Easy Changes to Improve the game.

[Betterdeedthan red]

The game doesn't stop for injuries unless the referee deems it to be serious. Game carries on and physio comes on to assess player as play continues. So sick of the current trend of fake head injuries and rolling around like they are majorly injured just to stop the game only to be up 20 seconds later to be running like bolt. The new trend of fake head injuries in the box to stop an attack is one that really winds me up.

I'm getting to the point I'd rather not go.
It just like paying a lot of money to watch over paid dickheads cheat

 

[Newman Noggs]

Lots of these suggestions are sensible but, please, never reduce the length of the game.

The fact that the ball is only in play for 60 minutes, or less, out of 90 at the moment, is the problem. You don't solve that by reducing the length of the game. It's a politician's trick that's just saving the time-wasters the bother of wasting 30 minutes, or 20 or even 10. Bizarre reasoning.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Lots of these suggestions are sensible but, please, never reduce the length of the game.

The fact that the ball is only in play for 60 minutes, or less, out of 90 at the moment, is the problem. You don't solve that by reducing the length of the game. It's a politician's trick that's just saving the time-wasters the bother of wasting 30 minutes, or 20 or even 10. Bizarre reasoning.

If you reduce the length of the game but stop clock whenever the ball is not in-play, we could get 10+ minutes more football than we get from the games with the most Ball-in-Play now.

 

[kippaxwarrior]

Get the ref and VAR mic'd up so the crowd and TV audience know exactly what's going on and what's being said.

Both codes of rugby and cricket do this now so why can't football do it?

A couple of years ago The Australian A-League mic'd up Jarred Gillet and VAR for a game so it can be easily done and it's a really interesting watch

 

[BrianW]

Train competent, unbiased refs who don't take bribes and are not influenced by the gambling industry.

 

[Newman Noggs]

If you reduce the length of the game but stop clock whenever the ball is not in-play, we could get 10+ minutes more football than we get from the games with the most Ball-in-Play now.

You could. But, in my view, that's not the point. The ball is not in play for 90 minutes now because of all the delays and time-wasting . If we get 10 minutes more, you are still only getting, say, 70 minutes which means you've still lost 20 minutes from a 90 minute game. That's better admittedly, but still capitulation to the time-wasters.

The answer is easy. Either the refs do a decent job of adding on the wasted time, as they did in the world cup, or the matter is taken out of their hands altogether and given to a third party timekeeper. Either way the game is, and always has been 45 minutes each way. The players would soon get the message as they did in the World Cup.

Incidentally, I played Sunday League for 25 years and we had to go fetch the ball from canals, ditches, far away pitches and we never had a problem playing 45 minutes each way or any complaints about time lost. Even accepting it was a shit level, I can't see why, with ball-boys, multi-balls and the money in the game, there should be any reason to reduce the length of the game.

 

[supercity88]

Refs should but the don't and I don't suppose they ever will consider time being wasted until they get past 80mins. If you ask any fan I am certain they would consider it No1 for refs to jump on - from the first half-minute, whole-minute goal kick and throw in!

Why did we get so much time added on at the WC and have so little in the PL? The difference has an odoriferous whiff abuot it!

The World Cup started with long periods of added time but that then decreased. Was that due to teams not time wasting as much, as they knew it wouldn't succeed? Or was it due to broadcasters saying "get the game finished, we've got other programmes to fit in"?

Right now refs don't do enough on time wasting, but they could. Rugby has a clock because set piece situations would otherwise kill the game. The scrums for example eat up so much time, and they need to have that stop clock accordingly. In football you shouldn't need it. Refs should be booking for time wasting, warning captains about it and acting. If they did it would soon stop.

 

[Stephen230]

Lots of these suggestions are sensible but, please, never reduce the length of the game.

The fact that the ball is only in play for 60 minutes, or less, out of 90 at the moment, is the problem. You don't solve that by reducing the length of the game. It's a politician's trick that's just saving the time-wasters the bother of wasting 30 minutes, or 20 or even 10. Bizarre reasoning.

It’s important to remember that when 90 minutes was settled on as the length of a game of football over 150 years ago, it was never the intention that the ball was going to be in play for the whole time. It’s widely thought by football historians that 90 minutes from first whistle until last carried on for about 25 years until an Aston Villa goalkeeper decided to deliberately kick the ball out of the ground with a couple of minutes left and by the time it was retrieved, time was up. So injury time was born. But taking a reasonable amount of time to restart the game after a stoppage has always been incorporated into the 90 minutes.

That said, time wasting has become a curse of the game and the authorities have shown a desire to try and combat it. Making players leave the field after an “injury” was an admirable attempt to reduce fake injuries. But I think it’s time that was scrapped, as it’s just used to slowly hobble off and waste even more time.

I think we’re definitely slowly heading towards at least an experiment with a stop clock. And I’m all in favour. How long they decide on is debatable. But there’s no need to come up with a figure that is then cast in stone. They can play about with it in minor leagues and youth football until they find the time that best fits the original idea of a 90 minute game including reasonable stoppages.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

The World Cup started with long periods of added time but that then decreased. Was that due to teams not time wasting as much, as they knew it wouldn't succeed? Or was it due to broadcasters saying "get the game finished, we've got other programmes to fit in"?

Right now refs don't do enough on time wasting, but they could. Rugby has a clock because set piece situations would otherwise kill the game. The scrums for example eat up so much time, and they need to have that stop clock accordingly. In football you shouldn't need it. Refs should be booking for time wasting, warning captains about it and acting. If they did it would soon stop.

If the PL ever had the good fortune of having me on the PiGMOL list the first game I had I'd be in the dressing room telling the teams that the first fucker who attempts to waste a second will be booked, and that includes dawdling off when yer've been subbed. I think the clock should be stopped for goal kicks and throw ins. We never seem to get anything approaching the time we've seen being wasted by every fuckin' goalie who turns up at The Etihad, and we never seem to have a definitive statement as to where and why we end up with what the fourth official deems to be a minimum. VAR and the clock are two ways of which I have the utmost suspicion! The notion of 'added time' is a construct that keeps the timekeeping in the hands of the officials with a good deal of mystery added.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Train competent, unbiased refs who don't take bribes and are not influenced by the gambling industry.

I think we might need to add the word 'articulate, erudite and masterly use of precise English' to yer competent and unbiased. I suspect Lee Mason is monosyllabic and Atwell is struggling with his initial ABC!