Solving two of footballs' problems in one?

I'm a firm believer that, although I love the game of football at whatever level, I don't think the game is evolving. In fact, to be brutally honest, I think it's stagnating. Now I'm quite aware that this is a fairly controversial statement, and it's not a view shared by my friends or former football colleagues who counter argue with the increased money in the game, increased attendances at games, etc. However, I stand my view and I have some suggestions to haul the game out of this rut by introducing two simple developments to the game, both of which require no added investment. They do though require a change of behaviour. Fortunately this occurs with both by design.

The reason I think it's stagnating is because I believe there are a number of things wrong which I don't think the current laws of the game, or indeed the games' campaigns, are currently able to address.

Watch any game of football and at some point you will see the following occur:

1. Feigning of injury by a player to gain an advantage over the opposition.
2. Arguing with the match officials by players (including foul & abusive language).

Both are seemingly endemic within the game and although arguing with officials is seen to be "understandable" if an official has made a bad call, both are not permitted at all in many other field sports such as hockey or rugby. The feigning of injury one only seems to rear its Kraken-like head in major games or tournaments, such as Rivaldo in the 2002 World Cup or Drogba against Napoli in last season's Champions League, but it's there all the time in most games I've played in or managed.

I think incidents of these sort could be successfully eradicated from the game through the introduction of a couple of innovations.

Feigning of injury by a player to gain an advantage over the opposition

Football is a contact sport and injuries do occur that often require treatment by a physio, trainer or other medically trained professional on the sideline. Even in the amateur game, such as park football on Saturdays and Sundays, the respective FA's in the UK are all pushing for people to be present with Football First Aid training to provide necessary assistance. 

Currently an "injured" player waits for the Referee to assess their injury, before he or she allows treatment from the sideline - following which the injured party has to leave the pitch.  Referees already have enough to occupy their time during a game and I doubt they are trained medical professionals (in the strictest sense of the word) so why not let the game carry on while a player receives such treatment? Rugby is a prime example where a player often receives treatment to a superficial injury by a medical professional. I've heard people say "Yes, but what happens if the ball hits the physio when they are being treated on the pitch?" Well in rugby the team in possession are awarded a scrum, so why not award a indirect free kick to the team in possession? 

The reason why I think this would eradicate 99% of this behaviour is because when the game goes on around them, if the player's team are awarded a free kick or not, a feigned injury would mean they would be out of the game and playing no part in the game at that moment. This would be lead to an amount of what I shall call polite requests from team mates to get on with the game. I would imagine these requests would also carry more gravity if they were from the player's manager! I also suspect that there would not be that many times that a person leaves the sidelines to give treatment on the pitch if this were introduced if the injuries were 100% genuine. If the injury is serious then, as with rugby (or as currently happens) the game could be held up while this happens.

It also leads on to my second point, and how my suggestion for a self-pass rule for all free kicks to be introduced into football - both direct and indirect - would make the feigning of injury a thing of the past!

Arguing with the match officials by players (including foul & abusive language)

As an ex-footballer I saw and heard players arguing with match officials constantly. As a manager I had to deal with the inevitable consequences of players arguing with referees: yellow and red cards (one often following the other). I do not believe any previous  intervention, scheme or variation of the current Respect Campaign has ever tackled this one successfully - or even made a dent in it. On last night's Match of the Day I counted at least three "F" words aimed at referees and I was hardly even looking.

The reason that players decide to argue with referees about a decision - leaving aside whether a referee's decision is right, wrong or indifferent - is because they have the time. Look at the TV next time a game's on. Referees receive the most arguments when the ball is not in play. So how about keeping the ball in play more?

Hockey is a sport which constantly looks at it's laws and consequently tweaks, changes or introduces new laws at the beginning of each season. This has two positive effects. Firstly players keep up to dates with the laws, something I know is not the case in the amateur football game and I suspect is sporadic at best in the professional environment, despite pre-season talks from Referees. Secondly it critically analyses itself and seeks to make the game of hockey better. One of the biggest innovations in recent years has been the introduction of the self-pass. If a player fouls another, then they take a free hit from where the infringement took place like in any sport. Except they can take the free hit to them self and the opposition cannot touch the ball for 5 meters. It's simple, effective and has made hockey more exciting for players and spectators alike. The culture of hockey is similar to rugby where the only player who could question a referee is the captain, something I would argue to introduce in tandem with this law in football. Where this happens, then the umpire stops the clock and talks to the captain and explains their decision.

If the self pass rule were introduced into football I believe that over the course of the first 90 minutes a player would have realised that there's no point arguing with a referee that they "Never touched him Ref!" because the free kick would have been taken, the ball, action and referee would have moved on to another phase of play. Also, as with my suggestions to remove the feigning of injury from the field of play, anyone bothering to complain to anyone within earshot about a decision, would again be politely requested by their team mates to get on with the game - as would their manager! I remember the impact when the back pass rule was introduced to football twenty years ago. I believe it's been one of the most significant positive innovations in football, like the introduction of nets, or allowing substitutions. Now I couldn't imagine being any other way.

These two suggestions would, at a sweep, improve football. They would tackle these two blights on our game. They would improve the sporting experience for spectators on TV or at the ground. Referees would not be facing arguments from players whose knowledge of the laws of football could fit on the back of a yellow card. A better example would be set to younger players from their role models. Swearing in football and bad behaviour would no longer be perceived to be the pernicious influence it is today. 

It simply wouldn't be there.