Isnt it time...we moved to 30 mins eachway

Gilly said:
It is the current method and doesn't need changing?

I'm not against change where it is needed, but change for the sake of change is bad.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be change for change's sake, it would be to reduce time wasting.

The current method is rubbish, watching a goalkeeper take an age to do a goal-kick, or a sub ages to walk off the pitch because they know time will run down is not fun to watch or fair.
 
No Bevause pepple will slow the game down more as a rest break and how will they be penalised? If they are penalised the same as now then why change? Just enforce the time wasting penalties.
 
go the whole hog and have 15 minute quarters.

more time for adverts for the tv companies.

maybe an midway event on the pitch.

Or maybe make the officials run games to the rules and book players for time wasting etc.
 
thecremeegg said:
Definately - if rolling around didn't waste time then most of them wouldn't do it
Click to expand...

Yes they would, firstly sometimes players are hurt, regardless of playing on or being fine. Have someone kick you really hard in the leg, see if it stops you doing what you were doing and if you're fine to go back to whatever you are doing 2 minutes later.

People have recently decided that if you don't go off on a stretcher unable to continue... you're faking, it's ludicrous.

Second, people often time waste because they are under pressure and want to relieve said pressure. With a clock on the game there is pressure to restart the game from both the ref and the player rolling around as it can be say a team 1-0 down with 10 mins to go, he wants to get the pressure off after 5 corners in a row, but they still need to score. This can get actually hurt players still in pain to get up and continue also.

If there is no actual time lost, and no penalty because the ref just stops the clock, then players have less pressure to take as little time to recover as possible. Actual time wasting or proper dives(where there is no pain or injury involved) have no reason to get back up quickly. The ref loses his ability to give out cards for time wasting as effectively no one is losing if the clock is stopped. it lets those who want to break the momentum in the game do so much more easily.

All in all, there are no benefits, it's completely pointless and there are as many potential downsides.

Football HAS always and WILL always have breaks in play, get over it, there is nothing wrong with it. Divers need to be punished for diving, time wasting should as it is now, be punished(but with refs being better about it), fans need to be less ridiculous. It's okay to take 15 seconds over a throw in when it's 0-0, but when you're 2-0 down you scream about the same time span as blatant time wasting.

The only thing that needs changing is better decision making, which comes from video replays, nothing else.
 
I've wanted this for a long time, ever since maybe USA'94(?) where they used to put up stats at HT/FT that showed how long the ball had been in play. However, I do think there are some potential issues with it, and not all strictly football related e.g:

-Breaks continuity of statistics e.g. no goals scored after 60mins
-Would probably annoy numerous parties who have systems built around there being 2x45min(+x) halves e.g. news sites, stats feeds, bookmakers etc
-Would probably make games more varied in length, especially the first half when unless there have been any serious stoppages refs ALWAYS give 1 or 2 mins added time. Thus making it harder for broadcasters etc

Some of the less frequently cited advantages as I see them would be:
+Less of this nonsense where refs typically allow an attack to continue until it peters and and the ball is kicked back up the other way, i.e. the game would be more likely to end at the correct time even if that means mid-shot
+Players/Coaches know how much time is left so can play/plan accordingly e.g. buzzer-beating shots etc
+Makes it easier to introduce additional delays for reviewing decisions etc i.e. if the clock is stopped then video review is more plausible
+Less of this ludicrous situation whereby the 4th official announces a nice round number of minutes minimum to be added and then people get in a strop if more than that is played (not helped by refs often blowing up on nice round numbers)

The point about it encouraging time-wasting because the clock is stopped isn't really that big a deal for me... I don't care if the game takes longer to complete, as long as the in-play time is consistent.
 
HangTime said:
I've wanted this for a long time, ever since maybe USA'94(?) where they used to put up stats at HT/FT that showed how long the ball had been in play. However, I do think there are some potential issues with it, and not all strictly football related e.g:

-Breaks continuity of statistics e.g. no goals scored after 60mins
-Would probably annoy numerous parties who have systems built around there being 2x45min(+x) halves e.g. news sites, stats feeds, bookmakers etc
-Would probably make games more varied in length, especially the first half when unless there have been any serious stoppages refs ALWAYS give 1 or 2 mins added time. Thus making it harder for broadcasters etc

Some of the less frequently cited advantages as I see them would be:
+Less of this nonsense where refs typically allow an attack to continue until it peters and and the ball is kicked back up the other way, i.e. the game would be more likely to end at the correct time even if that means mid-shot
+Players/Coaches know how much time is left so can play/plan accordingly e.g. buzzer-beating shots etc
+Makes it easier to introduce additional delays for reviewing decisions etc i.e. if the clock is stopped then video review is more plausible
+Less of this ludicrous situation whereby the 4th official announces a nice round number of minutes minimum to be added and then people get in a strop if more than that is played (not helped by refs often blowing up on nice round numbers)

The point about it encouraging time-wasting because the clock is stopped isn't really that big a deal for me... I don't care if the game takes longer to complete, as long as the in-play time is consistent.
Click to expand...

The main problem with it, is if you changed it, it wouldn't be the same game.

A game of association football is 45 minutes a half and half time teams change ends.
It's fine tinkering around the edges, what's a foul what isn't a foul, what's time wasting and what isn't.
But the length of time, number of players, size of goals, allowable dimensions of the pitch and goals etc is what the game is.

When they game up with T20 cricket it became an entirely different game to one day cricket, which in turn is an entirely different game to test cricket.
 
Moses said:
Association football is supposed to be 45 minutes a half (so 90 total)... but in reality it's actually only around two thirds of that if you only include time when the ball's in play. It's supposed to be 45 minute halves, but is nowhere near that.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, some matches are played over two legs (often weeks apart, in different countries, with different players) with the scores aggregated. That is a far cry from a simple game where the result is decided after 90mins.

Even if we discount the above scenario as invalid, even in the context of a single game, there are plenty of variants of football especially in youth football. Shorter games, sometimes smaller pitches, sometimes fewer players etc etc.

And again, if we want to focus purely on the professional game, IMO past rule changes have arguably had a just as big an impact on the actual game itself than 30min halves would, e.g. passback rule and the elimination of infinite replays (main ones in the time I've been following football - obviously historically you've got offside and allsorts to choose from). [As an aside, I think it is too easy to forget what football used to be like before the passback law - when you watch old matches, it sticks out like a sore thumb!]
 
Last edited:
Moses said:
Association football is supposed to be 45 minutes a half (so 90 total)... but in reality it's actually only around two thirds of that if you only include time when the ball's in play. It's supposed to be 45 minute halves, but is nowhere near that.
Click to expand...

The game is competed over two periods of 45 minutes, how the teams choose to manage their time is their problem.

If a team like some ****house Allardyce side rolls up at a ground and chooses to take an age taking every throw in and running the clock down, hoping to snatch a result from a set play only to concede in the 89th minute and having wasted the entire game, that's their problem.

Its a time management issue, not a game duration issue.

Penalties for time wasting should be enforced (they are already there) as should the penalties for repeated fouling and diving.
 
So goalie has a goal kick the clock starts when?

When he puts the ball on the 6 yard line? When his foot connects with the ball?

Same for corners is it when the ball is kicked as technically that's the only time the ref can call a foul which is why we have so much horseplay at corners.
 
jas72 said:
So goalie has a goal kick the clock starts when?

When he puts the ball on the 6 yard line? When his foot connects with the ball?

Same for corners is it when the ball is kicked as technically that's the only time the ref can call a foul which is why we have so much horseplay at corners.
Click to expand...

The clock would start when the ball is kicked.
 
SpeedFreak said:
works fine for rugby
Click to expand...

That's a bit different.

Setting up line-outs and scrums after someone has hoofed the ball a mile down field or there has been a mass bundle takes time.

Someone tackling someone near the line resulting in a throw-in usually means someone takes the throw-in within 10 seconds because they're already there and nothing needs setting up (people have got into def/off positions).

Corners perhaps as it takes a bit of time for defenders to come up and take their positions. But how many games are there a match? 10-15 on average?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom