What's new

30 Minutes Each Way ??

werty

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2005
25,074
26,310
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

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
465
985
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
Jan 23, 2006
26,894
45,042
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.
 

DanielCHillier

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2014
2,034
4,029
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.
Sounds like basketball, and it's a terrible idea.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
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
Nov 12, 2007
11,244
17,536
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.
 

riggi

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2008
48,487
104,720
IMG_0878.JPG
 

EJWTartanSpur

SC Supporter
Jan 29, 2011
4,805
10,087
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
May 17, 2004
3,757
2,813
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

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
465
985
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
May 17, 2004
3,757
2,813
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

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
465
985
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
Jun 28, 2006
1,783
2,603
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
May 17, 2004
3,757
2,813
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.
 

SambaSpurs

Well-Known Member
Jun 30, 2013
422
2,024
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
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
It's definitely worth having the discussion as it highlights how much time is being lost during each match.
 

jamesinashby

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
465
985
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
 

Dougal

Staff
Jun 4, 2004
60,346
129,922
I apologise if this subject has been raised before (couldn't find it in a search).
Interesting stat from Burnley and West Brom and a fair point raised....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40993250

With the amount of admission fees these days then it would be nice to know you will see full value for your cash every game. So one hour of guaranteed play as opposed to the standard 90 minutes plus injury time...what's your view ?
It was you who started the thread...
 
Top