[Football] 60 minute games and a stopwatch

[pornomagboy]

being looked, can't believe the ball is only in play on average 55 mins a game

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/footbal...ay&at_medium=custom7&at_custom2=facebook_page

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

 

[beorhthelm]

cant we just stop faffing around with the game. if there's to be rule changes, need to focus on actual cheating like diving, harrashing the ref, not stopping the clock every thrown in and corner.

 

[Swansman]

cant we just stop faffing around with the game. if there's to be rule changes, need to focus on actual cheating like diving, harrashing the ref, not stopping the clock every thrown in and corner.

Been "faffed around with" since it was invented.

This is a real solution to the problem. Pretty much anything else can be worked around... eg tell refs to punish timewasters harder and we'll only see more injury feigning.

 

[drew]

Why does it have to be 60 minutes? Game should be 90 and is only less because cheaters have been allowed to get away with it for so long. I'm all for independent time keepers but not to reduce the game to 60 minutes.

 

[Sue1983]

Why does it have to be 60 minutes? Game should be 90 and is only less because cheaters have been allowed to get away with it for so long. I'm all for independent time keepers but not to reduce the game to 60 minutes.

This.

 

[GT49er]

Why does it have to be 60 minutes? Game should be 90 and is only less because cheaters have been allowed to get away with it for so long. I'm all for independent time keepers but not to reduce the game to 60 minutes.

You don't get 60 minutes now!
If the game lasted for 60 minutes of the ball in play the game would last longer than most do now - most games only have 50 something minutes of the ball in play now.
Absolutely no valid arguements against - and it would give the fourth officia something to do that would make his match fee approach somethng like value for money.

 

[rogersix]

You don't get 60 minutes now!
If the game lasted for 60 minutes of the ball in play the game would last longer than most do now - most games only have 50 something minutes of the ball in play now.
Absolutely no valid arguements against - and it would give the fourth officia something to do that would make his match fee approach somethng like value for money.

there's no arguing with this!

 

[um bongo molongo]

No one’s asking the important question. This would effectively elongate games by around 5 mins. What would happen with our famous early leaver problem?

 

[GT49er]

No one’s asking the important question. This would effectively elongate games by around 5 mins. What would happen with our famous early leaver problem?

Given that the fourth official's task would still be a lot of money for relatively f-all, maybe he/she/it/a bit of both could be required to sound an extra hooter after, say, 50 minutes real-time play?

 

[Doonhamer7]

I think this is a great idea

 

[Wozza]

https://www.northstandchat.com/show...-to-60-minutes-with-ball-in-play-time-keeping

 

[Beach Hut]

being looked, can't believe the ball is only in play on average 55 mins a game

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/footbal...ay&at_medium=custom7&at_custom2=facebook_page

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

I thought you only watched first halves when we were 2-0 down but then won the game

 

[drew]

You don't get 60 minutes now!
If the game lasted for 60 minutes of the ball in play the game would last longer than most do now - most games only have 50 something minutes of the ball in play now.
Absolutely no valid arguements against - and it would give the fourth officia something to do that would make his match fee approach somethng like value for money.

Fine, give in then!

Absolutely fatuous to suggest there are no arguments against. There is, the effing game is supposed to be 90 minutes. I would suggest in the past (70s and 80s) games lasted longer than the average 55 minutes now being touted! The top teams would just love this as it would mean they can protect their precious assets. Keep the game at 90 and we'll see a few more errors creeping in. I'm not advocating stopping the clock for every single throw in or free kick but when there are injuries, the clock is stopped. Refs should enforce the 6 second rule for keepers to release the ball once they have it under control, including when they theatrically gather the ball and then fall forward. Refs could be retrained to learn when keepers are taking the piss out of them when taking goal kicks. Book players for time wasting whether it is in the 10th minute or the 90th!

 

[Snowflake]

If it was a stopped clock game. 90 minutes is going to be too long.

As someone that referees basketball. Which is technically 40 mins. It’s normally a minimum 80 mins until the final whistle and can occasionally be up to 2hrs. Depending on how messy it gets. It’s a lot more physical than football.

Personally I like the idea.

 

[GT49er]

Fine, give in then!

Absolutely fatuous to suggest there are no arguments against. There is, the effing game is supposed to be 90 minutes. I would suggest in the past (70s and 80s) games lasted longer than the average 55 minutes now being touted! The top teams would just love this as it would mean they can protect their precious assets. Keep the game at 90 and we'll see a few more errors creeping in. I'm not advocating stopping the clock for every single throw in or free kick but when there are injuries, the clock is stopped. Refs should enforce the 6 second rule for keepers to release the ball once they have it under control, including when they theatrically gather the ball and then fall forward. Refs could be retrained to learn when keepers are taking the piss out of them when taking goal kicks. Book players for time wasting whether it is in the 10th minute or the 90th!

So when play stops, the clock stops. Exactly - and we get longer than 90 minutes per game. Sorted.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Been "faffed around with" since it was invented.
.

Not as often, and in such a meaningful way as it has been in recent years. Yes, things can be improved but the deep lying rules and ethics of the game should not be changed.

Of course to people like yourself football did not exist before TV, and therefore the saviour that is wall to wall coverage should be the yardstick by which the entertainment industry should be judged. Perhaps we need quarters and more ad breaks, maybe headline music acts before and after every game. In fact, let’s just hold these events in a TV studio with an invite only audience being paid to espouse their expert knowledge. Perhaps every 20 minutes we could have a player eviction as chosen by the audience? Maybe managers could learn new ways to get their tactical nouse across to the team, maybe by doing a mime that can then be judged and goals awarded as seen fit?

Alternatively we could throw the TV friendly ethos of VAR out, along with armchair fans with no real affinity to the real game, and allow a physical contest between 11 players on each side with a very limited number of subs allowed? But you probably wouldn’t like that I guess.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

One of the real reasons teams time waste is to take the flow out of the game and dampen down momentum. This won't stop that at all. It's a no from me

 

[Timbo]

It’ll never happen. Changes would have to be across the board and I can’t see it working at Waterhall on a Sunday morning.

 

[El Turi]

Referees need to be stronger. How many times do you see them warn the keeper several times about time wasting before giving a token yellow card in the 90th minute. If teams are taking the piss (eg Aston Villa at the Amex this season or Real Madrid the other day) then the referee should add on 10+ minutes.

 

[HastingsSeagull]

Agree 100% with bringing this in. Also 100% with it not being 60 mins but 70 or 80. It’s only pro games the ball is in play 55 mins. I’m going to try and get our assistant coach to compile some data here for my own (and NSC’s interest). Nothing official and the level is rather low so not relevant to pro-game in UK.