[Football] 60 minute games and a stopwatch

[Uh_huh_him]

The most important part of time-wasting is to stop the opponents gaining any momentum, not to just use up the clock.
I don't think it would eliminate time-wasting from the game.

 

[Saunders]

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.

A non contact sport is more physical than a contact sport...bullshit. Rugby and aussie rules introduced this without reducing the playtime.

 

[lawros left foot]

If the ref thinks a team is deliberately time wasting he should be able to award a corner to the opposing team.

As well as properly add on the time.

 

[Snowflake]

A non contact sport is more physical than a contact sport...bullshit. Rugby and aussie rules introduced this without reducing the playtime.

You clearly haven’t watched or understand basketball. It’s not non contact. Its 100% more physical than football and they don’t fall down and play act for 5 mins. Most likely because of the stopping clock.

 

[fly high]

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.

Ref should also be prepared to issue a 2nd yellow for time wasting, a few reds would make players think. Guess they would then just take it in turns like they do fouls.

 

[Deadly Danson]

I don't mind this but 2 things would stop this nonsense in its tracks - refs doing their jobs (and the easiest part of it at that) and one physio being allowed on as play continues. Head injuries especially would miraculously clear up if play doesn't stop.

 

[pornomagboy]

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

I have grown up a bit since then, I leave around 80 mins now with everyone else

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

 

[Swansman]

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.

What the **** are you on about?

First: The rules of football always changed, even more so in what you believe to be the glory days ("before TV", so I assume you refer to before 1927) and then pretty much throughout the years. I'm sure there were people horrified with the introductions of substitutes, yellow/red cards, introduction of the backpass rule, continued changes to the offside rule and so on.

Second: I don't like VAR and I don't want any of the other things you mention. If anything I want football to be more similar to what it used to be, and playing 60 minute games would help with that because I don't think the game was filled with diving, injury feigning primadonnas or honorless timewasters back in the day, though of course it existed to some extent.

 

[wellquickwoody]

What the **** are you on about?

First: The rules of football always changed, even more so in what you believe to be the glory days ("before TV", so I assume you refer to before 1927) and then pretty much throughout the years. I'm sure there were people horrified with the introductions of substitutes, yellow/red cards, introduction of the backpass rule, continued changes to the offside rule and so on.

Second: I don't like VAR and I don't want any of the other things you mention. If anything I want football to be more similar to what it used to be, and playing 60 minute games would help with that because I don't think the game was filled with diving, injury feigning primadonnas or honorless timewasters back in the day, though of course it existed to some extent.

I’m on about your support for an unnecessary change. You seem to believe that the current rules are not good enough, when they are, if implemented properly. Maybe we could have an xG number of minutes to add to your stats? Or percentage of time of something entirely irrelevant was happening? Just leave be, and play to the spirit of the laws.

 

[Swansman]

I’m on about your support for an unnecessary change. You seem to believe that the current rules are not good enough, when they are, if implemented properly. Maybe we could have an xG number of minutes to add to your stats? Or percentage of time of something entirely irrelevant was happening? Just leave be, and play to the spirit of the laws.

The rules have ALWAYS changed and no I don't think they're good enough if one of the main ways to win football games is to barely play football.

To you this might be unnecessary changes. I dont know why you are bringing up xG and stuff as this is about the amount of football played in football matches.

In what way is it a unnecessary change to remove the viability of the tactic "lets not play football for the last 30 minutes of a football game"?

 

[wellquickwoody]

In what way is it a unnecessary change to remove the viability of the tactic "lets not play football for the last 30 minutes of a football game"?

The rules already exist, they just need to be enforced. Persistent fouls should be met with cautions, and red cards if needed. Time wasting the same.

If a winning team takes a ball to the corner etc then it is the job of the other side to get the ball back. We do not need rule changes. TV and armchair fans might need another number to talk about though.

 

[Swansman]

The rules already exist, they just need to be enforced. Persistent fouls should be met with cautions, and red cards if needed. Time wasting the same.

If a winning team takes a ball to the corner etc then it is the job of the other side to get the ball back. We do not need rule changes. TV and armchair fans might need another number to talk about though.

There's no rule to prevent players pretending to get cramp every other minute or rolling around, exaggerating and extending injury breaks. No way of telling if it is genuine or time wasting, so it can't be penalised. How do you think that should be solved?

So if I understand it only people who watch football wants this while you who go to all the games like to see 50 minutes of football, the majority of them in the first half, and then sit around for the last 30 minutes watching the game end with an endless number of players crying, rolling around, faking injuries, 1 min goal kicks and what not?

You are scared of change and you think it makes you some genuine superfootyfan. It doesnt.

 

[wellquickwoody]

There's no rule to prevent players pretending to get cramp every other minute or rolling around, exaggerating and extending injury breaks. No way of telling if it is genuine or time wasting, so it can't be penalised. How do you think that should be solved?

Leave ‘em rolling around, it ain’t a head injury. If really injured they will be motionless, so remove them from the pitch.

 

[Swansman]

Leave ‘em rolling around, it ain’t a head injury. If really injured they will be motionless, so remove them from the pitch.

Are you suggesting a rule change where players can be removed on a stretcher while play is ongoing?

That would be a rule change. You must be some kind of American armchair fan who wants to have extra points on xG and splitting the game into four periods then I suppose? To use your own logic.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

Not a fan of a game clock but introducing a shot clock could make watching Potterball at the Amex slightly more bearable.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Are you suggesting a rule change where players can be removed on a stretcher while play is ongoing?

That would be a rule change. You must be some kind of American armchair fan who wants to have extra points on xG and splitting the game into four periods then I suppose? To use your own logic.

By my logic, if they are not rolling around then they are injured, not timewasting.

 

[Swansman]

By my logic, if they are not rolling around then they are injured, not timewasting.

Ok well I've seen plenty of players faking injuries without rolling around, definitely timewasting.

 

[drew]

The most important part of time-wasting is to stop the opponents gaining any momentum, not to just use up the clock.
I don't think it would eliminate time-wasting from the game.

Sorry, but I disagree. Time wasting is mainly about running down the clock to protect the position you are in at the time. Disrupting the flow of the game is a side effect.