Certain rules need proper clarification really. Too many rules are subjective, and too many pundits have ridiculous ideas and in cleaning the laws of the game we shouldn't pander to their misunderstanding of the game
Take something like handball, the rule used to be that if the path of the ball was altered then it's a foul. Now it has to be deliberate, a few years ago they looked for movement of the hand towards the ball, it's all gubbins really. If a striker is good enough at hit a defenders hand from a yard away while spinning around and evading challenges then they probably deserve a penalty. Deliberate is so subjective, save the subjectiveness for decisions about whether to further penalise the player. If you handle the ball in the box, accident or not then penalty, if your hand was in front of your chest, then no, because the path of the ball wasn't altered, it would have hit your chest and gone in a similar direction
Same with all the talk of contact in fouls. Contact has never been needed for a foul. Nor does contact negate a dive. When I hear folk like Savage trying to minimise an argument by saying well there was contact he was entitled to go down. Utter rubbish, if you are trying to deceive the referee then it's a dive. I remember during a preseason friendly against Crystal Palace (93?) Iain Dowie was getting wound up, the ref went over to Coppell and just said take him off before I send him off. I wonder if after a dive, a referee (who's first responsibility is player safety) could tell a manager that the player looks injured, and is uncomfortable risking further injury they should substitute them, that might cut it out a bit. On the flipside if refs can't catch fouls without seeing someone thrash around then I get why players thrash around. Maybe VAR would mean that players will trust refs to catch the sneaky smaller stuff