A converted soccer fan has "fast fix-it solutions" to make the game even better

Like soccer? Want to improve it? Read on.

Elise Amendola, Associated PressThe USA's Clint Dempsey (left) argues with referee Koman Coulibaly of Mali (second from right) during the 2-2 tie between the USA and Slovenia in a World Cup match last Friday.

• Clearly, the field is so huge, with the play swinging from end to end so swiftly, that one referee cannot see everything. The Europa League is considering as an experiment an official behind each goal, acting as a goal judge in all but name. This should be used at the World Cup, too.

Qualifications for referees must also, obviously, be more stringent.

The referee from Mali who blew the call on the American goal that should have won the Slovenia game was unqualified for the world stage he was on. He had several mistakes on his record. His appointment to the game was done for political motives. This happens far too often. 

•  Because referees are human, mistakes happen. Instant replay review, but only on goals, should be available one time per game for each coach on a challenge.

Purists say replay review interrupts soccer's flow, corrupts its spirit, and adds the burden of technology to a spare game. They say soccer's beauty is that it can be played as deftly in developing nations as in modern, post-industrial ones. They might think review stunts it growth too.

Two reviews per game, maximum, are not an affront to the flow, though. So much celebrating goes on after goals that play would not be hindered that seriously.

Replay review is not perfect. But if viewers can see goals from four or five angles in games from Argentina, why not use such a tool at the highest level of the sport?

By the way, the infamous "Hand of God'' goal by Argentina against England in the 1986 World Cup never happens with replay review.

But the same people who convinced "Blind Bud" Selig not to overturn the umpiring error on the last play of a perfect game this season will argue that life is imperfect, so why should sports not be? This Luddite impulse to enshrine error is hard to grasp.

•  Restore the Golden Goal.

What, the players haven't proven their endurance by playing for 90 minutes and running up to four miles each?

First goal by any means in the 30 minutes of OT ends it. End the game with a bang, not a whimper.

•  No more ties in the round-robin stage.

Overtime and then penalty kicks (PK's) decide games in the knockout round. That should hold for the first round, too.

The opening games of the World Cup are often tedious, conservatively-played exercises in risk aversion. Teams want to ease into the competition, get the single point from a tie if nothing better turns up, see how the other half of their draw shakes out,and then begin chasing points in earnest in the second game.

There is no easing in if the game is played to a win-or-lose decision, though. The stronger side would play more aggressively, because of their reluctance to go to the PK's crapshoot.

At the same time, this would expose the more dominant team to more counter-attacks. Teams get three points for winning in regulation or OT, one for winning on penalties.

• Change the offside rule on an experimental basis at the club level.

Few people understand the rule. It is extremely hard to officiate without a superhuman field of vision.

Make it read: Any pass in the offensive end is not offside.

If that is too radical -- and I believe that was several ESPN announcers with British accents who just went pitching to the floor -- then make it for the one-third of the field around the goal. This would require a new line on the field, however, and probably lead to the announcers being removed on stretchers.

The fear is that players will "snowbird," to borrow a basketball term, and hang back in the area near the opposing goal. But the new definition would prevent goalkeepers from trying to connect with them on long kicks. That would be offside.

It's only an experimental change, anyway.

• Absolutely, positively no vuvuzelas permitted.