don't go to a shootout. Instead, then move to golden goal, next goal wins, for 15 minute periods until somebody scores. This is the way playoff hockey works - the game goes on, just as it did the entire season, with normal rules, until someone scores. And it can lead to some incredibly suspenseful and unforgettable moments. Yes, players will get tired, but with an expanded substitute option (perhaps the sub rules could be extended further in these extra time situations), it's entirely manageable. Imagine the scenes if a cup final or promotion playoff were decided in the 156th minute, or even later?

Rule 2: While We're At It, Let's Get Rid Of Spot Kicks Entirely

The non-shootout penalty kick from the spot during normal game play has been a source of controversial moments for as long as it has existed. Even with the help of VAR, many PK calls are still hotly debated, and not once has a penalty kick really accurately replicated the opportunity taken away by the foul from the defending side. Has an attacking player ever been fouled, while standing still on the penalty spot, with no defenders around him and the keeper standing on his goal line? Of course not. So why on Earth do we award what is an almost automatic goal for things like soft fouls at the edge of the 18 yard box, or random handballs in a crowded cluster of players?

Rule Change:
2.1 - Award a direct free kick from the spot of the foul, just like any other area on the field. This would take much of the pressure off the officials when making foul calls in the box, produce far less controversy while still giving a scoring chance to the team that was fouled, and more closely replicate the opportunity that was nullified by the infringement. And it would definitely produce some interesting moments and memorable goals. You could enforce a maximum number of players in a wall in these situations, so you can't simply pack the goal line, and also somewhat accurately replicate the scenario before the foul was committed. You could even use VAR to determine how many defenders were between the ball and the goal when the infraction occurred, as the limit for the wall, but this may be a step too far.

2.2 - There is one scenario where a true one-on-one penalty shot is justified - when an attacker is on a breakaway, with only the goalkeeper in front of him and gets taken down illegally before getting a shot off. In that case, this is where our friend the NASL/hockey penalty shot comes in. It gives the attacker the near-exact chance he had before the foul, and is not a guessing game spot kick.

This is the only rule suggestion that would require modifying the field markings, as you'd no longer have a need for the penalty spot in the box. You could move it to 35 yards out, or perhaps more interestingly get rid of it completely and on NASL penalty shots have the shooter start from the spot of the foul.

Rule 3: Handball Adjustment

This one ties in somewhat to the previous rule, as nobody really cares about a handball if it's not inside the 18-yard box. But if it is, we all become CSI detectives breaking down every frame of video on the replay to argue over the intent of the player, where the hand was, could they have gotten it out of the way, etc.

But if we get rid of spot kicks and instead award regular free kicks for fouls in the box as suggested above, a handball call becomes significantly less impactful, so therefore we can simplify the rule a bit.

Rule Change:
If a ball hits any non-goalkeeper hand (let's define a hand as anywhere on the arm below the elbow), anywhere, at any time, for any reason, it's a handball and a free kick to the other team. Doesn't matter if your hand is behind your back, or what your intent was. Ball hitting hand equals handball.

This simplification takes a lot of the subjectivity out of the call, which makes things easier on the fly for refs, as well as for any calls under VAR scrutiny.

Rule 4: The Sin Bin

I'm stealing this one from rugby, but it's actually a rule that has been approved by the IFAB for optional use in the youth, veterans, disability and grassroots variations of the game.

We've all seen plenty of sending offs that were questionable, for fouls that probably shouldn't have warranted the nuclear option of a red card. The sharp escalation from "hey don't do that again" to "you're out of the match and your team has to play one man down the rest of the way... oh and by the way you're suspended for the next game too" in the soccer justice system doesn't leave much room for referees to work with.

Rule Change:
Adopt temporary dismissals, or "sin bins", at every level of the game. Think of it basically as a "yellow card+" or "orange card", in between a yellow and a red. If given a temporary dismal, the player in question is sent off, but only for 10 minutes, at which point they can come back on. So it puts their team at a disadvantage, but not a catastrophic one, and is more of a fair punishment for certain offenses that are worse than a yellow but that don't quite warrant a full sending off and suspension (but under the current rules there is no other choice for). In fact, it would be decent punishment for a run-of-the-mill second yellow card as well, with a third then resulting in the traditional sending off.

I've had experience with this rule first hand at the adult amateur level in the USA, and it really is a positive addition to the game.

Rule 5: Offside

Saving this one for last - it's a simple change with a big effect, and another one that ties in with making VAR smoother and easier to operate (and making it less necessary in the first place).

The current offside rule states that:

A player is in an offside position if:

any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents' half (excluding the halfway line) and

any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

The whole thing ought to be flipped around and streamlined.

Rule Change:
Soccer's offside rule basically works as "if any part of the player is offside, the player is offside". But it should work in reverse, like hockey's offside, which is "if any part of the player is onside, the player is onside".

So let's revise the official rule to:

A player is in an offside position if:

The entirety of the body (including hands and arms) is clearly and obviously within the opponents' half (excluding the halfway line) and

The entirety of the body is clearly and obviously nearer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the entirety of the second-last opponent

This effectively means that you can "tag up" and remain onside even if just the tip of your boot or a pinky finger is in line with any part of that second to last defender. And we're including the entire body, because not counting hands and arms as in the current rule just adds unnecessary complexity. If a hand/arm is relevant enough to stop play when the ball touches it, it's relevant enough to include with the rest of the body when it comes to offside.

The intent, effect, and spirit of the rule remains exactly the same as the existing rule. You can't be ahead of the ball and that second-last defender before the ball is played. This just changes how we measure it. This change gives the benefit of the doubt to the attacking player, but isn't that how it should be? Nobody wants to see goals or attacking chances called back. Nobody wants to see play constantly interrupted by a linesman's flag. Free-flowing, attacking soccer with more scoring chances is a much better product. This helps promote that.

The "clearly and obviously" qualifier helps 1) in VAR situations and 2) making VAR less necessary in the first place. Unless somebody is blatantly offside with a good amount of daylight between them and the second-last opponent, the flag should stay down more often, and if there is a review, without clear visual evidence to the contrary, if there is any chance part of the player is onside, they are onside and reviews should be quicker.

So that's it. None of these would be earth shattering changes. We're not talking about making the clock count down, adding time outs, getting rid of draws, increasing the goal size, adding 3-point shots or anything wacky that might have come out of an early 90s MLS brainstorming session. This would simply be massaging the existing rules into something that would dial back the opportunity for controversy, and make the game more enjoyable and fair.

Do you like any of these suggestions? Any ideas of your own? Hit us with your best rule changes in the comments!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
As soccer evolves, so must the rules: 5 changes to consider

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recently, the International Football Association Board (IFAB) approved the permanent adoption of the use of five substitutes, giving top-level competitions the option to allow up to five subs in a match (restricted to three substitution windows, plus halftime). This was a temporary rule change adopted in 2020 as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but [...]