I’M A traditionalist when it comes to the laws of the game, but there are a few innovations I’d like to see introduced. The first is controversial, but I would like to have two 30-minute halves, with the clock stopping every time play is interrupted by the referee’s whistle.

This would help eliminate time-wasting. There would be no point in rolling around feigning an injury or taking for ever before a goalkick because the clock would only start once the ball is in play. It is amazing how little football is actually played over the 90 minutes. At the 1990 World Cup, the ball was in play on average for 52 minutes, and in some games it was as low as 45.

Today, the average is around 55 minutes. Fifa have urged referees to grant more injury time, but if the ball is in play for 55 minutes, you can’t expect an official to grant an additional 35 of injury time, can you? Fifa have said that the game should strive to keep the ball in play for 60 minutes and I agree. Overall, matches would not be any longer, and might even be shorter because there would be less time-wasting and gamesmanship. And there would be more action. The idea has lurked in the background for several years, but now it’s time to take it seriously.

In Brazil referees are given a little can of what looks like spray paint that they use to mark the distance on free kicks. When they give a free kick, they count ten yards and spray a straight line on the pitch, marking the exact distance that the wall has to observe. It’s a simple, effective way to combat encroachment, which has always been a problem in Italy and is increasingly an issue in the Premiership.

I would also change the offside rule so that it only applies in the final third of the pitch. This would have an even greater effect on the game because it would stretch teams, forcing them to defend deeper and creating more space in the middle of the park. If the offside rule applies only in the final third, strikers can play further up the pitch, the space between defence and midfield increases, as does the space between midfield and attack. All of a sudden, congested and cluttered areas free up and the game becomes far more open.

I can think of three obvious reasons why this is desirable. First, it would favour the more skilful players because they would have more room to operate. Second, it would lead to more goals (or, at least, more attempts). Third, it would cut down on offsides and, particularly, controversial offside decisions.

The vast majority of mistakes on offside decisions are made when the distance is great between the player and the ball at the time of the pass. The reason for this is plain: the linesman would have to be looking in two different directions at once. But if offsides only applied in the final third, there would be fewer such situations because the space in which it could happen would be smaller so it would be far easier to call.

Then there is the issue of technology and video replays. Surely we can all agree on the use of goalline technology. “All referees are in favour of technology if it’s matter-of-fact technology, such as whether or not the ball is in play along the goalline or whether or not it crossed the line for a goal,” says Graham Poll, the referee.

To ensure the game is not constantly interrupted, I would limit the number of video replays allowed per game to two per half. The referee would have a maximum of 90 seconds — calculated from the time he reaches the monitor — to make his decision. In that time he should be able to see at least six or seven replays of the incident.

I would leave it up to the teams to decide when a replay is used. Each team would get one “challenge” per half. If, from the bench, they think the referee got something wrong, they would signal the fourth official, who would arrange the video replay. Obviously this would involve each team having someone — a coach, a scout — watching the game on a monitor at pitch-side, which would not be difficult to arrange.

By placing the onus of “challenging” his decisions on the teams — and limiting the number and duration — we will speed up the game and, hopefully, make coaches think twice before they complain about the officiating. Now that referees are professional, I would treat them as a “club”.

They would all live in some kind of convenient central location — maybe Coverciano, near Florence, in Italy, and somewhere in the Midlands in England — working as a football club does. They would have their own executives, their own coaches, their own fitness trainers and they would train together most days. Those who are married would have to move their families, but surely this is not too much to ask, given that they are now full-time professionals.

Each referee would have a three-year deal with the referees’ association, making him entirely independent of the FA. The idea is to create a sense of unity among them and make them feel strong, protected and independent.