OK! I’m no football pundit, but here are five changes I would make to improve the World Cup. Three of them are alterations to the laws of the game, two are World Cup-specific.
Challenge system
Following Frank Lampard’s non-goal against Germany, FIFA will look into goal-line technology again, and this time it has every chance of being introduced.
Good, but it will only cover a small percentage of the errors made by officials. Instead, I would introduce a challenge system similar to that used in the NFL.
Each coach has two challenges, which he can use to review any call during the game. A goal, an offside, a handball, it doesn’t matter - everything is reviewable.
The game is stopped for a maximum of 60 seconds while the officials look at replays. If the challenge is right, the call is reversed. If not, it stands.
Crucially, the challenge is used up whether you are right or not, meaning coaches would have to save them up for really important decisions and a maximum of four minutes would be added to game time.
If you are out of challenges and you suffer a major injustice, tough - managing them becomes a major part of the coach’s job. If you suffer three huge injustices in one match… well, you’re extremely unlucky.
It satisfies FIFA’s desire to make officials’ human error part of the game, and it satisfies everyone else’ desire to see the right decisions made.
Penalty goals
The demonisation of Luis Suarez after his now infamous handball against Ghana was unfair, but it did show the laws need a tweak.
Uruguay’s Suarez saved a goal-bound shot with his hands in the dying moments of extra-time - had he not acted, Ghana would be in the semi-finals.
Referee Olegario Benquerenca correctly awarded a penalty and sent off Suarez. But Asamoah Gyan missed the spot-kick and Uruguay won the shoot-out.
Comparisons between Suarez and Thierry Henry are wide of the mark (Suarez’s act was seen and punished, Henry’s handball against Ireland was deception that went unseen by the officials), but there is no doubt Uruguay profited from a deliberate act of foul play.
So why not take a leaf out of rugby’s book? In Rugby - “The egg-chasers have a penalty try which can be awarded when foul play prevents a certain try, or when a team persistently infringes when defending their own try line.”
It would be simple in football - if a player handles to stop a goal-bound shot, the goal is awarded directly. Any other fouls inside the box remain straightforward penalties.
Stoppage time
More thieving from rugby here to give players and spectators a clearer idea of how much time remains.
Under the current, vague, system, the fourth official holds up the amount of added time to the nearest minute, but ultimately the referee is in charge of ending the game. And of course the fourth official’s board cannot account for stoppages within stoppage time.
In rugby, however, the referee can stop the game clock every time play is halted for any length of time. That way, time is up when the clock hits 80 minutes. Simple.
How would it work in football? Just the same. If there is an injury, a substitution or a goal, the referee stops the clock, so time is added on within the usual 90 minutes. There is not another major sport in which nobody knows exactly when the match is going to end. Time for football to catch up.
The ball
There may or may not be something in the moaning every time a ball is released for the World Cup, but it seems bizarre that teams go into the tournament using a ball that they are unfamiliar with.
Whatever the merits of the Jabulani, it seems ridiculous that it was completely new to many countries. And it is an easy fix.
Certain sponsors may not like it, but it should be compulsory for the domestic leagues of all 32 qualifiers to use the new ball for six months before the World Cup.
Some sensible countries like Germany (surprise, surprise) already do it, but everybody should.
That way, even if they are playing the World Cup with a beach ball, every team has had plenty of time to get used to it.
More South Americans
Here are the number of teams from each continent that made it through the group stage of this World Cup:
Europe 6/13
South America 5/5
Africa 1/6
Asia 2/4
North and Central America 2/3
Oceania 0/1
If we ignore South Africa who qualified automatically as hosts, how is it possible that Africa gets the same allocation of teams as South America?
Next time they will get hosts Brazil plus five, which is a help, but the continent still seems criminally under-represented when all of their teams reached the knockout rounds and four got to the quarter-finals.
I suppose it comes down to the number of countries. South America only has 10 teams, while Africa has 53.
But you can be quite sure Ecuador and Colombia would have been competitive, while of the African non-qualifiers only Egypt could say that with any conviction.
Asia seems under-represented following Australia’s defection from Oceania, although it is worth remembering Bahrain lost a play-off to New Zealand. But for all the talk of Africa as the emerging force in football, its population (one billion) is dwarfed by that of Asia (four billion).
Europe’s 13-team allocation looks shaky after more than half went home after the group stage.
UEFA could offer a defence that its teams’ failure was a freak, and that the quality of the sides that failed to qualify (Russia, Ukraine, Ireland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Croatia, Turkey) is higher in Europe than any other continent.
Here’s how I would allocate teams:
Hosts: 1
Europe: 12
South America: 6
Asia: 5
Africa: 4
North/Central America: 3/4
Oceania: 0/1
Winner of Oceania zone plays off against four-placed North/Central America team.