Why Does Football Resist Change?
Written by; Tao MacLeod
As a sports coach, I am curious about how games, codes and activities have evolved, progressed and continue to develop. Some are more progressive than others, perhaps showing a greater willingness to change. The sport of football has pretty much stayed the same since its conception. The Cambridge rules were drawn up in 1848. It was written at a meeting at Trinity College (a part of the town’s university), attended by representatives from the Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Winchester and Shrewsbury schools.
The Laws of the University Foot Ball Club
- This club shall be called the University Foot Ball Club.
- At the commencement of the play, the ball shall be kicked off from the middle of the ground: after every goal there shall be a kick-off in the same way.
- After a goal, the losing side shall kick off; the sides changing goals, unless a previous arrangement be made to the contrary.
- The ball is out when it has passed the line of the flag-posts on either side of the ground, in which case it shall be thrown in straight.
- The ball is behind when it has passed the goal on either side of it.
- When the ball is behind it shall be brought forward at the place where it left the ground, not more than ten paces, and kicked off.
- Goal is when the ball is kicked through the flag-posts and under the string.
- When a player catches the ball directly from the foot, he may kick it as he can without running with it. In no other case may the ball be touched with the hands, except to stop it.
- If the ball has passed a player, and has come from the direction of his own goal, he may not touch it till the other side have kicked it, unless there are more than three of the other side before him. No player is allowed to loiter between the ball and the adversaries’ goal.
- In no case is holding a player, pushing with the hands, or tripping up allowed. Any player may prevent another from getting to the ball by any means consistent with the above rules.
- Every match shall be decided by a majority of goals.
Further evolutions to the rules came from Sheffield Football Club and a clergyman called John Charles Thring of Uppingham School, in 1857. There was greater uniformity across the numerous clubs springing up around the country when the English Football Association published their rather more comprehensive Laws of the Game in 1863. Since then there have been few major changes to what was then called association football (abbreviated by some to soccer). The relatively few major updates to the rules have been the creation of a crossbar, prevention of the goalkeepers from handling the ball outside of the penalty area, the introduction of a penalty shootout as a tie-breaker, the allowing of substitutions to happen during a game and the adaptations made to the offside rule. Some may say that these modifications are plenty enough, but considering that they happened over a time period of more than 170 years we are not describing a particularly progressive sport. This is particularly evident when compared to other pastimes such as rugby and field hockey. Indulging in such juxtapositions, however, is something that several fans that I’ve chatted too don’t seem to want to engage in – what’s happening over there isn’t important, because ‘this is football!’
I have posed this comparison with two other invasion sports as they have made adaptations around safety, flow of the game, sin bins and video refereeing that could all help football. Regarding the health and safety of players rugby has made steps towards preventing serious head injuries. They allow for temporary substitutions due to medical treatment, something that could be looked at in football with regards concussions, as well as time wasting. Hockey allows for players to restart immediately after being stopped due to an infraction, thus discouraging and negating professional fouls. If a defender does interrupt what is called a self-pass (within a set distance) then the umpires are allowed to penalise them through an incremental sin bin system. That’s two minutes for a green card, five minutes, then ten minutes for a yellow card and then latterly a dismissal from the pitch with a red card – however I have only seen this handed out for violent behaviour. Rugby does something similar in order for the match officials to maintain discipline during a game. Hockey also allows for rolling substitutions, providing players with short breaks before going back onto the pitch, allowing for greater work rate whilst on the field and a greater pace to the play. If a midfielder is given a chance to have a quick rest and re-fuel then he, or she can get back out there with a greater intensity of physical effort. The chance for the coach to also pass on tactical tit-bits during this time would also nullify the recent fashion for goalkeepers to fein injury in order for the managerial guru to convene a team talk on the sidelines.
Rugby and hockey use their video match officials to a higher standard than football. They both show replays to the crowd and use the microphones on the referees, or umpires to explain the decisions to the spectators. In hockey there is a similar system to tennis and cricket in that players have the right to refer specific decisions that they don’t agree with, instead of delaying the match for every little thing. This is only for certain situations, in relation to goals that have been allowed, or disallowed, fouls in certain parts of the pitch and important set pieces. Referrals cannot be made over which way a sideline ball is given around and about the halfway line and it’s only reviewed if asked. If a hockey player sends a decision upstairs and gets it wrong then the team lose the opportunity to do it again for the rest of the match. We have seen silly choices made at the start of important matches in the past and the players then having to get on with things playing only by the judgement of the umpire. It has become a fun and often tactical part of the spectacle.
Hockey also has an additional set-piece called a penalty corner. This is somewhere between a corner in the way that a footballer can kick the ball in from where the goal line meets a sideline and a penalty spot kick. In hockey it is an attacking overload, with as many players as a team might want against only five defenders including the goalkeeper. It is given for a foot foul in the shooting circle, the equivalent of a handball in the penalty area, instead of a penalty shot, which are given for more serous infringements such as the illegitimate denying of a goal. I bring this up as a suggestion due to the constant grumbling about what should constitute a penalty awarded for handballs in football.
Many of these comparisons have already been made within the media, as well as by players, coaches and fans alike. However making any changes to the laws of the game at all is a laborious activity. This, I would suggest, is because the majority of stakeholders within the game abhor, are possibly even alarmed by major changes to the rules. Can you imagine the furore if somebody high up within the sport seriously suggested introducing something similar to a penalty corner in football? A few months previously to this opinion piece being written sin bins were suggested and the reaction from many people was something between general grumpiness and outright indignation. The idea was quickly binned due to most of the footballing community finding itself in a state of childlike irritability at the mere thought of the introduction of a blue card.
There are a couple of reasons, I suspect, for this. Firstly, the sport of football and many within its organisations are quite conservative. There will be plenty of traditionalists out there, who don’t like the concept of wide-ranging, vast or rapid change to what has been the norm over a long period of time. There are others, who might view themselves as being a part of the aforementioned group, who are apprehensive and fearful of anything that is different, or a variation to what they have grown accustomed. This is a normal part of the human condition, but something worth exploring when discussing methods of improvements to something that has been well established for a long time.
Secondly, football fans like a good moan. They want to complain about whether or not a goal was given, if this, or that player was actually offside and what should be truly deserving of a red card. There will always be tribalism when discussing these talking points, but what I’m writing about is slightly different and in addition to the desire for the fan to support his or her own team. I suspect that a major reason why the sin bin was widely dismissed as an improvement to the sport could be because what people really want to do is complain. They want to carp on about something that they have spotted and that nobody else has seen. They want to moan about a dismissal for a second yellow card due to a technical foul, or low key infringement, but make out that the ref shouldn’t have followed the letter of the law. A little sit down for a player, who’s being a bit brutish, or behaving in an unsportsmanlike manner would allow them to simmer down, correct their behaviour and rejoin the game, whilst also providing the opposition with a short term advantage. This is something that’s actually implemented by other comparable sports, but many of those opposed to it in ‘the beautiful game’ don’t know, or don’t care as they don’t watch anything else, and because (if you’ll remember) ‘this is football!’.
However, what is actually preferred by many of those who scoffed at, sneered at and generally pooh-poohed the idea of a penalty box is the chance to get on their high horse about the referee’s interpretation of the rules. The next time you find yourself in a conversation with another football fan about the latest controversial decision, if the chat in the pub has turned towards what a match official did recently, or why VAR should be scrapped in it’s entirety, perhaps keep this in mind…
