David Brent Posted August 21, 2017 Report Share Posted August 21, 2017 For those, like me, getting increasingly frustrated at time wasting and value for money. How would you feel about a proposed change from the current system to 30 minute halves with stoppages. The focus on this article is Premier League but it's the same in the championship and other leagues. Burnley vs West Brom had just 47 minutes of football. Premier League: Is time-wasting leaving fans short-changed?http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40993250 I'm keen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted August 21, 2017 Report Share Posted August 21, 2017 1 minute ago, David Brent said: For those, like me, getting increasingly frustrated at time wasting and value for money. How would you feel about a proposed change from the current system to 30 minute halves with stoppages. The focus on this article is Premier League but it's the same in the championship and other leagues. Burnley vs West Brom had just 47 minutes of football. Premier League: Is time-wasting leaving fans short-changed?http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40993250 I'm keen Rather have an independent time keeper who stops the clock when there are injuries , stoppages or time wasting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Brent Posted August 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said: Rather have an independent time keeper who stops the clock when there are injuries , stoppages or time wasting So the same principle but actually 90 minutes of football, not 60? You're right. I'd rather that too. Seems like the 60 minutes of football is a compromise. It should be 90 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted August 21, 2017 Report Share Posted August 21, 2017 12 minutes ago, David Brent said: So the same principle but actually 90 minutes of football, not 60? You're right. I'd rather that too. Seems like the 60 minutes of football is a compromise. It should be 90 minutes. Yes. - wouldn't quite be 90 minutes football but would eliminate the gain of time wasting and delays I don't mean stop the clock every time the ball goes out of play , only for undue delays , substitutions , injuries etc Would also give the referee one less thing to think about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miser Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 So you're meant to get 90 minutes of football, but because of time wasting you only get 60 minutes. So to eliminate time wasting games are reduced to 60 minutes - not sure this adds up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowshed Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 1 hour ago, David Brent said: For those, like me, getting increasingly frustrated at time wasting and value for money. How would you feel about a proposed change from the current system to 30 minute halves with stoppages. The focus on this article is Premier League but it's the same in the championship and other leagues. Burnley vs West Brom had just 47 minutes of football. Premier League: Is time-wasting leaving fans short-changed?http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40993250 I'm keen The low ball rolling time in the featured match is not down to timewasting its due to the tactics of the Managers. Any team Managed by Tony Pulis will see matches with the ball frequently out of play due to the emphasis on set plays. The article is also incorrect. Matches do feature higher ball rolling times than sixty minutes particularly matches featuring Arsenal = A team based on high possession. So fans of some teams would see less play. Leagues across Europe have very similar ball rolling times. Teams in each national league cannot all be wasting time at the same rates. The above is the game. A game of constant change and styles. It does not need to be altered. Referees already have enough powers to deal with time wasting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 90 minutes, walled edges or auto throw ins from a machine that detects which team kicked the ball out. Injured players must get off the pitch within 30 seconds assisted or not or face an instant red card. Instant play on and totally knackered players... Arghhh bless the overpaid munchkins. Crowd is delighted with non stop action. Simple when radical solutions are adopted. If not it will only get worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 6 hours ago, miser said: So you're meant to get 90 minutes of football, but because of time wasting you only get 60 minutes. So to eliminate time wasting games are reduced to 60 minutes - not sure this adds up? Is this a wind up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Isewater Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 When I was a poor student I could make a half last all night . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
You Do The Dziekanowski Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 Not sure if anyone else saw Eric Pieters on Saturday night, 1-0 up good ol' fashioned tackle goes in on him (ball won and defender subsequently went through Pieters as well) rolls on the floor a bit by the penalty box. Physios come on to help him up and walk off and instead of walking in a direct line off the pitch walked in a curve practically to the half way line! Just get off the f*cking pitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo88 Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 A proposal that only stops the clock if the ball is out of play ignores the fact that teams can easily waste time when the ball is in play by aimlessly passing the ball to each other with no intention of making progress. City used to play like this when SoD was manager (though not with the intention of wasting time) - e g endless passes sideways across the pitch between the back four. With matches consisting of only 30 minute halves, this type of time wasting would be just as easy, if not easier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berkshire Red Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 It works well at ice hockey. They stop the clock as soon as there's a stoppage in play so you're guaranteed 60 mins of action. Obviously the game is played in 3 periods of 20 mins with 15 between periods and the games do go on a long time. Usually 2 and half hours to get the 60 mins of play in. Obviously only having 1 half time would reduce this but then again you don't get players rolling around on the floor trying to get one another sent off etc so feel may not be feasible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 1 hour ago, pongo88 said: A proposal that only stops the clock if the ball is out of play ignores the fact that teams can easily waste time when the ball is in play by aimlessly passing the ball to each other with no intention of making progress. City used to play like this when SoD was manager (though not with the intention of wasting time) - e g endless passes sideways across the pitch between the back four. With matches consisting of only 30 minute halves, this type of time wasting would be just as easy, if not easier Don't see this as a problem. Basketball addresses this by not allowing teams back in own half after they pass half way This proposal ignores fact players would still 'waste time' in order to kill momentum of opposition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Skin Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 Yes, time wasting and 'gamesmanship' is really getting on my nerves too. I'd go for it but TV coverage would probably make a fuss. Guess they manage it in the US with American football though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowshed Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 6 minutes ago, Red Army Faction said: Yes, time wasting and 'gamesmanship' is really getting on my nerves too. I'd go for it but TV coverage would probably make a fuss. Guess they manage it in the US with American football though. Do you know how much time is lost via timewasting and gamesmanship in an average game? Where is their evidence? Across European leagues ball rolling times are very similar, a minute here or there difference. It goes beyond all statistical improbability that each league's teams can be more or less all wasting the same amounts of time via timewasting and gamesmanship. Spain does have more bookings but ball rolling time there is again similar. Goals to point ratios, home v away wins, slowly decreasing goals scored over decades .. its all starkly similar. In football at varying levels the ball will be out of play for 30 - 50% (age and ability related). This is due to the games natural ebb and flow. What this is people not liking the game. TV would love a shorter format, more adverts, more like the NFL ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shelts Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 5 hours ago, You Do The Dziekanowski said: Not sure if anyone else saw Eric Pieters on Saturday night, 1-0 up good ol' fashioned tackle goes in on him (ball won and defender subsequently went through Pieters as well) rolls on the floor a bit by the penalty box. Physios come on to help him up and walk off and instead of walking in a direct line off the pitch walked in a curve practically to the half way line! Just get off the f*cking pitch It was foul!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snufflelufagus Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 The time wasting thing thing could be used against a team twice. For example Team A are winning 1nil after 10mins. Upto approx 70mins they have taken all options of time wasting. Team B then score on 80 and 85 mins to take the lead. Now Team A benefit from their own time wasting as it is added on at the end............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Coach Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 Ah I don't know, only issue is if the clock stops, then I can guarantee FA/FIFA will bring in advertisements during that time. You can imagine it going like... G.Neville: Ohhhh, that was a messy tackle by David Luiz M.Tyler: The clock has stopped due to an injury, speaking of a messy tackle... new Andrex super soft toilet roll, be kind to your behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 Just knock 50% off my season ticket price and I won't mind so much about time wasting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanterne Rouge Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 Trouble is, if we`re playing a Warnock side and all stoppages are added on we`d be there till midnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBCFC Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Red Right Hand said: Trouble is, if we`re playing a Warnock side and all stoppages are added on we`d be there till midnight. The people who leave on what would normally be 85 minutes would miss almost all the game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trueredsupporter Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 21 hours ago, David Brent said: For those, like me, getting increasingly frustrated at time wasting and value for money. How would you feel about a proposed change from the current system to 30 minute halves with stoppages. The focus on this article is Premier League but it's the same in the championship and other leagues. Burnley vs West Brom had just 47 minutes of football. Premier League: Is time-wasting leaving fans short-changed?http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40993250 I'm keen So Burnley v West Brom there would be another 43 minutes extra time? Would there be extra time for the time lost in extra time?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.