2 x 45 minute halves to be scrapped ??

[yerwot?]

Nothing and no-one is incapable of being improved. Predictably, any talk of change brings out the luddite tendency in some posters, it is perhaps a small-island mentality, but they have every right to their opinion.
Up to now, things happen on the pitch that are blatant cheating, from the so-called professional foul to mobbing the referee, players going to the far touch-line prior to being substituted then loitering across the pitch; feigning injury is getting more theatrical to the point of farce. A game clock would obviate most of the tactics that have only purpose which is to waste time, we see it all the time and it brings shame on the sport. As City fans know to their cost, " fergie time" was never a laughing matter unless you were part of the rag cheer-leader cadre masquerading as pundits. With a game clock it could not happen, which is why i expect the FA/prem to backheel it. There should be no need to set an arbitrary time of 30 minute per half, take away the point of time-wasting and the fans will get to see an extra 30 minutes of action.

 

[TonyM]

I've always struggled with the idea of a round ball. It's the distinct lack of angles that's ruined the game to date.

 

[Leto]

How about instead of this nonsense they actually punish time wasting properly? If the keepers that come to ours that like to take half a minute to take a goal kick got booked after doing it a couple of times they wouldn't be able to get away with doing it all game.

 

[BlueHammer85]

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.

good post

 

[SWP's back]

What's the point then? It does nothing to eradicate the time wasting that currently blights the game.

Because the ball can Be in play 55 minutes or less when a team wastes time.

The average for any game is 58-62 minutes. That's a normal game with two teams trying to play football.

 

[BlueHammer85]

i find most frustrating amount of time is when a team gets a 'dangerous' free kick outside the box

- player goes down from a innocuous challenge
- opposition players surround the ref that it was never a foul
- ref has a chat with the opposition players telling them to go away
- two free kick takers have a chat deciding who to shoot
- ref has a chat to the free kick taker and tells him to await the whistle
- the opposition wall is stood a few yards in front of the ball
- the ref moves the wall back 10 yards
- the ref has a chat to the whole of the wall
- the ref gets out his spray paint and draws a line in front of the wall
- the ref does a slow walk out the way and blows whistle


... free kick taker balloons it over the bar

 

[Dubai Blue]

Because the ball can Be in play 55 minutes or less when a team wastes time.

The average for any game is 58-62 minutes. That's a normal game with two teams trying to play football.

I'm all for the idea in principal, and the need for every game to be the same length. But I just think 60 mins is setting their sights a little too low.

 

[SWP's back]

I'm all for the idea in principal, and the need for every game to be the same length. But I just think 60 mins is setting their sights a little too low.

I feel ya. 35 mins would be better.

 

[Lancet Fluke]

Because the ball can Be in play 55 minutes or less when a team wastes time.

The average for any game is 58-62 minutes. That's a normal game with two teams trying to play football.

Below is something I posted on this subject about a year ago in terms of average minutes and how much of a difference there can be in games. If anyone thinks ball in play timing isn't necessary they need their head read imo. I said earlier in this thread, I think 32.5 or 35 mins a half would be better than 30 but standardizing the ball in play time is the main thing at this point because currently it's a farce.

Vaguely interesting article on it here, particularly for the following bit of info (from the 2013/14 season). A difference of nearly 27 minutes "ball in play" time between two matches that season. Scandalous IMO:

"Over the last three Premier League seasons the ball has been in play on average for 55 minutes 52 seconds, 56 minutes 22 seconds and 56 minutes 34 seconds respectively. That means over a third of the running time is lost in one way or another.
This season in the Premier League the most the ball was in play was in Swansea 1-3 Tottenham and that was for 67 minutes 37 seconds. At the other end Stoke fans may have enjoyed beating Aston Villa 2-1 but they saw only 40 minutes and 50 seconds of actual football"


https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/mar/11/breaking-the-law-injury-time-referees

 

[SWP's back]

Below is something I posted on this subject about a year ago in terms of average minutes and how much of a difference there can be in games. If anyone thinks ball in play timing isn't necessary they need their head read imo. I said earlier in this thread, I think 32.5 or 35 mins a half would be better than 30 but standardizing the ball in play time is the main thing at this point because currently it's a farce.

Christ! That's appalling. Ball in play for only 40 minutes!!!! That game should have been abandoned. It's disgraceful.

Average of 55 minutes does show that despite its detractors (and the fact that I agree two 35 minute halves would be preferable), two 30 minute timed halves would certainly not mean people are seeing less 'football'.