The worst aspect of soccer?
1.The way referees are allowed to be intimidated when they award a penalty or send someone off.
2.Failure to use videos for offside calls - let the play continue and if a goal results chack the video. The same with penalties - consult the video before deciding who gets the free. When you consider how important a goal is the is no longer any excuse for wrong decisions.
3.Not enough scoring. Have the goals changed in size while players have been getting bigger and fitter over the years.
4.Feigning injury.

Make the goals 2m wider and a foot higher.
Reduce the no of players to 9.
The way Senegal and Brazil play the game is how its meant to be - good attacking football. Most of the Europeans play dead boring football. Players should also have to clear the halfway mark within 30 secs like basketball.

The goal size is fine. It didn't worry Germany when they beat Saudi Arabia 8 - 0 in the earlier rounds and remember Australia's record breaking scores against Pacific nations in the qualifying rounds?


Then again maybe we should think about increasing the goal. How about the width of the pitch and 10 metres high? We could have scorelines of 79 - 74. The goalkeepers can just shoot for goal when kicking in. Midfielders can shoot immediately upon kick off.

And consider some of these....

*Basketball rings could be 5 metres across.
*Holes in golf made bucket sized.
*Use 6 cricket stumps and make them twice the height.
*Get rid of the behind posts in AFL - everything scores 10 points.

Seriously, the historical rules that games are played by are what make our sports so interesting and at times dramatic and exciting to watch. Sure, there are some things that need minor alterations but generally speaking the little anomalies in the rules make the sport what it is.

Privateer - goal size is not a problem for a good side when they are playing a side they are completely superior to. The problem is when you have two evenly matched sides there is very little scoring - as a casual spectator this leads to several problems:
1. 0-0 draws are a bit boring!
2. If a side does score a goal they tend to go into a completely defensive mode to try to stop the other team scoring and don't take offensive risks - again leads to boring game to watch.
3. When you get to the end of extra time with a drawn match you go to the penalty shootout lottery which seems to me like a really stupid way to decide a sporting event at the World Cup level - may as well just toss a coin to decide the winner.

I would think that a modest increase in goal size (eg. extra 1m wide or 1/2m high, or both) would help to increase scoring opportunities.

Or maybe you prefer these ideas that my wife came up with after watching a match the other day:

Instead of policing the offside rule with video why not just get rid of it? That would certainly improve the scoring chances.

Also a rule used in some versions of indoor soccer - no passing backwards over the centre line.

Forgot to mention the idea my wife had for the stupid injury faking that goes on. Each team should have one nominated "injury substitute" player. Whenever a player is "injured" and falls to the ground in a dramatic way the rules should state that he must be removed from the ground for say 5 minutes and replaced with the designated injury substitute (obviously so that he can receive proper treatment for the injury). I think the incidence of these injuries would go down dramatically if the players were taken out of the game each time!

Perhaps some people are forgetting that the game is not there simply to provide the spectators with an "excitment at all costs" spectacle. There is a game to be won or played to their best ability by two teams. If it results in a nil all draw it is labelled as "boring", never mind that the players have tried their hearts out for 90 minutes.

Of course teams are going to protect a 1 - nil lead by flooding the defensive areas. They are after all, trying to win.

It is painfully obvious that some of the posters are "armchair experts" and have little or no understanding of the intricacies of this wonderful and ancient game.

Privateer - I am sorry - I must have mistaken Soccer for a spectator sport. I thought one of the main purposes of the game was to provide spectators with something good to watch. I certainly don't deny that the players are playing to the best of their abilities when they have a 0-0 draw but I just have to question whether making some minor changes to increase scoring chances wouldn't:

1. Provide a better spectacle for the viewing public (who in the end pay the salaries of those great atheletes).
2. Encourage a more attacking style of play which most people seem to agree is more enjoyable to watch and participate in.
3. Help avoid the ludicrous situation of the world champions being decided by a penalty shootout.

Now maybe this would destroy the game you think is wonderful but personally I can't see why it would. Surely the athleticism of the goalkeepers today is so far ahead of what it was when the goal sizes were originally determined that increasing the goal size slightly would just return the game to what it was when the ancient laws were layed down?

whatever....

One thing I forgot to mention and I certainly do not want to pander to the larrikin minority. But there have been reports done on soccer crowd violence and one of the reasons was the lack of scoring - the fact that a goal was so important and that the score and the game were often not related.
One side could be completely dominating the game but losing or the other side gets a beak and scores the only goal of the match. Not to mention poor refereeing which decides an entire game - eg. giving or failure to give a penalty.

It's one of the few team sports where the 20th best team can beat the 1st best team.

It would never happen in other football codes.

I suppose that adds to the mystery of the game, however luck, poor refs and silly rules play a much greater part in the game than other codes.