30 Minutes Each Way ??

Discussion in 'General Football' started by Krule, Jun 18, 2017.

  1. werty

    werty Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    18,359
    Ratings Received:
    +7,972 / 121 / -23
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  2. jamesinashby

    jamesinashby Active Member

    Messages:
    211
    Ratings Received:
    +478 / 6 / -1
    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
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. worcestersauce

    worcestersauce "I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope

    Messages:
    15,211
    Ratings Received:
    +13,331 / 320 / -76
    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.
     
  4. DanielCHillier

    DanielCHillier Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,601
    Ratings Received:
    +3,113 / 76 / -14
    Sounds like basketball, and it's a terrible idea.
     
  5. nailsy

    nailsy SC Supporter

    Messages:
    16,095
    Ratings Received:
    +14,410 / 102 / -45
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. fortworthspur

    fortworthspur Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,759
    Ratings Received:
    +3,513 / 190 / -33
    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.
     
  7. riggi

    riggi Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    32,482
    Ratings Received:
    +41,169 / 723 / -154
    IMG_0878.JPG
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  8. EJWTartanSpur

    EJWTartanSpur SC Supporter

    Messages:
    3,628
    Ratings Received:
    +5,944 / 56 / -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.

    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
     
  9. dannythomas

    dannythomas Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,213
    Ratings Received:
    +1,704 / 151 / -42
    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.
     
  10. jamesinashby

    jamesinashby Active Member

    Messages:
    211
    Ratings Received:
    +478 / 6 / -1
    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: Jun 20, 2017
  11. dannythomas

    dannythomas Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,213
    Ratings Received:
    +1,704 / 151 / -42

    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.
     
  12. jamesinashby

    jamesinashby Active Member

    Messages:
    211
    Ratings Received:
    +478 / 6 / -1
    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.
     
  13. Ionman34

    Ionman34 SC Supporter

    Messages:
    4,641
    Ratings Received:
    +8,151 / 92 / -71
    This with bells on!

    It ain't broke so don't fix it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. BPR_U16

    BPR_U16 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,268
    Ratings Received:
    +1,244 / 54 / -22
    No thanks do not see the need.

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

    Cannot see what is actually gained.
     
  15. dannythomas

    dannythomas Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,213
    Ratings Received:
    +1,704 / 151 / -42
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. benny

    benny Active Member

    Messages:
    150
    Ratings Received:
    +389 / 3 / -0
    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: Jun 22, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. benny

    benny Active Member

    Messages:
    150
    Ratings Received:
    +389 / 3 / -0
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. SambaSpurs

    SambaSpurs Active Member

    Messages:
    161
    Ratings Received:
    +551 / 10 / -7
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. nailsy

    nailsy SC Supporter

    Messages:
    16,095
    Ratings Received:
    +14,410 / 102 / -45
    It's definitely worth having the discussion as it highlights how much time is being lost during each match.
     
  20. jamesinashby

    jamesinashby Active Member

    Messages:
    211
    Ratings Received:
    +478 / 6 / -1
    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
     

Share This Page