Yes, although people will move quickly for set pieces.
Referee usually will allow players to complete a play which has a realistic chance if goal, but the moment that chance goes the whistle blows.
I’ve thought of another one:
Shepherding the ball out. I never understood why it wasn’t obstruction (for those that don’t know what I am talking about, it is how a defender can physically block an attacking player from getting the ball and thus let the ball go out for a goal kick, usually showing no intention of ever playing the ball themselves) until I looked it up and found out that FIFA’s “Interpretation of the rules” document mentions shielding the ball and how it is OK, but it also goes on to say that players cannot use the arms or body to impede players, something that is clearly seen in games when they shepherd it out.
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/worldfootball/clubfootball/01/37/04/28/law12-en.pdf
The whole concept seems against the very idea of football, it seemingly justifies the non-playing of the ball as a defensive measure.
I’m not sure how the rules are supposed to be interpreted. What are you supposed to hold off an opponent with, if not your body?
The way it’s handled now seems fine, though. I don’t see what’s wrong with it.
I think unlimited subs would be a disaster, but I’m curious — how would increasing the number of substitutions affect the game? Say, to five or six?
(That said, I like three subs — I’m curious what would happen more than suggesting anyone should try it.)
I just feel purposefully not playing the ball and in doing so stopping someone else is against the spirit of the game. Too many attacks end because a defender throws himself between the attacker and the ball and then just stops with absolutely no intention of playing the ball. And too often the defender doesn’t just stand there - and this is where the rules do seem to be ignored - play against the attacker, pushing back and blocking with their arms.
I propose that blocking a player whilst showing no intention of playing the ball should result in an indirect free kick.
Eh, I doubt it, depending on how it’s used. Take a look at the penalty for Spain against the Netherlands. It was easily a minute or two between the foul and the kick. Plenty of time for the ref to be told through his earpiece that it wasn’t a foul. The game might have restarted faster actually.
But you have to allow some sort of pushing back; that’s how you stop someone from pushing you over, or out the way. You don’t normally see the arms come right out; perhaps they just spread them as wide as they think they can get away with as “personal space”.
Any World Cup stats on the number of what I’ll call “open field” or regular goals vs PK/DK goals?
Regular goals are harder to score. Shouldn’t they be worth more?
I’m thinking like in the NFL where a team can’t manage to score a touchdown so they settle for only a field goal. And are only given half of what a touchdown would have given them. (6 vs. 3 points).
In soccer a team finds it can’t score a needed goal so players start to flop in order to get a FK or a PK. That’s fine, but its just not going to be worth as much as a “real” open field goal. Give 'em half a goal!
I just want to point out the the offside rule, or its equivalent, exists in just about every sport that involves getting an object into an opponent’s goal: soccer, hockey, lacrosse, etc.
The reason is the same for all those sports. The game becomes very boring without the rule, because a team can keep an offensive player right next to the goal all the time.
From this American, avid youth player and lifelong fan,
Change the scoring:
1 point if it hits the post, 2 points if the shot/header is taken within the penalty area, 3 points for a shot that scores outside the penalty area.
Break the game up into 25 minute quarters. Switch directions each quarter. Gives the coach two more chances to adjust his players, and provides more breaks for fans to get food, commercials, whatever.
Two referees, so each one can fully cover half of the field. Better officiating, fewer errors, less diving and fewer sneaky fouls.
Point taken.
Alex Morgan, on the other hand… But I’d actually be embarrassed for her if she was running around naked on the pitch. We’d need to play one-on-one. 
I think there’s only one change I would make for this world cup, and that’s to give the referee a little more leeway to order drinks breaks. FIFA agreed to allow them if the temperature was at a certain level, but it seems to me a lot of players in games one or two degrees below the FIFA level are cramping up. It seems humidity was not taken into account. I think the ref should get more discretion on that point.
Granted, there might be fewer goals in this tournament, but the sight of multiple players getting stretched out every game isn’t great to watch either.
It should be totally be at the ref’s discretion - he’s there after all, and probably needs a water break as much as the players. It’s a daft thing to have a hard and fast rule about.
It includes all goals. It doesn’t include scores from penalty shoot-outs, but there won’t be any of those until after the group stage, anyway.
Penalties are often awarded because of fouls that probably cheated the other team out of a goal anyway. Obviously there are many others awarded where this isn’t the case, too. But I think without such a harsh punishment, there would be too much incentive to defend dangerously to avoid conceding “real” goals.
Yes, I can’t figure it out myself. …before the England-Italy match the announcer noted that there wouldn’t be any drinks breaks because it wasn’t hot enough under FIFA regs. OK, so what happens in an early afternoon game when it gets warmer during the game? I don’t get it.
IME if a game is seriously one-sided, the ref will end it as close to 90 minutes as decently possible.
So, what’s the argument against just adding another ref? In my, admittedly limited experience, a lot of dives seem to be where the ref isn’t paying close attention because they’re counting on the ref only seeing the guy writing around in agony, or perhaps because there was a legitimate minor foul and the only way to get the ref to notice is to make a Broadway production of it.
There are already two assistant referees, with whom the “head” ref can consult if there are concerns about something.
How about a shot clock, like basketball?
I don’t see why that has to be the case. Ice hockey has more substitutions than any other sport, and they don’t slow the game down a lick. And, as has been pointed out, replays could also be resolved as quickly as it takes to set up a penalty/free kick – if not more quickly – assuming they’re implemented intelligently (which, I grant you, is a big assumption.
Why?
I was watching the Bosnia-Argentina game today; by the end, both teams seemed really tired and, except for brief, isolated sprints, we clearly dragging their feet up & down the pitch. Someone up-thread posted that having tired players leads to mistakes that make the game more exciting. I must say, I just don’t see it. That strikes me as a major reach in trying to argue for the virtues of poor play.