How to Americanize Soccer?

This is already allowed to some extent in the laws of the game in the form of a shoulder charge. If 2 players are chasing the ball side-by-side, they do have some leeway in using their shoulders against each other to get to the ball. Under the laws of the game, a charge is not allowed if it is careless, reckless or uses excessive force. However, it's all a question of the referee's interpretation. In the British leagues you can still get away with a more robust challenge than is permitted in most other countries and international competitions, including the World Cup.In the old days you could get away with a full on body charge, even against the goalkeeper. There is a famous film of a cup final in England from the 1920's or 30's where the goalkeeper caught the ball on the line and the forward charged straight into him and bundled him into the back of the net. Nobody questioned that it was a perfectly fair goal. In another final the goalkeeper broke his neck, but carried on playing til the end of the match. Those were the days!

While you're talking about offside, what do you think of my idea that it should not be possible to be offside directly from a free-kick?Do you think it could work?It's the only dead ball situation where you can be offside, but surely it should be one where you get most advantage.There's nothing more anoying than seeing your team start an attack, have a player fouled, then when you take the free-kick the team that committed the foul all step forward and catch your team offside, and the team that committed the original foul end up getting their own free-kick.If you couldn't be offside direct from a free-kick, your players could run into any position on the pitch to receive the ball, which would open the game up and increase the chances of scoring. And it would also help discourage players from committing a foul in the first place.It would also make the referees' job easier as it would be one less circumstance where they are required to make a judgement over offside.

I take your points. The thing that really annoys me though is that the momentum is lost. The defence gets back behind the ball and then get a chance to step forward and get their own free-kick, when they've done nothing to deserve it. On reflection, I think the biggest problem with my idea is that the defence will do all they can to delay the free-kick by standing over the ball, so that it can't be passed quickly to a player in an advanced "offside" position. A better option might be to stop players delaying the taking of the free-kick, but for some inexplicable reason the officials have never had the strength to enforce the rules in that respect the way that they do in rugby.

Hi Bluejay The problem with that is it complicates the rules. As it stands, offside is dictated by where the players are when the ball is kicked forward.If you have another rule that in certain circumstances it depends on where the ball is, rather than where the players are, you then have 2 different types of offside, and more complicated rules.And presumably the idea behind what you're saying is that it will help players inside the penalty area to shoot for goal without being offside, so it's still really down to where the players are as much as where the ball is.

Of course, it's your call, just trying to help. Whether or not it works, no doubt we'd buy back the whole revised concept of the game for a ridiculous price.

Or reduce it even further to just 94 feet long, like a basketball court, so that play goes straight from one end to the other, with nothing ever happening in the middle, and almost a guaranteed goal in every attack. That way, the fans wouldn't be too upset if they missed a few goals because their head was buried in their popcorn.

Yep. That's basically what numpties like me play, because real football on a full size pitch requires proper athleticism and real skill. It's a bit like tennis and table tennis. Almost anyone can look good playing table tennis or futsal.