Although in my estimation it would be sufficient to apply the existing rules, I nevertheless have a few suggestions to make here and there. Some of them call for the implementation of the existing rule. But feel free to have a look:
1) Ratio of punishment to offence
In principle, I would like to start with one thing: In jurisprudence, it is also a self-evident prerequisite for justice: The punishment must always be so severe that the offence must not pay. “Crime dont pay.” (song by Joe Jackson).
By the way, this is one of the very few letters to the editor that I actually once sent off to the kicker and which was also published. At the time, the question was: “Always a penalty for an emergency stop?”
A justified question, in my opinion. I recall the scene from the 1996 European Championships when the Croatian Vlaovic had a chance to score in the last minute in the following situation: Turkey was on the attack, at 0-0, with pretty much all players in the opponent’s half. After a corner kick, the ball was lost. It was played forward, Vlaovic played around his (only) opponent Alpay at the halfway line and ran alone towards the Turkish goal. He converted, the game ended 1:0 for Croatia.
Now the following observations were made during this scene: Alpay, the Turk, could have stopped the opponent with an emergency stop. He did not do so. The press judgement and also the coach’s reaction were highly varied. There was some talk of fair play. The Turkish coach even spoke of an internal penalty and suspension against the player because he had not used an emergency stop.
This situation therefore provides a seemingly typical example on the subject of “emergency braking”, “team behaviour” and “fair play” that everyone can understand (I am raising the point, however). My kicker letter contained roughly the following wording: I think that the penalty should always be such that the offence is not worthwhile. If you still commit a foul, you would have to incur the displeasure of your team-mates as well as the fans. In this respect, the thwarting of a clear goal-scoring opportunity – even if it happened outside the penalty area – would be punished with a penalty. The situation that would then be created would reflect as faithfully as possible the goal-scoring opportunity that would otherwise have arisen. So one can calmly award a penalty, and for it to be a penalty, additionally award red. At least the defender would then think about the emergency stop, avoid it if necessary. And that would be guaranteed in the spirit of fair play and also of the game. For the goal situation “striker alone in front of the goalkeeper” is even more varied and exciting than the familiar and accustomed “penalty kick”, which would then take its place.
2) Direct free kicks – wall clearance
3) Escorting the ball out of bounds without playing it – why do you have possession of the ball?
4) Alternatives to penalties (penalty, 16m shot without wall, short corner)
5) 3 points per game, in case of a draw extra time, penalty, point distribution 2:1
6) Substitutions in injury time
7) The whole injury time and the display of it
8) Red cards
9) Acting. Where is the fair play?
10) In-season substitutions
11) Time play in general
12) Kick-offs and ball-taking inside the penalty area – replay??
13) Overtime when the score is clear
14) Throw-in – where? Rule: Where the ball goes out
15) Goalkeeper takes ball in hand, feet inside penalty area, hands outside or vice versa.
16) The advantage rule and its application. Keep play going until ball is lost. As in ice hockey.
17) Hand kicks – 80% cross the line.
18) Goalkeeper protection in the 5-metre area – far exaggerated.