|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jul 18, 2021 9:57:11 GMT
If you want to stop the clock just do it when a player goes down injured needing attention.
With regards the ball going out of play the rule is already clear, if someone time wastes book them, if the do it again book them and send them off. Just enforce it properly and it will go away…..
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Jul 18, 2021 10:00:11 GMT
These plans have got Wengers fingerprints all over them
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Jul 18, 2021 10:11:51 GMT
God help us with throw ins! I agree with the clock stopping though. And to a point the 5 minute suspension, although i can see some teams having multiple players off the pitch at the same time. It happened to South Africa in the recent rugby game between South Africa "A" and the British & Irish Lions. I suppose if it happens when you're playing against a good team, it could be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Jul 18, 2021 10:14:21 GMT
All worth trying except unlimited subs! Although kick-ins instead of of throw-ins would make my "Longthrow" t-shirt even more redundant! Just stopping the clock for me…the rest are a no go for me. Two 30 minute half’s ? So we are losing 30 minutes of what we paid for . Jog on FIFA. Why not just skip the tedium of the game and just have penalties?
|
|
|
Post by innocentbystander on Jul 18, 2021 10:19:02 GMT
Utter bollocks, aimed at making "soccer" more palatable for American TV = more money, and sod the fans.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 10:20:30 GMT
should be a time limit from the moment the ball is returned for say a throw or a corner to actually taking it. say 10 seconds. if not is awarded the other way.
FIFA try out loads of new ideas. Maybe 1 in 50 is enforced to some level. There was a rule a few years back that a throw in taker giving the ball to a team mate was a booking. I remember Jason Beckford being booked for us opening day of the season for doing it.
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Jul 18, 2021 10:22:51 GMT
Why not 3 30min periods?
|
|
|
Post by cheadlestokie on Jul 18, 2021 10:25:51 GMT
Seems to me that the American influence is becoming more and more prevalent.
My dad years ago said that we would end up playing the equivalent of five a side football. Tippy tappy stuff along the ground, no heading and no tackling.
I think if it leads to this they will be one supporter here that loses interest, not that the pwers that be could care less.
I do think a rugby like time keeper would be useful to take the responsibility of the ref.
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Jul 18, 2021 10:27:03 GMT
Why would anyone want a game of football reduced to 60 minutes? Exactly. One presumes it’s because they can’t manage the number of stoppages in play competently. It’s quite simple, just stop the clock the moment the ball goes dead. Again, Rugby Union doesn’t seem to have a problem with clock timing so just why is football so bloody backward? Is it because fundamentally it’s full of cheats and pansies?
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Jul 18, 2021 10:27:31 GMT
I don’t agree with it but I think the idea of the 30 minute halves with the clock stopping is because normal matches I think the ball is only in play for something like 28 minutes on average per half. Or something very similar. 30 mins a half doesn’t seem long enough, make it 40 with the clock stopping (and play until the ball goes out of play like in rugby union) and it could be interesting. Time wasting is a real problem, especially feigning injury to waste a few minutes as we saw so many players do at the Euros. Player needs "treatment", carryon playing and the player can be moved to sideline. Of course if they are obviously seriously injured, the game (and clock) are stopped. I think any player who is so "seriously crippled" that they cannot make their way to the sideline should be taken off the field for a minimum of 5 minutes for medical evaluation. Sorry, it's probably the rugby fan in me coming out, but really? Someone brushes against me and i have to roll around for 5 minutes in agony? Those players would probably be permanently disabled if they even saw a full-blooded rugby tackle happen within 50 yards of them.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Jul 18, 2021 10:29:34 GMT
or 10 x 9 minute periods? That way we can get lots of advert breaks on tv.
|
|
|
Post by yyy on Jul 18, 2021 10:29:49 GMT
They should trial scrapping ffp until stoke get back up
|
|
|
Post by chad on Jul 18, 2021 10:33:54 GMT
Footballs been played for 150 years with only limited changes. Stop fucking about before you ruin it completely
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 10:38:14 GMT
Rugby irrelevant.
I agree any player who goes off for treatment should stay off for a period of time. Say 2 minutes. Was a similar law supposedly enforced a while back.
|
|
|
Post by chamberlain on Jul 18, 2021 10:46:50 GMT
They fucked about with the offside rule so that they keep playing even when the guy is offside and he's the only one anywhere near the ball . Fucking clueless
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 10:52:26 GMT
The NASL had a 35 yard blue line for offside decisions and it worked well. Surprised was never trialled more in other leagues or competitions
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 11:02:25 GMT
I don’t really mind a stop the clock rule. I don’t see the need for anything else.
If the game went down to 60 minutes, would tickets and wages be reduced by 30% also? No.
|
|
|
Post by J-Roar on Jul 18, 2021 11:07:47 GMT
Why would anyone want a game of football reduced to 60 minutes? That's 60 mins in play time. We get about 20 at the minute
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Jul 18, 2021 11:09:25 GMT
The only thing they should be trialing is the use of VAR being used only to spot diving and play acting.
The game doesn’t need to be paused as the guilty player is sent off at the next natural break in play.
If an independent panel spot the above offences after the game, the match day VAR operator is suspended and the guilty player is suspended for 10 games.
That should stamp out this form of cheating over night.
All other VAR to be scrapped.
|
|
|
Post by tnbiscuitswithtone on Jul 18, 2021 11:10:23 GMT
The yanks wanted 3 30 minutes periods. years ago, it's so they sell more pies & beer during the breaks.
|
|
|
Post by tnbiscuitswithtone on Jul 18, 2021 11:10:36 GMT
The yanks wanted 3 30 minutes periods. years ago, it's so they sell more pies & beer during the breaks.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Jul 18, 2021 11:12:18 GMT
The yanks wanted 3 30 minutes periods. years ago, it's so they sell more pies & beer during the breaks. I seem to remember they also wanted posts and crossbars two feet wide so there would be loads of rebounds like in basketball.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 11:16:30 GMT
Why would anyone want a game of football reduced to 60 minutes? That's 60 mins in play time. We get about 20 at the minute Are you seriously suggesting that we only get 20 minutes play on average during a 90 minute football match?
|
|
|
Post by lordherefordsknob on Jul 18, 2021 11:23:00 GMT
The more I think about the “kick in” rule the more this would suit a Tony Pulis team rather than a wenger team.
Any kick from the halfway line will just get lumped into the box, just need to get 3 forwards the size of Peter Crouch.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Jul 18, 2021 11:30:58 GMT
Seems like FIFA just like meddling round the edges. I suppose it helps deflect attention from the serious issues that they seem keen to avoid. racism, cheating, corruption, playing a World Cup in Quatar etc So many 'initiatives' have failed or been scrapped due to inconsistent implementation, or because they were just ridiculous. Anyone remember the "walk the wall back" 10 yards if players showed dissent at the awarding of a free kick? Or leaving an "injured" player off the field for as long as he had delayed play? Saw that ONCE at Stoke. Or the booking of all the players who surround the ref...came back a little bit for Euros but wasn't really consistently used. The more rule changes they ring in the harder it is for officials to do their jobs properly, which will lead to greater use of technology...coincidence?
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 18, 2021 11:34:27 GMT
Kick ins instead of throw ins What makes fifa think this will be better Most of the over rated overpaid tossers can’t even take a decent corner
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 11:35:47 GMT
Whinger was banging on about abolishing throw-ins as far back as 2009, after he played against a certain team that his Arsenal pansies just couldn't defend against. The Guardian article at that time reckoned his proposal should have been "kicked in touch" - The bit about throw-ins is about half way down the article. Interesting to see that the Guardian reckon it might make the game even more like rugby as teams would effectively aim to win a thrown-in/kick-in further up the pitch by "kicking for position". Now he's in a position of influence at Fifa it looks like Whinger just might get his way. www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2009/dec/30/arsene-wenger-kickins-throwins#comment-7329118
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jul 18, 2021 11:37:12 GMT
Why would anyone want a game of football reduced to 60 minutes? But it's not though. On average, in professional football, the ball is in play for just UNDER 60 minutes, for the other 30 minutes the ball is dead. Therefore when a game kicks-off at 3pm on a Saturday it will finish at 4.45pm, save for any injury time (of course there won't be any injury time under the new rules). Under the new ruling, the game would kick off at 3pm, the ball would still be in play for 60 minutes and still be out of play for 30 minutes and would still finish at 4.45pm. It's exactly the same. Indeed, if the clock was to go for 90 minutes, then the match wouldn't finish until 5.15pm!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 11:43:38 GMT
Whinger was banging on about abolishing throw-ins as far back as 2009, after he played against a certain team that his Arsenal pansies just couldn't defend against. The Guardian article at that time reckoned his proposal should have been "kicked in touch" - The bit about throw-ins is about half way down the article. Interesting to see that the Guardian reckon it might make the game even more like rugby as teams would effectively aim to win a thrown-in/kick-in further up the pitch by "kicking for position". Now he's in a position of influence at Fifa it looks like Whinger just might get his way. www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2009/dec/30/arsene-wenger-kickins-throwins#comment-7329118After moaning re the throw in at our place, the following week they tried it in Europe. maybe he should have concentrated on his players trying to defend the thing rather than appeal for offside The kick in would never work. The 10 yard push back rule was nonsense. All this let's try rugby rule rubbish, stick to our own far more popular game.
|
|
|
Post by wakeypotter on Jul 18, 2021 12:03:44 GMT
Why would anyone want a game of football reduced to 60 minutes? But it's not though. On average, in professional football, the ball is in play for just UNDER 60 minutes, for the other 30 minutes the ball is dead. Therefore when a game kicks-off at 3pm on a Saturday it will finish at 4.45pm, save for any injury time (of course there won't be any injury time under the new rules). Under the new ruling, the game would kick off at 3pm, the ball would still be in play for 60 minutes and still be out of play for 30 minutes and would still finish at 4.45pm. It's exactly the same. Indeed, if the clock was to go for 90 minutes, then the match wouldn't finish until 5.15pm! So why change it then if it’s the same. Also what about games where the ball doesn’t go out that much
|
|