'Coxon's Comments' #6 'A Change Of Rules You Say?'

This week football was rocked by some ludicrous suggestions by a man we all thought knew how football worked and what made it so great, oh how wrong we were. 

A European Championship winner with his country and almost too many honours to count from his time at the mighty all dominant force of the late 80's, Ajax. His San Siro says we're laden with more trophies than one room can accommodate. This is all from one man, Marco Van Basten, relaying what he thinks will be beneficial to football and it's future in the shape of 'rule Changes' some of those being an 8 second penalty run up, penalties not taken from the spot which they're supposed to but allowed to be dribbled towards the goal. I'm going to start off with these two gems from a man who's footballing experience is second to none. 

I can get behind the eight second rule for a penalty to be taken, but I think it should be taken a step further, no more than four paces from the ball, because it's these run up from near enough the half way line that get my back up. You've got a free pop at the goal for goodness sake, don't go on a wander. The Premier League has already implemented the rule of no stuttering before striking a penalty which is a good and fair rule.  

But here is where Van Basten loses me and perhaps his mind, proposing the idea of a hockey type penalty, where the attacker takes the ball from the halfway line and proceeds to dribble at the keeper and must score. In hockey this works, smaller goals, bigger keepers off padding and smaller pitch, but at no point does this work or even remotely entertain anyone, the evidence is on YouTube off when this was trailed in the MLS in its early days as a league, please go watch it and have yourself a chuckle. 

Another interesting rule put forward by the Dutchman is that all players are limited to sixty games within a season, so from August to August basically, I can see this being a one more of sound though, a player's well being and fitness being his main view. His reason being that of when major tournaments come around in the summer many players are tired and lethargic at times. I don't think this is rule that needs implementing, and if it is, it should be at international level because I feel many teams look after a player and his long term health in giving adequate rest time and recovery time, but never the international teams, if a players had a month or so out and is still a week from full fitness it's always his country of birth request almost demanding he play through his issues, the main one recently being Sanchez and Chile. 

Implement a cap, but on international fixtures, don't call them up for meaningless friendlies and implement that a squad must field three players under '23 and start blooding the next generation for the next tournament and give your experienced players the rest, because travel in itself is a strenuous task. I don't get behind the needing the winter break and how it affects English football, because going back to the Euros of 2016, the two finalists, Portugal's centre back was Jose Fonte a player who had played thirty-plus games on the Premier League and the went on to play seven games in the summer at the age of thirty-two. He's not English and could perform at the tournament, the same goes for half the France squad that made it to the final. Payet, played a fantastic season with no break and continued it into the Euro Finals, a lot of players who weren't English excelled at the Euros without a winter break and it was made as an excuse and scapegoat for our own failings that the players fitness was not up to scratch. These guys are athletes so to limit their game time is actually limiting their availability. If you can play 70+ games a season you should be able to and not hampered by any rule or regulation. 

Orange cards are madness, complete madness. He has orange on the mind does the Dutchman. This would only make the game slower and almost more unsavoury in a sense if a player knows he can go about and nibble little, play breaking and attack stopping tackle in on a player up to five times in a game knowing it won't result in a sending off and subsequent ban after will only make the quality of the game begin to Diminish. A orange card sin bin rule will only make the officials jobs harder because that's five fouls x 22 players = 110 incidents he must be ready to have recorded or kept in his mind which isn't fair on anyone, be it the official, player and even the fans. It opens up a whole other debate on what is a yellow and a red card because then there's another more obscure option, an orange card. It's not needed and shouldn't be even considered. 

I think Van Basten likes hockey, because he's wanting to bring a rule change into how each game is structured, this one being instead of two halves we have four quarters, whether those quarters are twenty-two minutes and thirty seconds is perhaps another question for him to address, but why is this needed? Is this not a ploy to make football a more marketable, money making sport in the sense more breaks in play mean more lucrative well payed commercials can be played ? This is a idea that needs to be left in his brain, there are more demanding sports such as rugby that have two halves and there's no proposal to turn that into four quarters of twenty minutes because it's a rule that's not needed! 

Change the layout of the game and it's no longer football, it becomes a new sport entirely if it's played in quarters. 

And now for Marco's crown jewel, the mans almost evil plan. Ridding the game of offside. The one thing that I feel makes every teams game plan, being able to implement a line of defenders that are able to hold their shape straight to ensure no player can legally stand behind them, ridding this rule would mean every coach and players tactical knowledge would all most become obsolete, their who tactic set up, formation, players available and just the whole game it's self would be turned on its head and that's not needed. There can be no advantage to this rule, his argument is that it would make more goals in a game. But football has never been about double figure scores, it's been about the balance of attack and defence, he was complaining about the intricacy that teams play in front of a defensive line, how is that a bad thing?! I just feel he's came out with these absurd comments just because he can, because he's regarded as a legend. This is a mans whos ideas don't seem to hold Football or fans best interests at heart. Luckily he's not a part of any committee or decision making team, although close with the new FIFA president, Gianni Infantino, a man with a vote he is not, so this bodes well for us all. 

As for me, the rules I'd like brought into football involve technology, main one being Video replay, the game has become so fast paced, physically and mentally that I can't be placed on one in amongst twenty-two players and two men out on the peripherals of game to be able to keep up with such a intense sport to make the most important decisions available in a ninety minute period anymore, video replay or a fifth official who has every camera angle at his touch should be fed direct to the main referee's ear with any dubious decisions or always available for a Referee to double check his doubt. 

This I feel is now something needed more than ever after I witnessed a 'challenge' on Raheem Sterling from his fellow country. An Kyle Wlaker when Manchester City hosted Tottenham, Walker blatantly pushes Sterling in his back, which he later admits too, points for honesty, in a interview, but nothing's given because Sterling stays on his feet and scuppers a shot, if he'd have taken the new approach many players on the continent are taking, which is when contact is made however minimal they're horizontal in milliseconds and are searching for their reward for the foul, it saddens me that nothing was given for the push on Sterling because it says to me that this person wasn't up to making the decision because there was no evidence from the fouled man, in the form of a tumble to the ground, so he was not willing to give a penalty that was deserved, and this almost advocates cheating/diving among players, this decision or in this instance non-decision should have been a turning point, but instead it's just going to become a talking point. And this all comes in a week where there's talk of another rule being put in place where those caught diving are given a two match ban. How can a ban be implemented when blatant fouls are not being given when a player is essence has not dived to get a reward ! 

To summarise, Marco Van Basten has just decided to say a lot of stuff and not be coherent with it. I feel his views would set the game back not push it forward. The game is at a crossroads at the moment, do we take the step forward into a modern era with more eyes on the game, or keep it twenty years in the past, the decision will come sooner rather than later, and I'm looking forward to what the game holds for is all.   

If there's any rule changes anyone else feels should be implemented please leave a comment and we'll discuss! 

Coxon