A referee’s decision that stands in the way of a goal being scored is the much easier and thus too frequently taken, with the result that a list of all recognised incorrect decisions would show a clear disproportion to the detriment of goals scored.
Foul play on a striker or handball by a defender in the penalty area are penalties according to the rules, but are assessed differently there.
More goals, more action, more excitement, more fans, more fun
The introduction of the three-point rule is proof that a kind of maladministration was recognised, which went in the direction of excitement, goals, action, and was to be remedied with the lure of three points as a reward for a win, by forcing both sides to go for the winning goal when the score is tied.
The three-point rule is nonsensical and the hoped-for effects were neither pronounced nor verified and least of all achieved
Insofar as one wants more goals, the application of existing rules is sufficient
Any penalty should demotivate continued such misbehaviour, i.e. the effects should put the offender at a disadvantage compared to the otherwise self-evident non-misbehaviour
Football is not popular in the USA because the rules are so rigid
Final justice may never be achieved, but there are nevertheless ways in football to move closer to it. The statement “we do this all the time and there is nothing new and nothing that we would leave untried and above all nothing that has not yet been discussed” is precisely the one that is to be countered in the text.
There is an injustice inherent in the game, which can be seen in the different evaluation of an action depending on its position on the field where it takes place.
If one would dare to hand over the rules and possible modifications to the USA for a period of only one year, one would then have a solid set of rules that would guarantee attractiveness, fun, excitement, goals and justice at the same time.