So I will just babble a little here about fouling and referees, from my own completely personal and subjective point of view. I will not suggest any rule changes.
First, from an ethical point of view, I have nothing against intentional fouling (or diving, or KO-lobbing). The general way I see things like is that when I am playing a game, I will set out to beat the game, whatever that means. If this means that I will be provoked to do funny and challenging things, then it is a good game. If it means that I have to do boring things, it is a bad game, (and I will not play it). In a competitive setting of a 2-player game, this means that I will do whatever is possible within the rules/game mechanics to maximize my chances of victory, and I would expect my opponent to do the same.
Now, it is only natural that it happens that a game is not perfect in that it provokes you to do things that spoil the fun gameplay. A natural inclination for many people will then be to attempt to make adjustments to the game mechanics/rules so that these fun-spoiling things are avoided. Examples of this are friends who make informal rules about no KO-lobbing, or no intentional fouling. They agree to play an altered version of the game. This is in my view also perfectly reasonable. I am no purist.
In fact, such changes upon agreement are of the same nature as decisions about all the other default rules. Which teams to use, which tactics to allow, whether to play with wind etc. etc. When making such decisions, we are guided by our desire to make sure that the game we then play competitively will be a funny game for the people involved.
With regard to fouling. First, I am personally not used to foul intentionally as much as, say, Alkis is. This is only natural since I have been practicing mainly against the CPU, and then it is pointless. So I am not yet used to taking full advantage of fouls. I want it to be clear that I would benefit more than most if intentional fouls were taken out of the game or punished harder. This is no secret. (Please also know that I mostly do not care about tweaking or preserving rules to help my winning chances.)
Secondly, I do not think that intentional fouls in themselves are a bad thing (=boring thing that destroys the gameplay) for the game. They take skill to perform, and there is a funny challenge in deciding when a slide for a foul is a good option and when it is not.
Thirdly, we are emotionally attached to our beloved fouls just as we are to many other aspects of the game. While some people would be happy to see them go, others would hate it.
My point of view is that, with most referees, repeated intentional fouling makes the gameplay less funny. A foul here and there could be OK, but when a foul is a good/the best option whenever the opponet got past your Cox or R.Curtis, then the flow of the game is damaged. It makes defending less challenging, and the reward for managing to get a free run is diminished, which is unsatisfying for the fouled player.
My point of view is that, IF the game had had no auto-slides in 2001, then it would have been great to make Zappa or Willis the default referee. Two strikes and you are out. Then it would be a funny challenge to save that one free foul for a really important situation, and have the speed of perception to indeed use the foul when that situation occurs.
Oh yeah, I should add one thing about slide tackles that are not meant to be fouls. They are not really an important part of the game. I think most people mainly use them to block a shot at goal. In fact, I think the game might have been funnier if there hadn't been slide tackles at all
. Anyway, this is just my point of view. I think the game would be funnier if 2 fouls by the same player would always result in a red card. So, I will make an offer to all future opponents. If you like, we can agree to use Willis or Zappa in our games. Please be aware, though, that this will probably be an advantage to me since I am so bad at intentional fouling, so you might give up some of your edge. Indeed, when I refused to change referee with Gianni in London in the aborted game, I didn't do it to increase fun, but to hurt Gianni's potential benefit from intentional fouls. But this offer is made with fun in mind. I think the gameplay would be better if we played with Willis or Zappa.
I am pretty certain that someone like Alkis will not take up my offer, since he is so used to and good at intentional fouling (which I DON'T think is something to criticise, as already said). For this reason (and other reasons), I also don't like to suggest that Willis or Zappa be the default referee in tournaments. It's too late for this, and the option never really existed since we only recently had the option to remove unintended slides.
But if you don't like (too much) fouling, then I will be happy to play with Willis or Zappa in our game.
