[Football] Trials to shorten football matches to 60 minutes with ball-in-play time keeping

[Shropshire Seagull]

I quite like the idea of it.

Yes, there will still need to be a "get on with it" in circumstances where play is overly slowed [no conference before a goal-kick is taken].
Has potential to mess with spectator travel arrangements, but that's not insurmountable.
My guess would be that it will take out deliberate time-wasting, so good.

Many on here will know my game is cricket.
We won't ever see the return of the timeless tests - in their day, the greatest "test" of human endurance, tactics & technique in the game of cricket.
But teams, from international down to clubs playing park cricket in the local leagues all know how many overs duration the game is and the required number of overs-per-hour expected.
And with a total hours of play parameter - breaches come with fines.

So, 30 mins in play each half, 15 mins half time and penalties [fines not spot-kicks] for both clubs if the game goes beyond e.g. 110 minutes total elapsed duration with no good reason [floodlight failure, crowd issue, serious injury]
In can, and should, be made to work.

It's a big fat YES from me ....

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Fair enough.

Flow disruption?

I like it.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

If we have a 60 minute game with the clock stopping and starting, when does the clock stop and restart?

Stops when the ball is dead. (out of play or a foul has been committed)
Restarts when the ball is kicked/thrown.

Throwins, would stop players kicking the ball away and then getting it only for the guy on the other side of the pitch to stroll over to take it.
Corners, same as above.
Free kicks, same again.
Goal kicks. Goalie calls over team mates for a short pass, only to then send them forwards.

None of this would happen. The clock wouldn't have restarted in any of those situations.

 

[dazzer6666]

Next stop: 15 minute quarters, coaches timeouts and additional advertising breaks. No thanks. Just apply the rules.

Whilst I’d like time wasting reduced, this is the potential issue for me…….clock stops for a minimum specified period (say 30s), TV immediately switches to an advert etc etc. Thin end of the wedge perhaps.

 

[m@goo]

I keep telling them, award a point for every goal scored!

 

[GT49er]

hmmm....

I think I am coming round, the only issue is my probably misconceived idea "our" game is being eroded.
However if i think about it, the game has been constantly evolving and has done ever since it's conception and most for the better. So I think I am sold actually, just one more question, how would extra time work ?

What extra time? There wouldn't be any - a hooter (or bell or whatever) would signal the end of 60 minutes of ball in play (30 minutes for half time). Game instantly over.

 

[pasty]

What extra time? There wouldn't be any - a hooter (or bell or whatever) would signal the end of 60 minutes of ball in play (30 minutes for half time). Game instantly over.

Think he might have meant e/t in cup matches after a draw?

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I would put it this way, to those who seem to think this would be more complicated.

Imagine football was currently played with the stop/start clock. Ball not in play? Clock stopped.

Then Fifa announce: "we are actually thinking of changing how we play football. So we are going to extend the game by 30 minutes but the clock won't EVER stop.......but don't you worry! The referee is in charge of keeping track of ALL the times he/she feels that something is taking a bit too long. Sure, we haven't actually stated how long every single out-of-play action should take, so there is no ACTUAL guidance, but we trust the referee to make sure it's accounted for correctly and THEN what they will do is....and you'll love this bit.....they will ADD all of that combined time at the end of the game BUT they won't actually tell you how long needs to be played.....they will just tell you a MINIMUM amount of time that the game needs to go on for. Sure, the fans have NO IDEA when the game is going to end and SURE time wasting could take place in extra time to confuse matters further, but we see this as MUCH more sensible than the current system of everyone in the ground clearly knowing how long is left to play".

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Think he might have meant e/t in cup matches after a draw?

10 minutes each way with the same stop/start system.

2/3 of the time currently used (same as 60 mins compared to 90 mins)

 

[The Albion Roar]

159 years of the Laws being perfectly satisfactory - and a committee which needs to justify its existence suggests something which is only an issue because the authorities won't enforce the Laws properly.

Bag o'shite.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Less time watching dross and more time drinking

Sent from my SM-A326B using Tapatalk

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

159 years of the Laws being perfectly satisfactory - and a committee which needs to justify its existence suggests something which is only an issue because the authorities won't enforce the Laws properly.

Bag o'shite.

What's the laws on how long a throw in, goal kick and corner should take?

Or the law on how long it should take for a free kick to be taken after the foul has occurred?

All things a winning team can extend if they wish.

 

[GT49er]

The sanctions already exist to penalise players for time-wasting. The question that needs answering is why our referees don't impose those penalties to their fullest extent.

Start booking, and then sending off, players who timewaste and the penny won't take long to drop.

The fake head injuries would stop if there was a compulsory off field HIA check (akin to the egg chasing regime) and I would wager that avenue of cheating would stop pretty smartish too.

I think the time-keeping should be done independently of the referee who records when time is being wasted and for genuine and faked injuries and that official (not a bloody referee on a day off) determines the "added time".

No need to lose a third of the game if there are a couple of tweaks to the existing rules.

Genuine or faked injuries is irrelevant in this context. If the referee stops play, the clock stops running until play is restarted, end of. And of course, if the ref thinks you're shamming play just goes on whie you writhe round screaming your head off - if your team-mates decide to kick it out of play, the clock stops. No way of getting round it - clock won't start until the kick (of whatever sort) or throw in is taken.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I don't think you need to book players for timewasting. Referees just need to add the time. Timewasting in football, like all cheating, exists because it works.

Ref's have failed to add time correctly for years, which we know as it's highly (and increasingly prevalent)

If they haven't thus far, they won't any time soon, so the decision needs to be taken out of the hands.

I cast another vote for "Give timekeeping responsibility to and external official who stops the clock whenever the ball is out of play" The fans and players can see exactly how much time is left.

Bookings still have a role to play though for instances, where people are play acting etc, not to waste time, which is now impossible, but to catch a breather, or weaken the momentum of another team. This is ungentlemanly conduct.

 

[GT49er]

Think he might have meant e/t in cup matches after a draw?

Ah yes, I can see that as a possible meaning.

10 minutes each way with the same stop/start system.

2/3 of the time currently used (same as 60 mins compared to 90 mins)

......... and that is exactly the solution.

 

[Washie]

159 years of the Laws being perfectly satisfactory - and a committee which needs to justify its existence suggests something which is only an issue because the authorities won't enforce the Laws properly.

Bag o'shite.

Lots of the laws have changed since then. The game constantly evolves. I'm all for this if done correctly.

 

[Psychobilly freakout]

159 years of the Laws being perfectly satisfactory - and a committee which needs to justify its existence suggests something which is only an issue because the authorities won't enforce the Laws properly.

Bag o'shite.

1869 Goal kicks were first introduced in 1869, allowing goalies to waste as much as 30 seconds at a time with impunity.


1872 The first corner kicks were taken

1878 The first time a referee used a whistle to control the game.

1891 Believe it or not, there was no center referee until 1891. Before then, two umpires, one for each team, officiated the game. The first referees merely stayed on the side lines and were “referred” to if the umpires didn’t agree.

1902 After 11 years of allowing penalty kicks to be taken anywhere along a 12-yard line, the penalty spot was created in 1902. This change coincided with the introduction of the 18-yard box as well as the six-yard box. Originally, the six-yard box was a semi-circle, similar to what’s found around the net in hockey.

1912 Lawmakers decided goalkeepers shouldn’t be able to handle the ball wherever they like, so in 1912 it was decided goalies could only use their hands in the 18-yard box.

1920 The rules were changed so that players could not be offside on a throw-in.

1981 Three points was introduced in England in 1981, but did not attract much use elsewhere until it was used in the 1994 World Cup finals

1992 In an attempt to increase scoring, FIFA changed the offside rule to allow the offensive player to be onside if he was even with the second-to-last defender (goalie typically being the last defender).

1998 IFAB made one final tweak before the end of the millennium to prevent injuries and cynical play. In 1998 referees were instructed to view violent tackles from behind as red-card offenses.

2013 Goal-line technology was launched in 2013 at the start of the English Premier League season. England uses the system for matches in the Premier League, FA Cup and at Wembley to determine whether the ball has crossed the line for a goal.

2019 VAR was introduced to the Premier League.

Nope feck all

 

[Pavilionaire]

I think timewasting is one of the biggest bugbears for fans. Not only that, in no other sport do the protagonists look like such a bunch of cheating prima donnas as football. Commentators and pundits alike have normalised cheating to the extent many fans criticise their team if they don't participate in "the dark arts".

For me 90 minutes is sacrosanct, it enables us to compare the present with the past and the future. I think they should employ a timekeeper who stops the clock the moment for goal celebrations, injuries, substitutions, cards and warnings to players.

Lastly, what I would love to see is a countdown when the keeper has the ball to ensure that they do not exceed their allocated time of 6 seconds for controlling the ball with arm /hands. The abolition of the traditional passback was a huge plus for the game, and an enforced hurry-up with keepers would do the same now.

 

[Swansman]

159 years of the Laws being perfectly satisfactory - and a committee which needs to justify its existence suggests something which is only an issue because the authorities won't enforce the Laws properly.

Bag o'shite.

If they were satisfactory then why have they changed constantly since then?

Or do you suggest a return to those rules - no crossbar, you can catch the ball with your hands, no corners, no substitutions... Hell, the rules didnt even say that a game is 90 minutes, so what are you moaning about?

 

[McTavish]

159 years of the Laws being perfectly satisfactory - and a committee which needs to justify its existence suggests something which is only an issue because the authorities won't enforce the Laws properly.

Bag o'shite.

Really? Have you read the 1863 rules? The laws have been constantly developed (always by commitees).

Or do you want to get rid of crossbars and return to the fair catch?