Rules Debate

In one sense, the problem is that refereeing has been pretty good this season in the Bundesliga.

If you compare the actual table with the one at "Wahre Tabelle," a fan-run website that corrects results to get rid of obvious officiating mistakes, the two look very similar. German referees are still committing errors, but the boo-boos, it seems, are evening themselves out.

Still, complaining about calls is as much a part of the game as beer in plastic cups and Neanderthal-esque chants about opponents. So the powers-that-be in German soccer have turned their ire toward the rules themselves.

Should FIFA, the sport's governing body that lays down what it calls the "laws" of football, be listening? Here are three examples.

Passively active or actively passive?

A number of close calls that went in both directions in mid-October prompted everyone from Bayern icon Franz Beckenbauer to Bremen sports director Klaus Allofs to call for the passive offside rule to be fine-tuned, or even scrapped.

But there was no consensus on what changes were needed. Whereas Beckenbauer came against a return to the "Stone Age," where goals were disallowed en masse, Allofs said the categories "active" and "passive" needed to go.

Offside is probably the most contentious aspect of football's regulations. As it stands, FIFA Law 11 states that a player who does not touch the ball should only be considered offside if he actively interferes with opponents, for example, by drawing a defender or blocking a goalkeeper's view of play.

But what constitutes interference? The debate isn't new. English coaching legend Brian Clough is often quoted as having said, "If a player isn't interfering with play, then he bloody well should be." (Variations of the statement are also attributed to another legend, Bill Shankly.)

As often was the case, there's a lot of truth in Clough's bluster. One sensible adjustment might be to give referees an empirical, visual standard of interfering positions. For example, players could automatically be considered active, if they are within the six-yard box or even the entire penalty area.

But FIFA isn't primarily known for common sense. Rule 11, for instance, is one of the few areas of human society where the arms are not considered part of the body. And the arms, or more specifically the hands, are at the center of another debate.

Intentionally accidental, or accidentally international

Another mini-controversy arose in Bundesliga round 11 when Schalke striker Raul scored against Hoffenheim with a shot that ricocheted off his own hand.

The referee in that match questioned the Spaniard before allowing the goal to stand, bringing accusations of cheating from Hoffenheim keeper Tom Starke.

"He clearly handled the ball so the goal was illegal," the keeper fumed. "The referee asked him, and he answered in the negative. A great sportsman like that shouldn't have to lie."

Starke needs to read the rule book, which states that a ball is only considered handled if a player intentionally uses his hands or arms. So Raul - the all-time leading Champions League goal scorer - was probably being honest when he told the official he had accidentally fluffed his shot.

Still Starke's complaint had some merit. The rule as written is intended to avoid having to punish defenders who are unable to get their hands and arms out of the way of shots travelling at up to 200 km/h. Attackers require no such protection.

And who should receive punishment and how much is also at the center of a debate concerning goalkeepers.

Obviously denying or denying the obvious

On Saturday, Wolfsburg keeper Diego Benaglio arm-tackled Hertha Berlin striker Pierre-Michel Lasogga from behind in front of an open goal. The keeper saw yellow, and Hertha were given a penalty, which they converted.

Referee Robert Hartmann was later praised for his judicious approach to the match, which ended as a 3-2 thriller. But actually he bent the rules.

Unfairly preventing a clear goal chance as the last man is a straight red-card-offense - Bremen keeper Tim Wiese was recently not only sent off but banned for three games for a nearly identical foul much further up the pitch.

The conundrum is this. Many feel that a penalty and a red card doubly punish the defensive team for what is one offense. On the other hand, since only 75 percent of penalties are converted, a spot kick and a yellow card would disadvantage the offensive side and reward fouls in near-certain goal situations.

To resolve this dilemma, FIFA might have to think outside the box. An intriguing option would be to give the player fouled the ball at the spot where the offense occurred and force everyone else to line up 3-5 yards behind him. The player who fouled would get a yellow card.

The conversion rate would likely mirror the quality of the chance foiled by the foul, and such a situation would be even more dramatic than a spot kick, far more open to the unpredictability that makes football the game it is.

And at the very least, it would give fans and functionaries something new to discuss, when the officials prove disappointingly consistent.

Author: Jefferson Chase
Editor: Rob Mudge