Reinventing Football - five things fans would change

After asking players, pundits and referees what changes they would make to reinvent football, we opened the debate up to you.

We opened the floor for fans to imagine a world in which they could rip up the rulebook and start again.

The topic stirred up plenty of debate across our live page and social media and we received thousands of messages from our audience, suggesting the one thing they would change.

Here are the top five talking points, followed by the assessment of former Premier League referee Chris Foy and BBC Sport's football issues correspondent Dale Johnson.

The offside rule was a widely-debated topic, with fans wanting to either tweak the law, or get rid of it completely. Former Premier League referee Anthony Taylor said "scrapping offside might be the answer" and added: "One of the best tournaments I refereed in was a prison officer tournament and we had no offside... and we had so many goals it was unbelievable."

Another frustration for supporters is around 'delaying the flag' - where officials are told to keep their flag down if they felt there was an immediate goalscoring opportunity.

What the fans said:

Matt: Scrap the offside flag going up 20 minutes after someone is offside. Needlessly wasting time and play continuing could result in injuries. Just throw the flag up when they're off.

Sal: I would change the offside rule, where there has to be "daylight" between the last defender and attacker, in order for a claim of offside to be legitimate.

Charlie: I would remove offside completely. Hockey successfully removed offside many years ago and I think it would see more goals which is what fans want to see.

Chris: I would like the offside law changed, so you can only be offside beyond the 18-yard line. This would spread out the play.

What Chris Foy said: "Assistant refereeing is an art form and they are encouraged to keep the flag down in clear attacking situations. But I do understand that sometimes it can be frustrating.

"With semi-automated technology, I believe we have an accurate judgement of offside."

What Dale Johnson said: "'Daylight offside' has been a topic of discussion ever since it was suggested by Arsene Wenger in 2020.

It has not made it to full trials because there are serious doubts about its impact on the tactical approach to a game. Giving more advantage to the attacker doesn't necessarily mean more goals, it could lead to more defensive play. I'd be very surprised if this ever happens."

Goalkeepers holding the ball for more than eight seconds are now punished with a corner for the opposition, but what about time-wasting elsewhere on the pitch? The average ball-in-play time this season 55 minutes 05 seconds - 114 seconds down from last season.

What the fans said:

Anthony: When infringements or injuries occur, stop the clock as they do in rugby. Then at the 90th minute, that is the end of the match. No more debates about why several minutes have been added to half-time or full-time.

Gary: Change the game to 60 minutes, but with a stop clock when the ball isn't in play [like basketball]. In most current games, there is less than 50 minutes of play. Would eliminate time-wasting in an instant.

Tony: The clock stops every time ball goes out of play, and the referee blows his whistle to stop play.

Alex: Follow rugby, stop the clock for any injury, video assistant referee (VAR) check, etc. If you are losing, you want more injury time; if you are winning, you want less. So just stop the clock, get rid of the unknown at the end of the game.

What Chris Foy said: "Time is always a big talking point in football. Something could be adopted to address this, for example, an independent timekeeper as we have in other sports such as basketball.

"The referee calls time off and on when play restarts. The fans can then also see the clock counting down which I'm sure will add to the excitement."

What Dale Johnson said: "One issue with a stopped clock is that unless you're in a ground with a scoreboard, the fans would have no idea how long there is left to play.

But more and more time is being lost to stoppages like goal-kicks, throw-ins and corner-kicks. All three are at their highest this season. So something has to be done about it."

Under current rules referees can instruct players not to approach them, and show yellow cards to those who do so without permission and behave in a disrespectful manner. Diving should also result in a booking. However, many fans believe this is not enforced enough.

Former Liverpool and Fulham midfielder Danny Murphy said "for anyone caught cheating or diving, the other team gets a penalty", while ex-Blackburn and Celtic forward Chris Sutton said: "Rather than just a yellow card for simulation, I would upgrade that to a red card and a three-game ban. Let's ban the cheats."

What the fans said:

Christopher: Swearing at the ref or any abusive language = immediate red card and a four-match ban.

Jeff: Any attempt to simulate a foul would be an instant yellow card, but given when a break in play, and monitored by VAR. Any holding or pulling of clothing to be a yellow card, again monitored by VAR. Both of these are against the spirit of the game.

Dave: Implement cards for any kind of simulation. Too many players conning the ref trying to get advantage, in particular players going down holding face or head when never touched. Classic example was Gabriel holding his face for Sunderland's second goal when clearly nowhere near his face.

David: Red card for simulation, how long have fans been asking for this?

What Chris Foy said: "Dissent is a problem at many levels of football and when I was refereeing it was no different. If open acts of dissent are detected they should be dealt with - 2019 saw the introduction of sin-bins at grassroots football which is a great addition for dealing with open shows of dissent. Referees cannot do it alone and everyone has a duty to protect the image of the game."

Referees now have a whole menu of reasons to give handball, with the aim to give a "clearer and more consistent definition and interpretation". What it brought was consistently more penalties, because there were many more reasons to give one.

Former England captain Alan Shearer said some of the phraseology was confusing and has called for change: "Proximity... obvious position... not in an obvious position... natural," he said. "For me, it's pretty simple - is it deliberate handball or not?". It's safe to say fans agree with him.

What fans said:

Mike: Bring back the old, sensible "ball to hand" as accidental handball. Common sense interpretation needed. Some of these handball calls are utterly ridiculous and ruin a game.

Harry: Hand to ball is a penalty, ball to hand is not a penalty. That would stop players from aiming for hands in the penalty area.

David: Handball in the box by a defender should be an indirect free-kick. The ball accidentally hitting a hand does not warrant a penalty, which can change a game completely.

Simon: Scrap penalties for handballs in the box unless it's denying a goalscoring opportunity. Indirect free-kick instead. Giving the attacking team an almost guaranteed goal for something can be a really minor infraction by the defender is wildly disproportionate.

What Chris Foy said: "To prove if something was absolutely deliberate, you would have to ask a player if they meant to handle the ball.

"Personally, I think the game is in a good place regarding the handball rule and don't forget we have had a number of changes over the past five years. We don't want to see changes every year."

Former England striker Ellen White said VAR "takes out the joy and the emotion when a goal is scored" for players and fans alike, while ex-Liverpool defender Stephen Warnock said it has "too many inconsistencies and it's down to human error, which is still a massive problem".

Match of the Day presenter Gabby Logan doesn't think we should get rid of VAR, but "there should be a 90-second rule. If it is not clear an obvious in 90 seconds, it's not clear and obvious."

What fans said:

Owen: With VAR, learn from cricket and only go to VAR on request from the captain... Three requests per game for each team. It would mean fewer VAR calls and would only be when there were really clear errors not just minor ones.

Barry: I would change VAR to only be activated if the referee asks for a check, similar to rugby.

Jeff: If something takes more than a minute, it's not clear and obvious. Refs have a big enough on-field team, VAR is an unnecessary addition, and I would love to know the cost to clubs, and why they don't bin it?

Mike: Get rid of VAR completely. We had 120-odd years of the old system when football was football. Now, it's a waste of time.

Charlie: Why aren't refs allowed to request to see the monitor themselves? Stop VAR telling the ref what to do and let the ref use VAR himself. If the ref isn't sure he should ask VAR to bring it up on the monitor instead of waiting five minutes.

What Chris Foy said: "In relation to VAR and its protocol, the referee can initiate a 'review' for a potential 'clear and obvious error' or 'serious missed incident' when the VAR (or another match official) recommends a 'review' and the referee suspects something serious has been missed.

"Time limit on checks are difficult to implement as in some situations, checks have many moving pieces."

Dale Johnson added: "The problem with placing a time limit on reviews is the necessary proof may not be immediately available.

"Last season, in a VAR review for a penalty Liverpool had been awarded against Wolves, the VAR appeared ready to support the decision after the first few replay angles. But then the next replay clearly showed the attacker had initiated contact.

"With a time limit, this may have stayed as a penalty. There's no doubt that if you do place a time limit, incorrect decisions may not be overturned."