The good of the game

Less diving, fewer cups and more referees

So, the five changes I suggested making if I was ever president of FIFA got a massive response. Many of you agreed with what I had to say, others didn't. Here are some of the reactions I received, and my attempts in answering them.

You say that Bolivia, Chile, and Venezuela never had a prayer of qualifying from South America.... Well Chile made it in 98.. Bolivia in 94... Venezuela had its best qualifying campaign for the 2002 wc.... and have high aspirations for 2006.. Ecuador would have probably been one of those of teams that you would say had no chance to qualify but they made it for 2002... small nations like Slovenia and Senegal have made it to the wc.. for a soccer analyst you don't seem to know much about soccer.
-- Shahar Cohen, Boston

Shahar, maybe I was misunderstood. I was talking about qualifying for 2002 and giving examples of teams in Latin America that never challenged and you have to admit that Venezuela, Chile and Bolivia were all pretty far away from the qualifying spots. Venezuela did put a string of victories together towards the end, but they were already eliminated. Chile and Bolivia were both in the rebuilding process and struggled to keep up with the pace of some of the continent's best sides. They could be a factor for 2006, just like they were in the past.

First off Pedro if i was president of FIFA I'd try and stamp diving out. If TV replays showed sufficient evidence that you dived then you'd get an automatic 2 match ban, no appeal, and automatically be fined 2 weeks wages without appeal. Diving has gotten out of control. Then I'd have the likes of San Marino and co. have pre qualifying like you suggested. I'd make all top domestic league and internationl refs professional, it's remarkable that there are still many amateur refs when here in America every ref in every professional sport has a union. I would also consider some form of instant replay, perhaps linesman or the 4th official could watch TV replays to make decisions about offside. I think it's a tough decision though because i personally beleive that human error is part of the game, but if it's the world cup final and Scotland has a goal disallowed because of human error i'll be pretty angry so i can see both sides of the argument.
--Jon, Tampa, FL

Mailbag

Pedro Pinto will answer questions from CNNSI.com users in his mailbag periodically. If you'd like to submit a question, please enter it below.

Your name: Your E-mail Address: Your Hometown: Enter Your Question:

Jon, we see eye-to-eye on this. Diving really upsets me as well, it's especially bad in latin countries and has gotten out of control. I agree with looking at footage of games, but the instant replay argument is always tough because you don't want to have a break in matches while the referees are trying to figure out what's going on. Finally, about your Scotland comment... don't worry. Judging by current form, the Scots couldn't even make the final of a British Amateur Cup, much less the World Cup.

In response to the two referee idea -- i'm 20 and have been playing soccer for about 15 years. two years ago, the high schools in our state switched to having two full refs for each game, and recently they switched to three. they all have whistles, and to me that's the problem, which is the same that it would be with two--some calls are made and other aren't. especially controversial are calls made by the referee seventy meters from the play while the man right on top makes no call. once the whistle blows, that's it, which causes lots of problems, especially, say, on a penalty call made by the referee farther away. i assume that in your system the two linemen would remain; here we have only the two referees, and obviously as a result the line calls suffer. thanks for your help!
--Todd, Pittsboro, NC, USA

Todd, my idea with having two referees is that they would be restricted to one half of the field each. So, ref #1 could not interfere with ref#2. I am sure it would be quite chaotic having an official whistle for a foul when he is the furthest away from it. What I was thinking was that with a ref per half and then a linesman per half you could make sure there was always someone close to the ball.

Why not use some basketball rule philosophy to "turn up the excite-o-meter" of soccer matches by using the no back court rule. If you bring the ball past midfield, you may not cross that line again unless the other team touches it first. It would compel the offense to work in a much smaller space and create "pressure situations... maybe more aggressive attacks,more turn overs?? But what do I know? Does that qualify as a question? Does this? Later.
-- Genie Balaton, Round Rock, Texas

That is not a bad idea, actually. But the problem would then be all the arguing that could arise: "did the ball cross the half-way line? Was it the whole ball?" This could definitely be a problem. In basketball you have three refs in a limited space so it is easy to make the call. In football, the pitch is so big that it would be hard to have an accurate judgement of the situation.

Hy Pedro I think that soccer should look at field-hocky about substitutions. In this sport you cane make as many substitutions as you like during the game. It has the same advantages as you named and it will also make the game faster and fresher because you will not have irritating substitutions at the end of games. It's also good way of making sure that the fourth official has something to do besides preventing the coaches from getting outside their area. So how do you feel about this idea?
-- JF Bosma, Groningen

I play both indoor and outdoor football here in the United States and in our leagues you can sub in and out all the time. There is actually no problem with it and I feel it could be done at a professional level as well. This would also eliminate the necessity of having an electronic plaque showing who is off and who is on. Just as long as there would be 11 players on each side, you could play, right? Could be a bit tricky to get a system going, but I definitely don't think it is an absurd idea.

The national cups are the worst thing about football. Everybody knows that league winners are the best team in the country. They only exist because they have allways been there, and people are scared to brake with tradition. The cups just distract and confuse fans and add to the number of games. Congratulations to Roy Keane for saying what a lot of poeple know (the F.A. cup is irrelevant).
-- Alija, Ploce, Croatia

Alija, I actually like national cups. What I don't think there is a need for is league cups. These serve little purpose and should be wiped out. With the national cups, you give small clubs the opportunity of sharing the same stage with some of the big boys. There are great upsets that sometimes happen. I personally like cup matches, it's the league cup that should be scrapped from the English, French and German seasons. South America also has too many competitions. Before there were the Mercosur and Merconorte tournaments which were basically made for television. They have now eliminated those and created another competition: The South America cup. In my eyes, there is no need for it. What's wrong with only having the Copa Libertadores?

Would you be in favor of awarding no points for 0-0 draws? Thus forcing teams to actually try and score at the end of games. Making the game more entertaining and less tactical.
-- Ryan Coracy, New Orleans, La

Yes I would be in favor of that. As a matter of fact, an ambitious idea that I have had is to do away with points for wins and draws and award them for goals instead. At least give bonus points for goals. That way, you would see everyone wanting to score and we wouldn't have some of those boring 0-0 matches. Radical, yes. Ambitious, yes. But think about it. Could be revolutionary.

Pedro Pinto is an anchor for World Sport, the international sports show that airs on CNN International.