30 Minutes Each Way ??

Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
39,837
#2
Why not, if they are going to stop the clock for every stoppage, it won't make much difference to the time the ball is in play.
 

Sandros Shiny Head

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
2,480
#3
Why not, if they are going to stop the clock for every stoppage, it won't make much difference to the time the ball is in play.
It wouldn't make any difference by default which is why it's stupid. If they're going to introduce clock stoppages then it should be in a 90 minute game to actually see the benefit of no time wasting, otherwise your changing a fundamental part of the game to keep it the same
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
39,837
#4
It wouldn't make any difference by default which is why it's stupid. If they're going to introduce clock stoppages then it should be in a 90 minute game to actually see the benefit of no time wasting, otherwise your changing a fundamental part of the game to keep it the same
No, what you get now is varied time games. If you do it this way you fix the time. Keeping the fixed time at 90 would be too much, as now it's often around 60m or even less.
 

Sandros Shiny Head

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
2,480
#5
No, what you get now is varied time games. If you do it this way you fix the time. Keeping the fixed time at 90 would be too much, as now it's often around 60m or even less.
Exactly, which is why making it a fixed 60 instead of a free flowing 60 out of 90 would be pointless, its intentionally changing something to make it the same
 

aliyid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
3,261
#6
Would never happen as tv companies would find it harder to schedule ad breaks.

At the moment it's a set 90 min game (plus 3-4 mins stoppage) so they pretty much know the time of ad breaks. If they stop the clock every time the ball leaves play the actual times for games ending will vary quite a bit... don't mind the idea of stopping the clock in last 5-10 mins as would cut back on some of the crazy time wasting
 

Donki

Has a Massive Member Member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
9,510
#10
I like football I'm a 35 year old dinosaur I guess, I've said many times I'm not a fan of bringing too much video refine in. The controversy and variation in games makes football what it is. Different refs, different lengths of grass, different sized pitches, different teams playing different styles it's beautiful. I know many disagree but it's my opinion god admit, I can see teams using the shorter game time to play anti football, more direct, more negative. Yes I agree actual true game time isn't 90 mins but physiologically it is. Why not keep it 90 mins and simply stop the clock when the ball is out of play, if the egotists need to change something.

Let's face it the powers that be in football are mostly stupid or corrupt, see the last World Cup bid for example.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
39,837
#11
I like football I'm a 35 year old dinosaur I guess, I've said many times I'm not a fan of bringing too much video refine in. The controversy and variation in games makes football what it is. Different refs, different lengths of grass, different sized pitches, different teams playing different styles it's beautiful. I know many disagree but it's my opinion god admit, I can see teams using the shorter game time to play anti football, more direct, more negative. Yes I agree actual true game time isn't 90 mins but physiologically it is. Why not keep it 90 mins and simply stop the clock when the ball is out of play, if the egotists need to change something.

Let's face it the powers that be in football are mostly stupid or corrupt, see the last World Cup bid for example.

I think you're missing the point, this is a measure to prevent some of the time wasting that happens now. And It won't necessarily be shorter, in some cases the ball will be in play longer than it is now.
 

Sandros Shiny Head

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
2,480
#12
That's exactly what they are proposing, that the game clock stops whenever the ball is dead and that the ball is in play for exactly 60 mins.
But you don't know how much real world time the stoppages in the new scenario could take overall whereas now its no more than 45-50 minutes per half whatever happens. The game will still have the same amount of playing time at 60 minutes but the actual time from kickoff to full time could be way longer
 

Donki

Has a Massive Member Member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
9,510
#13
I think you're missing the point, this is a measure to prevent some of the time wasting that happens now. And It won't necessarily be shorter, in some cases the ball will be in play longer than it is now.
But it will encourage lesser teams to play anti football surely? they will know the exact time the game will end, come on who doesn't love a 94th minute equaliser or winner? It will make the game sterile. It in no way will encourage lesser teams to try and outplay an opponent. 60 minutes to play bus parking football is a hell of a lot less than 90+ minutes.

One difference in my opinion that will stop negative things like player gamesman ship, is to simply mic up the refs trust me big sponsors like Addidas or Nike won't want to hear players swearing and harassing a ref. It won't interfere with the game at all and would make for a much less potentially volitle game.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
17,469
#15
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Has it occurred to anyone that whilst it is supposed to cut out time wasting, it won't, teams will just time waste in play, plus they will just kick the ball into row Z to take steam out of the game and there won't be the urgency to get started again slowing it down even more. It's a flawed idea.
 

jamesinashby

Active Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
317
#16
Have a look at some of the proposals being made by the International Football Association Board :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40311889
I agree with two.
Firstly I like the idea of the dribble/attacking suggestion as it means not losing the advantage from professional fouls breaking up attacks,
Secondly I like the idea of passing the ball to yourself at a free kick, corner or goal kick as it widens attacking options (there is too much emphasis in defending for my liking.

In addition, I would get rid of the offside rule as has happened in hockey. That would lose wrong decisions that occur all too often. It would also, imo, make the game more exciting by adding more goals. Just a thought from a hockey player.

COYS
 

jamesinashby

Active Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
317
#17
Would never happen as tv companies would find it harder to schedule ad breaks.

At the moment it's a set 90 min game (plus 3-4 mins stoppage) so they pretty much know the time of ad breaks. If they stop the clock every time the ball leaves play the actual times for games ending will vary quite a bit... don't mind the idea of stopping the clock in last 5-10 mins as would cut back on some of the crazy time wasting
With your estimate of stoppage time, you forgot Fergus time (7 to 12 mins) to give United a chance to equalise. lol
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
18,564
#18
There's some good ideas in there, but I'm not sure about the 30 minute half idea. I'd rather see refs be a bit more strict about time wasting.

The idea of stopping rebounds after penalties seems fair. If a goalkeeper saves the penalty then it's very harsh that they are then expected to try and save a follow up.

Allowing Referees to award a goal for a handball on the line seems fair as well.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
17,469
#20
There's some good ideas in there, but I'm not sure about the 30 minute half idea. I'd rather see refs be a bit more strict about time wasting.

The idea of stopping rebounds after penalties seems fair. If a goalkeeper saves the penalty then it's very harsh that they are then expected to try and save a follow up.

Allowing Referees to award a goal for a handball on the line seems fair as well.
The rule is that when the player kicks the ball it is back in play so if the keeper saves it it is still in play and the game continues, it's quite simple so I see no reason to complicate it.
It is also worth remembering that the keeper is the guilty party in a penalty situation, or his team is at least.
 
Top