30 Minutes Each Way ??

werty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
19,585
#21
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
Wouldn't surprise me if the TV companies insisted on 2-3 minute timeouts after every goal, video review when they bring that in or injuries to get their ads in.
 

jamesinashby

Active Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
301
#22
This so difficult as there are compelling arguements for 'for' and 'against' not allowing rebounds off the goalie or the woodwork.

I'm tempted to say, only one kick allowed and the ball then becomes dead if saved or rebounds back off the bar for this reason. When the foul is committed in the penalty area, is not known for sure a goal would definitely been scored. As a foul by the defending team in the penalty area always results in a penalty, then to evens out the ambiguity of whether a goal would be scored.

Just a thought.

COYS
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
16,827
#23
Perhaps the referee could decide before hand whether or not it would have resulted in a goal and we could have two grades of penalty, one kick only if he decides it wouldn't have been a goal but allow the follow up if he decides it would have that would be even fairer wouldn't it.
Sorry I am being facetious I just think it don't need changing.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
18,091
#25
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.
The penalty should be sufficient compensation for the foul though. It doesn't get much better than a free shot at goal. Actually I'd be ok with follow ups if the guy who missed the penalty couldn't score as he has a positional advantage over all of the other team.
 

fortworthspur

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
4,611
#26
sounds like a solution in search of a problem. I guess it would discourage a team from trying to slow a game down, but that approach has always had its risks, which balances things out.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
3,819
#28
Fitchspur said:
It wouldn't be a fixed time, as you can't know how long/often the ball will be out of play.

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.
You are both talking at cross purposes and about completely different things.

Fitchspur - length of time being unfixed/uncertain with regards to the overall EVENT time and how that relates to causing problems with broadcasts under the new proposition. As it stands, delays for ball being out of play and other such small delays are primarily soaked up into the 90mins of allotted time so there is less deviation in how long the event of a football match takes time wise.

Bus-conductor- length of time being fixed/ more certain with regard to the overall PLAYING time and how that relates to helping with time wasting tactics by opposition (e.g. Kicking ball out of play) and the current lack of clarity and imprecise nature in which injury time is currently handed out. The new proposal could fix those things. No more mysterious Fergie time.

Wouldn't usually stick my oar in, but could see you are talking about completely different things. Both of you are correct in your own way, it just so happens one is presented to be a positive, the other a negative
 

dannythomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
3,338
#29
I think for the most part the existing system for added time works pretty well, except for time wasting substitutions where the winning team make them solely for the purpose of wasting time. These are done at snails pace and of course the player being withdrawn wastes further time by waving to the fans and milking the applause. I have never seen any ref try to speed up this process .

If the rules were changed so that every substution results in a minimum 2 minutes added time I think we would soon see these eradicated . You could almost fix the time wasting with this measure since there could be 12 minutes of added time if all 3 subs are used by both teams. If that is too much for everyone then maybe the 2 minute rule could be restricted to substitutions made in the last 30 minutes.
 

jamesinashby

Active Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
301
#30
I think for the most part the existing system for added time works pretty well, except for time wasting substitutions where the winning team make them solely for the purpose of wasting time. These are done at snails pace and of course the player being withdrawn wastes further time by waving to the fans and milking the applause. I have never seen any ref try to speed up this process .

If the rules were changed so that every substution results in a minimum 2 minutes added time I think we would soon see these eradicated . You could almost fix the time wasting with this measure since there could be 12 minutes of added time if all 3 subs are used by both teams. If that is too much for everyone then maybe the 2 minute rule could be restricted to substitutysubstitutions made in the last 30 minutes.
There,s definitely some merit here regarding last minute substitutions. Some of the flaws are possibly these.
1. Awarding 2 minutes for a substitution could then be used by a side chasing an equaliser up to an extra 6 minutes of additional time with carefully planned substitutions and take away the team ahead a tactical substitutions (which, of course, may be Spurs).
2. 30 minutes is a third of the match which would do little to stop those time wasting swaps in the final minutes including added on time.
3. It isn't just directed solely at time wasting but punishes genuine substitutions.

The answer should lie in punishing the offence or offender. Perhaps something like treating it as a misdemeanor with a punishment like a yellow card.managers would have to be careful about taking off a player having received a yellow card as it would turn into a red. Of course, this could be got round by feigning an injury and then bring some one a minute later.

As I say, I think it needs sorting but it does need a lot of thought.

COYS
 
Last edited:

dannythomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
3,338
#31
There,s definitely some merit here regarding last minute substitutions. Some of the flaws are possibly these.
1. Awarding 2 minutes for a substitution could then be used by a side chasing an equaliser up to an extra 6 minutes of additional time with carefully planned substitutions and take away the team ahead a tactical substitutions (which, of course, may be Spurs).
2. 30 minutes is a third of the match which would do little to stop those time wasting swaps in the final minutes including added on time.
3. It isn't directed solely at time wasting but punishes genuine substitutions.

The answer should lie in punishing the offence or offender. Perhaps something like treating it as a misdemeanor with a punishment like a yellow card.managers would have to be careful about taking off a player having received a yellow card as it would turn into a red. Of course, this could be got round by feigning an injury and then bring some one a minute later.

As I say, I think it needs sorting but it does need a lot of thought.

COYS

Yes it doesn't cover all situations but most teams who are losing will not wait until the final 30 minutes to make their substitutions.For sure it happens occasionally but I think the positives outweigh the negatives. And even if the subs are made in added time there should still be an extra 2 minutes added on . Even more relevant then I would say. If the losing team extend the play by making a late substitution I don't see anything wrong in that. In reality most of these substitutions are taking at least a minute anyway so it really would just reflect reality. Make it a minimum 1 minute added time if you like. At the moment it's just wasted time.
 

jamesinashby

Active Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
301
#32
Yes it doesn't cover all situations but most teams who are losing will not wait until the final 30 minutes to make their substitutions.For sure it happens occasionally but I think the positives outweigh the negatives. And even if the subs are made in added time there should still be an extra 2 minutes added on . Even more relevant then I would say. If the losing team extend the play by making a late substitution I don't see anything wrong in that. In reality most of these substitutions are taking at least a minute anyway so it really would just reflect reality. Make it a minimum 1 minute added time if you like. At the moment it's just wasted time.
If the the losing team were Spurs opponents putting us uder the cosh, who then gained an extra 4 or 6 minutes and got an equaliser or even worse a wnner, how wouldyou feel about that? They would have done it taking advantage of rulesto stop time wasting.
 

BPR_U16

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Messages
1,379
#34
No thanks do not see the need.

Believe would eventually lead to an ad break in each half.

Cannot see what is actually gained.
 

dannythomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
3,338
#35
If the the losing team were Spurs opponents putting us uder the cosh, who then gained an extra 4 or 6 minutes and got an equaliser or even worse a wnner, how wouldyou feel about that? They would have done it taking advantage of rulesto stop time wasting.
Well, as I said, it could be 1 minute per substitution which is probably the minimum it takes to get a substitution done anyway. I still think it's very unlikely that a losing team will have not made any substitutions going into the closing stages of a match. Maybe 2 minutes is too radical but I wouldn't see anything wrong with 6 extra minutes if there have been 6 subs in a match. There's nothing more irritating if your team is losing than seeing the other team make changes in or close to added time .

Yes of course it could work against us just as it could work for us. But so could any change made to the game including those already made to the game like no handling a back pass to the keeper and the changed interpretations of interfering with play in offside decisions. As one of the fittest teams in the League adding on extra minutes would probably work in our favour more often than not.
 

benny

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
300
#36
No thanks do not see the need.

Believe would eventually lead to an ad break in each half.

Cannot see what is actually gained.
Surely what's gained is consistency and fairness (by removing a source of possible bias / controversy)?

At the moment, if the stats are true, most games have an average of 30 mins of actual play but that can vary if there are lots of breaks in play, and/or if the the ref adds an incorrect amount of time.

To me it feels like it's worth trialing, either at youth levels or lower league / cup competitions to see how long it will typically take to complete a half of football, how much that varies and if there are any issues or benefits when implementing this.

Some of the counter arguments on here seems to focus on feeling shortchanged by getting less football, e.g. losing a total of 30mins of football from a game. But we are already getting short changed sometimes even more, so that seems like a perception issue rather than a real reason not to try it out.
 
Last edited:

benny

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
300
#37
Having said the above though, I'm not in favour of any more advertising during the game - I already find it annoying enough that people that pay very high subscriptions for watching football have to sit through many ad breaks throughout the match broadcast.
 

SambaSpurs

Active Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2013
Messages
185
#38
I just don't see the benefit really, currently we get an average of around 30mins playing time per match - I'm guessing 28-32mins is what it normally falls under? With the rule change you'd get a definite 30mins playing time per match... Is it really worth it? Especially when you consider the potential for teams to time waste in play more effectively by keeping the ball with the GK defence and defensive mid(s).

The thing that grates me most is the amount of injury stoppages these days, so many players are blatantly faking it. The 4th official should have his own stopwatch and make sure that any injury or substitution from the moment play is stopped until it begins again is added in it's entirety to the added time. Make this very clear and it should reduce the fake injuries and farcical subs. Teams would probably still do it to kill momentum but could be punished by facing a very nervy 7/8mins+ of added time where you normally see losing teams throwing the kitchen sink at it.

Going back to playing time per match, I think it would be cool if the Premier League just came out with something like - if the ball is out for more than 10mins in a game in your sides possession (not including subs and injuries as they 100% are added in entirety as above) then you have to pay £200,000 to the opposing teams affiliated charity(s). Then at least there would be some benefit to it and would maybe stop excessive time wasting.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
18,091
#39
It's definitely worth having the discussion as it highlights how much time is being lost during each match.
 

jamesinashby

Active Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
301
#40
I just don't see the benefit really, currently we get an average of around 30mins playing time per match - I'm guessing 28-32mins is what it normally falls under? With the rule change you'd get a definite 30mins playing time per match... Is it really worth it? Especially when you consider the potential for teams to time waste in play more effectively by keeping the ball with the GK defence and defensive mid(s).

The thing that grates me most is the amount of injury stoppages these days, so many players are blatantly faking it. The 4th official should have his own stopwatch and make sure that any injury or substitution from the moment play is stopped until it begins again is added in it's entirety to the added time. Make this very clear and it should reduce the fake injuries and farcical subs. Teams would probably still do it to kill momentum but could be punished by facing a very nervy 7/8mins+ of added time where you normally see losing teams throwing the kitchen sink at it.

Going back to playing time per match, I think it would be cool if the Premier League just came out with something like - if the ball is out for more than 10mins in a game in your sides possession (not including subs and injuries as they 100% are added in entirety as above) then you have to pay £200,000 to the opposing teams affiliated charity(s). Then at least there would be some benefit to it and would maybe stop excessive time wasting.
I would love all you say to be introduced. However, it would take a lo of evidence to prove to me it is not endemic because it is actually encouraged in some teams knowing there is no punishment for it. In my humble opinion, much of this type of behaviour is tantamount to cheating, but I can't seeing it being stopped as clubs seem to have more powers than those that run FIFA.

Just a thought

COYS
 
Top