a) As an instructor, I tell referees that scoring opportunities can be categorizd as such:
1) Nil to poor chance to score,
2) Possible or Reasonable chance to score,
3) Good and very good chance to score,
4) Obvious opporunity to secured or an actual goal being scored. This means an obvious scoring
opportunity with no obstacles such as defenders between the attacker and the keeper and while
the attacker has control of or clear access to the ball and direct angle from a scoring distance - a
guide line would be a position similar to a penalty kick. Or an actual goal, meaning that the ball is
actually entering the net.
I wrote this article way back n the mid 1980s; 1984 I believe. It was published in two magazines in 1988 and 1991. It is based on a letter I had sent to OSA back in 1984 as a "younger but louder new voice". The article tackles a few suggestions to different approaches to law applications and I take pride in the fact that after submitting this article to several directors in Europe, Asia and here in North America a few of these thoughts were experimented with. "By the way, do you know that it was a Canadian referee from Toronto who came up with the Red & Yellow cards idea?". It took 25 years for it to become an official part of the laws!
However, when the applications I suggested were examined, an altered version was appraoced.
I still believe that had the experiments been based on the original "this" Canadian proposal "not a later altered version" it would have answered the questions that were raised by the experiments.
So, set back in your study with a cup of tea or a glass of wine and examine.
Alternative approach to replace "Kicks From The Penalty Mark" to determine the winner of a tie, and more! Seven proposals I have presented over the past two decades.
For years, many have expressed their displeasure with the frustrating method of KFPM "Kicks From Penalty Mark" to decide the winner of a tie, the winner of the World Cup in some cases!
Many have expressed their desire to see an alternative method. No one seems to like it! Do you know anyone who does?
FIFA has solicited ideas from the football communities hoping to find an alternative approach to KFPM. I sent a copy of this article to FIFA's head office. As I indicated, these are not something I just thought of now; in fact in 1983, while coaching a men's team in Ontario, I took the initiative and I experimented with them; and later as a league chairman, with the support of the membership who have seen it in action, it was adopted within the playing rules for the competition from 1983 to 1987 when the league teams amalgamated with a regional league.
In July 1984 I suggested it to the soccer authorities and I received two replies from OSA. The first reply was signed by Mr. Colin Kelly, technical director, with clear agreement particularly with the two suggestions dealing with the penalty kick and kicks frm the penalty mark. He even commented that these ideas are answers to his alternative thought of the need to re-shape the penalty area. That was in November 1984. I still keep that letter in my scrapbook!
On April 9th. 1985 I received another letter from OSA "Ontario Soccer (Football) Association", a Provinicial authority in Canada, signed by Mr. Joe Agnew, administrative assistant, following up on the same issue. I still keep this letter as well!
Following that, the January 1991 issue of "Free-Kick" magazine contained a 6 pages article titled "chat". It presented these proposals as"changes to the laws of the game I wish they would materialize and included a copy of OSA's 1985 reply. The 1991 article presented illustrated arguments to the proposed ideas with excessive details.
Well, here we are in year 2000, some 15 years later and once again here are the proposed ideas.
In fact a version of two or three of these approaches have since been suggested without reference to myself or to the fact that a Canadian proposal should be acknowledged as the origin. These reports were submitted long after my 1985 OSA letter and they were not complete in the sense that they left room for negative side-effect. A reason why they were not accepted as I'll explain.
For example, in the case of a "kick-in" instead of "throw-in", the idea was turned down because players were taking direct shots at goal from the kick-in. Fifteen years ago the Canadian proposal suggested that from a kick-in a team-mate may not receive the ball directly inside his opponents' penalty area; neither can the kicker score directly from a kick-in. As well, the kicker cannot take a run at the ball. He has to kick the ball from a stand-still position. I believe that had the Canadian version I submitted been brought to the attention of IFAB, it would have answered the concerns raised.
In the case of temporary dismissal for 10 minutes when a player is cautioned, it was said that time keeping distracted the referee. Again, in the original Canadian proposal in 1984, I suggested that there is no reason why the official linesman "now called referee assistant" or the 4th official should not be the one to worry about time keeping!
Besides, with the conditional return of the player at a stoppage when the ball is to be put back into play by his own team, means that his team will make sure that the referee is reminded and has the chance to allow the player back!
Well, I don't know whether these are positive and effective proposals. I do think they are good ideas, but, are they?
At the risk of looking silly and being met with the defensiveness of "who do I think I am"!! .. here they are again:
1- Deciding the winner of a tie match with obvious scoring opportunities or with break-away actions instead of a kick from the penalty mark:
Well, we all agree we hate KFPM and we would love to see a substitute method. Here are two choices:
1-A) Deciding a tie with obvious scoring opportunities:
X = attacker GK = defending keeper O = defender * = the ball
1- One half field is designated as the playing area. All players are in the other half of the field and 10 yards away from the half-way line as shown to the right; except the defending keeper, a defender and an attacker with the ball.
2- The attaker has the ball on the centre of the penalty area arc (X*). The keeper is on his goalline and a team-mate of the keeper "defender" is standing anywhere in the half centre circle, likely on the nearest spot to the attacker as shown "O".
3- Upon the referee's whistle, all 3 players are free to move anywhere within that half field of
play. It is a break-away situation with an attacker enjoying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. The attacker may shoot directly or may dribble first. It is a live game-like scenario.
4- The North American Soccer League a few years ago tried replacing KFPM with an obvious scoring opportunity similar to this with two significant differences:
a) There was no defender away to take part in the action.
b) The attacker had a 35 seconds limit to score.
This approach didn't work because using time as a pressure factor introduced a negative element of displeasure that defeated the purpose of replacing KFPM. The problem was the determination of when 35 seconds are accurately over while the ball is about to enter the goal or after the attacker has beaten the keeper and is turning towards an open net. Just as frustrating as KFPM.
Hence, The proposal presented by the diagram above is better because it introduces a different style of pressure; a game-like pressure. That is the supportive defender. The attacker has limited time during which has has an obvious scoring opportunity. After that, as the defender reaches the scene, it becomes a mere good scoring opportunity or a break-away. The attacker "X" who has the ball will obviously try to score before the defender can challenge.
5- Play continues and the obvious scoring opportunity is complete when:
a) A goal is scored before or after the defender could participate or challenge.
b) The keeper possesses and controls the ball, securing it in his hand(s).
c) The ball is kicked out of the half field of play by any player; i.e. when the whole ball
passes over the goal line, either of the touch lines or the half-way line.
6- Throughout taction of play, no foul, technical infringement or any form of misconduct is
permitted by any player. As well, no slide tackle and no tackling from behind. Any foul or technical infringement for which a free kick would normally be awarded, regardless of its nature and where within that half of the field is committed, shall result in:
a) If the offence is committed by the keeper or the defender, a "penalty restart" from the penalty mark is awarded with these differences from traditional penalty kick:
1) The defender is removed from the active scene "half field" of play.
2) The attacker is allowed free movement, i.e. the option to dribble first.
3) The attacker is allowed to replay a rebound even if the ball has not been touched by the keeper; and play continues until a goal is scored or the ball either secured by the keeper is kicked out of play.
b) If the offence is committed by the attacker, the obvious scoring opportunity action
terminates as a "miss".
7- The two teams rotate 5 obvious scring opportunities in the same fashion KFPM are
administered.
Approach "II" as an alternative to replace KFPM:
1-B) Deciding a tie match with break-away opportunities:
1- Attacker "X" with the ball on the penalty area arc
as shown.
2- Another attacker "X2" anywhere inside the penalty
area but outside the goal area and is allowed to
move within that area prior to the whistle.
3- Defending keeper "GK" on the goal line and a
supportive defender "O" on the six yard line of the
goal area as shown. Both defenders "GK & O" are
allowed to move on the designated line prior to
the whistle. When the referee signals the start of
the action with the whistle, all 4 players are free to
move within that half of the field.
4- Upon the whistle, a "2 on 1" break-away situation starts. two attackers with the ball VS one
defender (and the keeper).
5- The "no-offence" - "zero foul" princilpe applies as stated by paragraph 6 of case "1" above.
6- No offside throughout the break-away action.
7- Paragraphs "5" & "7" of approach "1" above shall also apply to this case.
When these ideas where first proposed to OSA in 1984, Mr. Colin Kelly, Technical director, wrote me describing them as "innovative". That was in November 1985. He concluded "I shall discuss your interesting suggestions with Joe Agnew". As I said, nothing happened after that and I published them in January 1991 issue of Free Kick magazine. The article concluded:"I still think that one day, someone somewhere, will propose these or similar ideas that will be supported by his national football association and submitted to IFAB / FIFA".
Hey .. that is not all .. there is more! read on!...
Interestingly enough, a few years later, a version of the 2 on 1 break away suggestion was submitted. Until now, and it's year 2000 now, the first approach, the use of staged obvious scoring opportunities has never been tested yet.
2- The penalty kick to be taken from the spot where the offence was committed
inside the penalty area, after clearing the penalty area from all players except
the kicker and the keeper; and allowing the kicker free movement to advance
with the ball in a break-away fashion:
If a defender commits a penal offence for which a penalty kick is awarded, in addition to the "foul" part which would result in a penalty kick in all the 4 types of scoring opportunities indicated above, there is the 'misconduct" part which may result in different measures, no discipline "just PK", caution or dismissal.
So, if an opponent is running to challenge for the ball, a defender inside his own penalty area clearly, deliberately, carelessly trips him or holds him, it's a penalty kick even the case falls under category "1" above with no chance to score. In fact the ball could be 15 yards away and 7 defenders were in the penalty area between the victim and his opposing goalkeeper when for some reason a defender decided to trip him - probably testing the courage of the referee and provoking the opponent; yet it's a penalty kick. Keep in mind the difference between the foul part = PK and the misconduct part = caution or dismissal.
This means that a caution may be given to deal with the misconduct part involved in the award of a penalty kick if the scoring chance falls under any of the first 3 categories - depending on the nature of the offence and conduct of the offender.
Meaning, while still referring to PK cases that merely involve scoring chances up to the elimination of a goal or an obvious scoring opportunity - with no other elements such as violence; we find that only category number 4 involving the elimination of an OBVIOUS scoring opportunity or an actual GOAL would result in a dismissal.
So, the point is, the player may have had no chance to score or a very good "but not obvious" chance to score and in both cases the offender will not be dismissed. Hence, referring to the "discipline" part when we are evaluating the appropriate punishment of the defender does not provide an answer to differentiate between a penalty kick and another penalty kick.
b) Presently, referees are greatly pressured to award a penalty kick only when it is ONE AND HALF foul!
Drawing the line between what is bad enough to deserve a penalty kick, means at times "no decision at
all" - since it has to be either a penalty kick or nothing - as referees try to be "reasonable"! The same
foul would be whistled down in mid field easily when a worse degree of it was ignored in the penalty
area. We have seen it recently in the EUFA finals.
Whether the victim was near the penalty area on a break-away with a good scoring opportunity "again, not obvious" or whether he had no control of the ball and had 5 defenders in his way, the result could be the same; PK and a caution.
Ideally, the penalty should correspond to the offence.
The answer is degrees of penalty kicks.
Well, let's look at this illustration:
Case #1: The attacker "X" has a good scoring opportunity "not obvious opportunity - due to the presence of two defenders between him and the keeper". No dismissal would result. He was held back by the shirt from behind by defender "O". The restart is the traditional penalty kick as shown by the first diagram below.
Case #2: The attacker did not have a good scoring opportunity when he was brought down near the goal line, just inside the penalty area. The restart is with the same position as in case #1, the same traditional penalty kick. This is why in a case like this referees feel they need one and half foul or they'd award zero foul.
In both cases, 1 & 2, despite the two different natures of the cases, they both result in the same restart shown to the right, the orthodox penalty kick.
Certainly one could argue that awarding a penalty kick for case #1 above presents a fair resemblance; however, the same could not be said for case #2 above.
The 1984 input to OSA or the 1991 article, suggested the following:
a) A penalty kick is awarded where the offence is
committed. In the two cases shown above it would
be given where the player "X" was fouled.
b) Only if the offence is committed inside the goal area,
the restart would be taken from the penalty mark in
the traditional manner.
c) The kicker would have the option to kick the ball or
to advance "dribble" in a break-away fashion with
an obvious scoring opportunity.
d) All players other than the attacker taking the "penalty break-away" and the opposing keeper are
outside the penalty area and 10 yards away from the ball.
e) No offside directly from a penalty break-away restart.
The bottom diagram to the right "above this paragraph" illustrate the restart for case #2 shown above. Attacker "X" has the ball inside the penalty area where he was fouled and is given a break-away free movement to kick or advance.
This approach satisfies the struggle with the concept of "degree of seriousness". It will result in referees awarding the "penalty restart" more often and players committing fewer fouls as they would realize that the penalty restart call will be as easy to make as a free kick call.
The November 1984 letter from OSA, the technial director Colin Kelly stated his support of the concept of "degree of seriousness", yet nothing further was done as a follow up to bring the idea to the attention of the top football body.
I still maintain that a penalty restart in the form of a break-away where the offence is committeed would also introduce more excitement and pleasure.
3- The throw-in to be replaced with kick-in:
The present throw-in is in my opinion the most retarded application. Totally out of football spirit. The proposed approach presents these limitations as conditions to keep the restart within its intended limited frame:
a) The player kicks the ball from a stand-still position and may not take a run at the ball. He must
clearly pause/stand with both feet next to the ball before lifting/moving one foot to kick/lift the ball
into play. The ball is to be placed within 3 yards from the touchline. This would allow the kicker a
quick restart by chipping the ball into play behind a nearby opponent. Obviously the opponent
could not encroach enough to prevent a quick kick-in unless he steps off the field. As well,
opponents are required to retire 3 yards away from the touchline. Any encroachment or delay
tactics are to be approached in the same fashion the referee deals with gamesmanship exercised
to delay a quick free kick.
b) The kick-in is an indirect free kick in the sense that a player may not score directly. The ball is in
play when it enters the field of play.
c) A team-mate of the kicker may not receive/touch the ball directly into his opponents' penalty area.
This is meant to eliminate attempted long shots at the penalty area. As well, the kicker cannot
touch the ball a second time until has been touched by another player.
d) The goal-keeper may not receive/touch the ball with his hands directly from a kick-in by a team-mate.
The kick-in would have more "football" into it, in spirit, not just literally!
4- The caution/yellow card is to have a 10 minutes temporary dimissal
associated with it:
a) Specially at a short tournament such as cup finals, ten players on one team may receive one card
each and still no player was in fact suspended and no actual penalty was administered to that team
despite the 10 meaningless cards. Obviously 10 cards represent considerable unfair advantage to
that team.
b) At such competitions we see cases of negative gamesmanship calculated carefully where a number
of players would take turns on illegally and unfairly paralyzing a skillful player at the cost or risk of
a caution. When the offender/marker is cautioned, the dirty job is carried out by the next defender
and the offending team at end has not been penalized. We have seen this in more than one World
Cup final match. Temporary disissal could be the answer.
c) Time keeping as far as to when the player is allowed to return would be the 4th officia or the
Linesman's responsibility.
d) Only if "4" players of the same team are under caution penalty at the same time, and a 5th player of
the same team is cautioned, or if otherwise the temporary dismissal would result in less than 7
player on a team, the player who served the most of his 10 minutes dismissal is allowed
to return in order to maintain a minimum 7 players team. It is understood that this is a very unlikely
scenario.
e) The player returns at the first stoppage involving a restart taken by his own team after the 10
minutes suspension has been served. Certainly, with the team taking the restart, they will have the
chance to allow the referee to administer the return of the player.
5- The goal to be increased in size by one yard in width and one foot in height.
It is a fact that the average human body is now taller. It is also a fact that while no one wants football to turn into basketball; yet at the same time, the defensive side of the game has created another extreme. We need to increase the average goals per match from 2 to 5 or from 1 to 3 or 4 "depending on what study you beleive".
More goals "not too many though" means more excitement and enjoyment and better appeal and promotion.
This marginal increase will create a more exciting and enjoyable football presentation with more goals but not too many for any concern over the chess nature of football.
As an exmaple, if you analyze the last Eurpean championship match, instead of o-o draw at regulation time, taking into consideration the balls that hit the cross bars and the goaL posts and one that almost scratched against the outer surface of the post less than half a foot away, it would have been 3-1 at regulation time.
6- No offside when a player receives the ball directly from his own
goalkeeper.
This will modify the negativity of the offside trap in a more favourable and exciting manner. It will keep defenders on their toes. It will prevent the too advanced offside line which is often with the halfway line. The present situation often means 22 players around the crowded centre area when a free kick is taken by the defenders in their penalty area or when the keeper makes a save and is punting the ball down-field.
The North American league recognized the need to do something about this problem. They introduced an offside line 35 yards from the goalline, thus the half-way line is no longer the last offside line. It didn't work because it turned the playing tactics to a tennis style!
This application avoids the negative side-effects of a perminent advanced line and at the same time it creates a more open and unpredictable playing tactics in an enjoyable and positive way.
7- A three referees system, three whistles, to replace one whistle and
two flags.
A detailed illustrated referees system of movement and communication structure for field control was presented in a 1992 article. It shows how the three referee system can cover the offside lines and goal and touch lines and how one referee would be with the ball line and how the other two would cover the direct and indirect areas of activities.
The three referees system provides a structure of communication and rotation of responsibilities based on progress of play. The two assistants would zoom in onto the field mainly towards the penalty area and zoom out backwards towards goal line. The rotation and logical thinking of the three referee system will allow coverage of the whole field and better control over the critical penalty area and less chances of "blind spot" problems. It will simply allow closer supervision at no risk to offside or goal / touch lines coverage.
I am not sure how silly you may find some of these suggestions and I ask you to consider it at least light-hearted material for now; a chat-type article. I urge you however to think about the first two ideas, the one about replacing KFPM with obvious scoring opportunities and the one about taking the penalty kick as a break-away action from where the offence takes place after clearing the area.
I do realize that this input dares to propose very controversial and major changes and I look forward to your comments.
Warm regards and best wishes at home, in the office and on the football pitch;
opportunity with no obstacles such as defenders between the attacker and the keeper and while 
