Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] Should half time be extended to 30 minutes?

15 or 30?

  • 15

    Votes: 168 93.9%
  • 30

    Votes: 11 6.1%

  • Total voters
    179




Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Nov 15, 2008
31,765
Brighton
My halftime routine is to stretch my legs and wait for the second half to start. Most games I can't even check the other games on my phone because so many people are trying the same thing resulting in poor wifi connection.
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 11, 2003
59,208
The Fatherland
What’s wrong HT, bloody restart getting in the way of your fine dining in 1901?

In short yes, we were really up against it yesterday. The amount of food we had to get through yesterday was quite overwhelming; something surely has to give?
 


The Large One

Who's Next?
Jul 7, 2003
52,343
97.2FM
I wish we could go back to 10 minutes: I much preferred that.

Quite. When it was extended from 10 to 15 minutes, that was purely at the request of the TV companies. The managers and players never wanted it; indeed some managers stated that they can say all they need to say in 10 minutes.

Anyone who wants anything longer than 15 minutes is only doing so for their own selfish needs, and not taking the players into account at all.
 


raymondo

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2017
5,386
Wiltshire
On a similar subject I'd prefer to have say 30 minutes each half of real play: the clock stopped when the ball is dead. Benefit? No arguments or stress about time wasting and the crowd can see the remaining time up on the clock. Drawbacks?? Some I eхpect 🤔, over to you
 




Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 11, 2003
59,208
The Fatherland
Anyone who wants anything longer than 15 minutes is only doing so for their own selfish needs, and not taking the players into account at all.

A bit harsh. 30 minutes might actually benefit the players? Do any of us really know?
 


sydney

tinky ****in winky
Jul 11, 2003
17,737
town full of eejits
In the modern game 15 doesn’t seem enough. Will 30 minutes ensure you can do your HT stuff and not miss the restart?

are you talking about spectators or players .....15 extra minutes is another pint so you'll end up needing another piss before the end , 30 minutes too long for players as they will cool down and run the risk of strains etc .......15 minute is enough imo.
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 11, 2003
59,208
The Fatherland
Anyone who wants anything longer than 15 minutes is only doing so for their own selfish needs, and not taking the players into account at all.

To the contrary. I’ve just done some googling and if player-care is of primary concern there should be no break in football since the risk of injury has been shown to be greater just after half-time. If you must have a break then sufficient time should be set aside to warm-up again. The current 15 minutes typically involves 3-4 getting off and then back on the pitch, tactical discussion, tending to injury and equipment issues etc; no time is usually given over to preventing the body cooling down. 30 minutes could therefore benefit players.
 




portlock seagull

Why? Why us?
Jul 28, 2003
16,981
Hmmm, you can stuff your Americanisation of football says this dinosaur who also preferred cricket when teams wore whites and the supporters didn’t chant football songs :smile:

Very suprised you missed the suggestion to break the game into four quarters in your money quest.

Sorry Ice, you took the bait. I’d ban everything at half time except bovril and waggon wheels. And even then they’d need to be past sell buy date.
 


METALMICKY

Well-known member
Jan 30, 2004
5,935
Besides have a piss I never do anything at half time, 15 minutes is plenty for me.

And therein lies the issue! The number of people who don't wash their hands after taking a leak is pretty disgusting. If an acceptable number did follow basic hygiene there might acually be a good non football related reason to extend half time.
 










Raleigh Chopper

New member
Sep 1, 2011
12,054
Plymouth
I have never understood why so many people need to drink and eat at half time, as it's only 15 minutes, it makes the queues ridiculous and the service is often slow.
But I have been saying for years it should be 30 minutes.
Make the service much better, more people will buy stuff with enough time to do it, which means more money for the club.
It's always been a yes from me.
 




Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 11, 2003
59,208
The Fatherland
Is this your way of saying you need more time to drink your champagne HT?

:wink:

Not at all. Just an observation of fellow supporters all rushing around at half time.
 




BN9 BHA

DOCKERS
NSC Patreon
Jul 14, 2013
21,455
Newhaven
We could have an hour for half time and some of the kiosks at the Amex still wouldn't cope with serving fans that just want a pint.
 






Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 11, 2003
73,383
West west west Sussex
Why don't be have 2x7.5 minutes of football either side of a 90 minute halftime?
 





Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here