2 x 45 minute halves to be scrapped ??

gordondaviesmoustache said:
There have been profound changes to the way play is managed in football in the last generation and the game is a better spectacle as a consequence.

From the outlawing of both tackles from behind and the back pass, through to a more stringent interpretation of what constitutes a foul. In my view at least, these measures have improved football as a spectator sport because they have rewarded skill and punished those who seek to stifle it.

I'd broadly agree with this suggested measure because it would diminish the benefit that teams derive from something that is, at the very least, unedifying and irritating to the neutral observer. At worst it is outright cheating. Moreover, the current system is both hopelessly inaccurate and manifestly arbitrary and therefore unfair and contrary to the wider interests of the game.

I suspect many of those who always bemoan change in the game would find nineteenth centrury football to be unwatchable. The notion that a sport cannot and will not change and evolve is absurd. It suggests that those who devised a particular game many decades ago were infallible and had god-like powers of prescience.

Some people simply don't like change, whatever form it takes.
Click to expand...

No i don't in this case. Why should i pay more for less football. This won't cure anything. Start flashing the yellow cards a bit quicker,
might hurry up time wasting bastards ;-)
 
Brightwells left peg said:
If the intention is to stop time wasting because it's bad, what's the point in deducting the time that the time wasters take (30 mins per game) from the get go, and making it at 60 mins game? Haven't you essentially 'reinforced' the 30 minutes time wasting doing this? I'm all for stopping the clock, but make it 70 or 80 minutes of 'in play'. Time wasters do it because they don't fancy their chances of holding out for 90 minutes. Reducing the game to 60 says "don't worry about reducing your exposure, we'll do that for you!"
Click to expand...
Exactly what I was thinking. This won't help increase the time the ball is in play, it will just enshrine the status quo, meaning the time wasters have won.

The proposal is to stop the clock for the following:
  • from a penalty being awarded to the spot-kick being taken
  • from a goal being scored until the match resumes from the kick-off
  • from asking an injured player if he requires treatment to play restarting
  • from the referee showing a yellow or red card to play resuming
  • from the signal of a substitution to play restarting
  • from a referee starting to pace a free-kick to when it is take
Surely they should be adding on time for most of that anyway. Maybe a reduction to 40 mins, but 30 mins is ridiculous. It simply doesn't change anything.
 
Allowing players pass to themselves when taking a free-kick is long overdue. It works really well in hockey and would speed the game up significantly.
 
its grim up north said:
Correct me if I am wrong but was there a rule, a good few years ago now, where the goalie had to get rid in a certain time or give away an indirect free kick. Did it work? Did it f**k. Last year refs were told to clamp down on wrestling in the area. Did it work? Same answer. In fact the refs that implimented it were ridiculed. Why do we think any of these new ideas will be enforced.
Click to expand...
Think it's still there the keeper if he has control of the ball in his hands has 6 seconds? to get rid.

It's was soon turned into more timewasting though as he'd usher everyone up the pitch then drop the ball to his feet meaning it was live.
 
If players were given a fixed amount of time to take a goal kick, corner or throw in, and they failed to deliver the ball into play in that time the goal kick becomes a corner, the corner becomes a goal kick and the throw in just changes hands. That would sort out the timewasters. Ten seconds would be enough. If yer can run 100yds in ten seconds that should be ample!
 
Did they say how much of the ball is in actual play? I like the idea after seeing players take 20 seconds to take a throw or pass it to another player for a throw in. Or goalies taking an age. We have been the victim of that against Jose a few times and West Ham last season the time wasting from the players and the fans holding the ball and we got nothing in injury time. I wouldn't be that opposed
 
Crouchinho said:
Did they say how much of the ball is in actual play? I like the idea after seeing players take 20 seconds to take a throw or pass it to another player for a throw in. Or goalies taking an age. We have been the victim of that against Jose a few times and West Ham last season the time wasting from the players and the fans holding the ball and we got nothing in injury time. I wouldn't be that opposed
Click to expand...

On average the ball is in play for 60 minutes during a 90 minute match. Hence why they are looking into 30 minute halves.
 
IH8MUFC said:
On average the ball is in play for 60 minutes during a 90 minute match. Hence why they are looking into 30 minute halves.
Click to expand...
What's the point then? It does nothing to eradicate the time wasting that currently blights the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.