I was talking with a friend of mine the other day about Josh Cribbs. Cribbs, if you’re not a follower of “gridiron” American football, is a kick returner for the Cleveland Browns; my friend and I were discussing how interesting it was that, in spite of the recent rule changes banning wedge-style blocking, Cribbs has still managed to thrive.
Gridiron, you see, changes their obnoxiously complex legal code almost every season, with very little concern given to whether or not the fans actually understand the rules. That got me to thinking: what real rule changes has soccer really had? Over it’s history, I can actually only think of three major ones, and all of them have made sense. Let’s take a look at them after the jump.
Rule Change #1: The Outlawing of Hacking
“…you will do away with the courage and pluck of the game, and I will be bound to bring over a lot of Frenchmen who would beat you with a week’s practice.” – Mr. Campbell, Blackheath Club, 1863
When we use the term “hacking” today, we’re almost always using it in a negative context. The early manifestations of the sport, however, bear little resemblance to what we watch today; formations were different, tactics were different, and rules were yet to be codified and agreed on between clubs. Therefore, the version of “football” played at, say, Blackheath could be entirely different from the same named sport at Preston.
In 1863, representatives from multiple clubs decided that this was ridiculous. They met and agreed upon most of the rules of the match; one of the sticking points, oddly enough, was hacking. Hacking – the process of kicking at an opponent’s shins as he dribbled – was viewed by some as one of the main defensive tactics. Ultimately, the anti-hackers won out, and hacking was transformed into a foul…much to John Terry’s chagrin, I’m sure.
Rule Change #2: Reducing the Three Man Offside Line
“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” – FIFA Laws of the Game, 2009-10
We’re all familiar with the application of the offside rules, and if we have a spouse or significant other we’re likely to have had to explain them at some point in time (my wife’s education involved a match between “Littlest Pet Shop” and Disney figurines; my dad taught me offside with french fries and chicken nuggets). We also are all aware that it’s nowhere near as confusing as people make it out to be, and at the same time it’s the one rule that causes more frustration than any other rule.
In the early primordial soup ages of the game (when it was, you know, only seventy years old or so), the rule was different. How different? Re-read the rule above, and replace the “second-last” with “third-last”; that sucks, huh?
Back in the day, the 2-3-5 was the dominant formation; by “dominant”, I mean that “it was the only formation anyone played, ever.” Two men back isn’t many, of course, but they had offside on their side; two fullbacks could, by coming all the way up to the halfway line (you can’t be offside in your own half), effectively eliminate one entire half of play. Fullbacks got so good at this, in fact, that it was essentially impossible to beat; one would go all the way up, the other would hang back on a diagonal to sweep up any long balls played over the top. Can’t lose; anyone behind the first fullback was offside, even though there was still another defender back there.
In 1925, after Newcastle fullback Billy McCracken proved especially adept at completely screwing opposing offenses with his bullshit offside “trap”, the rule was changed from three men to two; that rule change meant that long balls over the top were a viable strategy. Eventually, it also spelled the end of the 2-3-5, since you could no longer effectively defend with only two people unless you were really, really fast.
In 1990, the rule was changed further by allowing the attacking player to be level with the defender; previously, that was considered offside. There are occasionally proposals to change the offside rules by the FAs of individual countries; the most recent one was in Wales in 2005, where they called on FIFA to eliminate all offside unless the foul occured in the penalty area (making professional soccer exactly like an indoor league I once played in, which would suck).
Rule Change #3: Eliminating the Backpass
The 1990 World Cup, by most accounts, sucked. It wasn’t particularly high scoring, for one thing, and there was this little issue with the goalkeepers.
See, back in the day, the easiest way to maintain possession was to pass the ball to your keeper, who could then pick it up (my co-ed outdoor league never changed this rule, and quite honestly it’s about as bullshit as bullshit gets). You could do this from anywhere, and quite often teams looking to kill the clock would go up the about half field, see nothing open, and just send the ball back to the keeper to restart. Also, at that time the keeper could put the ball down and pick it back up again; this resulted in incidents like Ireland’s Pat Bonner holding a ball in his own area for six entire minutes, just by dribbling it around and then picking it up.
In 1992, FIFA decided to address this problem by eliminating both the back pass (or, rather, the ability of a keeper to handle a back pass) and the re-handling; they also removed the “four steps” rule and replaced it with an equally less enforced “six second” rule. The new rule was rolled out in full force for the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona, and the world’s not looked back since.
I was surprised not to see the introduction of in-game substitutions in this list, which probably changed the game as much as the elimination of the backpass, if not more.
Honestly, I hadn’t really considered that, but it’s a good point. I do think that the backpass probably had more of an effect on tactical strategy, but even as I’m writing that the repercussions on being unable to sub a player off (or, just as importantly, insert fresh legs on) are popping up, and it seems like a situation you could only deal with tactically.
Getting an injured or winded player off is one thing, but substituting allows the manager to completely change his team’s formation, shape and/or intent, in addition to simply exchanging one tired player for a similar fresh one. I’m thinking of those 75th minute introductions of players like Walcott and Lennon, forcing already tired defenders to keep up with their pace or sacrifice a CB to cover runs down the flank, or exchanging a Lucas for a Benayoun, forcing the opponent to commit an extra player to defense. Of course, bringing on an extra defender to choke out attacks is as common if not more so.
It seems that managers who better uses their subs (whether getting a tired or carded player off in time, or tactically changing his team’s approach) often comes out ahead in an evenly-played match. Which is a long-winded way of saying that good managers are better than bad ones.
(Apologies for the book-length response. I just kept thinking on it.)
You’re right, the formation change is equally important; going from an attacking 4-3-3 to a defensive 5-3-2 with one sub to close out a game is a huge benefit. In addition, it underscores the greater skill of teambuilding; it’s not just about your starting 11, it’s also about who else can be brought on to fix a problem. I think managers typically have injury subs (guys that can be brought in as “like for like” replacements to fix an injury problem) and tactical subs (guys like Walcott, who are far too fast for left backs seventy five minutes in).
Good shout on that, I really hadn’t considered it; when was that change officially added in?
It appears that it was first allowed for qualifying for the 1954 World Cup, and the FA allowed one sub starting with the 1965-66 term.
Re: English League: 65-66 was only for an injured player. From 67 on, a sub could be introduced for tactical reasons.
The backpass thing confuses me- I know I’ve seen the keepers pick up balls off defenders feet, and I had thought that was illegal. Are there times when they’re allowed to grab the ball no matter what, even if the defender passes it to them? It might have all been within the 18 yard box, I can’t remember for sure, but I remember being confused by it on more than one occasion.
You can’t use your feet to pass it back to the keeper (or, if you’re a keeper, you can’t handle a pass from feet). Heading, chesting, thighing, and inadvertent deflections (which can be caused by feet) are okay; you’re probably thinking of a less deliberate deflection from a foot than an actual, intentional backpass.
Ahh, that might be it- they may well have been headers.
What about passing up to the keeper if he were upfield from you? Seems like that would be allowed.
Well it’d still be considered a backpass. The keeper can handle the ball with his feet no matter how it got to him, but if he picks it up it can be called a backpass.
from the rules:
if an outfield player passes the ball back using any part of the body besides the feet, the keeper may pick up the ball. An unintentional pass or touch is not considered an offence
So if you head the ball back it’s ok for the keeper to grab. It is something that isn’t fully enforced 100% of the time though.
Yeah, they’re really lenient on the “intent” part. Obvious pass backs are usually called, though, and most of the time it isn’t an issue because it’s been drilled into their heads. Keepers are also better with their feet than they used to be, too, which is a neat little side effect.
Incidentally: screwing this up results in an indirect kick; it’s not the same as handling in the box, which would be a penalty.
Personally, I was just thinking about going back to the “two points for a win, 1 point for a draw” point system.
Interestingly enough, that would have actually relegated Hull last season (on goal differential), and would have only changed the order of the league at the 13-15th place positions. I do like the idea of going back to it though, makes each game worth 2 points no matter what the outcome.
[...] General Tao gives mathematical proof why Justin Timberlake should have won the Nobel Peace Prize. Avoiding the Drop: Magnakai Haaskivi explains why why soccer rule changes make far more sense than the NFL SB Nation: [...]
Mags- great piece!
[...] The history of some soccer rules. (ATD) [...]
Good piece. What about the introduction of yellow cards? Before it was nothing or red.
That’s a good one, too. Frankly, I think that pretty much every sport could be enhanced by the addition of a card-based discipline system. Chad Johnson might not do those stupid TD dances if it meant a yellow…and it certainly would stop those horse-collar tackles.