article: The International Football Association Board (Ifab) has several ideas to alter the laws of the game - supposedly to make it more attractive. They form part of a strategy document called 'Play Fair!' - but would they work, and what would be the consequences if they were implemented? BBC football analyst Pat Nevin says he welcomes the discussion - and thinks it is long overdue. "I honestly think we have had 20 or 30 years of Luddites being in charge of the game," the former Chelsea, Everton and Scotland winger told BBC Sport. "But we are now hopefully entering an era where people are willing to see if the game needs adapting, and I have to say I applaud their efforts at the moment. "For example they have finally started using video replay technology, which is something people were calling for when I was playing 25-30 years ago. "The game moves on and people find ways around the rules that are in place - I did it myself when I played. "So, I am very positive about any attempts to make the game better and my attitude generally with most of these proposals is let's give them a go to see how they work out." You can read the full Ifab strategy document here. Nevin has looked at some of the more radical suggestions in detail - this is his verdict. Ifab proposal: Two periods of 30 minutes with the clock stopped whenever the ball goes out of play. Stats from Opta show that, last season, the Premier League team whose games saw the most actual game time were Arsenal, with an average of 58.10 minutes. Crystal Palace had the least, with 52.33 minutes. Nevin: "I agree with the thinking behind scrapping 45-minute halves because the misuse of that time is a big part of the game now. "When you get towards the back end of matches, and people start making lots of substitutions for example, then you never get enough time added back on the end. "This method would mean there is no point in wasting time, because the clock is stopped anyway. Players would not bother doing it anymore. "When they suggest an hour of playing time, they have obviously got it right. People might initially think 'only an hour?' but in actual fact it is exactly the amount of time that I would expect the ball to be in play anyway." Nevin: "The change to playing time would not make any difference to players - the groups of people who this is most important to are fans, and the TV companies. "Broadcasters are the ones who will be most concerned, if they find they can no longer be certain when games are going to finish because it takes a varying amount of time to play the full 60 minutes. "From a fans' perspective, stopping time-wasting is very important and this would be a way of ensuring people are getting their money's worth when they watch games. "But you also have to consider the effect this change would have on
summary: From 30-minute halves to dribbling straight from a free-kick, proposals have been put forward to change the game of football as we know it.