|
Post by Not_Nick_H on Jul 19, 2021 11:30:54 GMT
All worth trying except unlimited subs! Although kick-ins instead of of throw-ins would make my "Longthrow" t-shirt even more redundant! Nonsense - it's a classic
|
|
|
Post by kentpotter on Jul 19, 2021 11:39:43 GMT
I played league Basketball in my prime and the stop clock idea is great. And, for those of you worried about 30 minute halves, I think you'll find that with a stop clock system the entire game may be well over ninety minutes and all of it actual play action, not watching rolling around being treated!!! Good point. Initially I was disappointed with any changes but that makes sense. The only issue would be in how this would translate to the grassroots sport. It's easy to enforce with a 4th official timekeeper. The beauty of football is it's relatability from the elite to the Sunday league. This is why VAR has to be phased out Don't grassroots officials have stop watches then? Can't be beyond the will of man to sort that one out surely??? "relatability"? You must be watching some top class Sunday League mar mate!
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 19, 2021 11:51:16 GMT
I played league Basketball in my prime and the stop clock idea is great. And, for those of you worried about 30 minute halves, I think you'll find that with a stop clock system the entire game may be well over ninety minutes and all of it actual play action, not watching rolling around being treated!!! Agreed. I'm sure some on this thread are moaning about being short changed by 60 minute games of football simply because they haven't read and understood the argument. Rugby is a prime example. It has two haves of 40 minutes each but games usually last longer than football games which have two haves of 45 minutes each. And the main reason is that the clock in rugby stops when the ball is not considered to be in play. I would imagine that if a "stopped clock" experiment was brought in, the authorities would be prepared to be flexible about the eventual number of minutes which would constitute a half. The idea would be to end up with a game which lasted around 90 minutes but with less wasted time than we get in many games at present. As to whether the stopped clock would work, I'm sure if players knew that the clock stopped immediately there was an injury (real or imagined) the length of time before some of them "recovered" would drop - especially if they adopted the rugby idea of continuing the game whilst the player was treated on the pitch! Subs for injuries where the sub could leave the pitch if/when the injured player recovered would also tend to keep the players "honest" - or at least more honest than they are at present. Similarly, time wasting late in the game could largely be eliminated if the players could see a stopped clock.
|
|
|
Post by kentpotter on Jul 19, 2021 12:01:15 GMT
I played league Basketball in my prime and the stop clock idea is great. And, for those of you worried about 30 minute halves, I think you'll find that with a stop clock system the entire game may be well over ninety minutes and all of it actual play action, not watching rolling around being treated!!! Agreed. I'm sure some on this thread are moaning about being short changed by 60 minute games of football simply because they haven't read and understood the argument. Rugby is a prime example. It has two haves of 40 minutes each but games usually last longer than football games which have two haves of 45 minutes each. And the main reason is that the clock in rugby stops when the ball is not considered to be in play. I would imagine that if a "stopped clock" experiment was brought in, the authorities would be prepared to be flexible about the eventual number of minutes which would constitute a half. The idea would be to end up with a game which lasted around 90 minutes but with less wasted time than we get in many games at present. As to whether the stopped clock would work, I'm sure if players knew that the clock stopped immediately there was an injury (real or imagined) the length of time before some of them "recovered" would drop - especially if they adopted the rugby idea of continuing the game whilst the player was treated on the pitch! Subs for injuries where the sub could leave the pitch if/when the injured player recovered would also tend to keep the players "honest" - or at least more honest than they are at present. Similarly, time wasting late in the game could largely be eliminated if the players could see a stopped clock. Absolutely spot on, they'll soon learn that whatever shithousery they get up to, they'll play the exact number of minutes regardless.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2021 12:10:24 GMT
Does anyone remember a game at Exeter...we were on the attack and their player was down on the edge of his own box. Was like a 2 on 2 attack. Their physio ran on without permission and the ref stopped the game and allowed him to see to their player then gave a drop ball. Was nuts.
Until refs allow play to go on if a player down injured unless obviously serious then makes it hard for them. A few players got wise during the Euros feigning head injuries when the replay showed no head contact at all. On the other hand we had a great spot by a ref of course that could have saved a player so a bit of a tough spot for them to be in. When do they know for sure?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2021 15:13:39 GMT
I played league Basketball in my prime and the stop clock idea is great. And, for those of you worried about 30 minute halves, I think you'll find that with a stop clock system the entire game may be well over ninety minutes and all of it actual play action, not watching rolling around being treated!!! Good point. Initially I was disappointed with any changes but that makes sense. The only issue would be in how this would translate to the grassroots sport. It's easy to enforce with a 4th official timekeeper. The beauty of football is it's relatability from the elite to the Sunday league. This is why VAR has to be phased out I'm not for these ideas, but its not exactly hard for a ref to press start on an x length half on his wrist watch, press pause when the ball is out, then press start again when its back in play. Or you could have the linesman do it.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 19, 2021 16:03:49 GMT
Good point. Initially I was disappointed with any changes but that makes sense. The only issue would be in how this would translate to the grassroots sport. It's easy to enforce with a 4th official timekeeper. The beauty of football is it's relatability from the elite to the Sunday league. This is why VAR has to be phased out I'm not for these ideas, but its not exactly hard for a ref to press start on an x length half on his wrist watch, press pause when the ball is out, then press start again when its back in play. Or you could have the linesman do it. Probably needs a digital stadium clock and some geezer in a darkened room doing that and nothing else. Like a cricket scoreboard
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2021 16:25:14 GMT
I'm not for these ideas, but its not exactly hard for a ref to press start on an x length half on his wrist watch, press pause when the ball is out, then press start again when its back in play. Or you could have the linesman do it. Probably needs a digital stadium clock and some geezer in a darkened room doing that and nothing else. Like a cricket scoreboard Why? Fine in the professional league, but its a bit overkill in the Sunday Leagues.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 19, 2021 16:37:41 GMT
Probably needs a digital stadium clock and some geezer in a darkened room doing that and nothing else. Like a cricket scoreboard Why? Fine in the professional league, but its a bit overkill in the Sunday Leagues. Well all amateur cricket clubs have a scoreboard, digital or manual. It easy isn’t it?🤷🏻♂️
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2021 16:52:10 GMT
Why? Fine in the professional league, but its a bit overkill in the Sunday Leagues. Well all amateur cricket clubs have a scoreboard, digital or manual. It easy isn’t it?🤷🏻♂️ Didn't know that. I just imagine that they are pretty costly and imposing an unnecessary additional cost on clubs in the current economic situation would perhaps be unfair.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 19, 2021 16:53:58 GMT
Well all amateur cricket clubs have a scoreboard, digital or manual. It easy isn’t it?🤷🏻♂️ Didn't know that. I just imagine that they are pretty costly and imposing an unnecessary additional cost on clubs in the current economic situation would perhaps be unfair. Possibly, although they’re not expensive
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jul 19, 2021 17:38:28 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! There's no way a game with a stopping clock would end by 4.45 imo. 30-minute halves with a stopping clock would turn into interminable stop-start affairs that would drag on and on, particularly towards the end of games. Teams would become experts in strategised "plays", with a series of plans to get the ball into areas they know are statistically the best for running down the time and getting to the next break in play. At which point they all regroup, go to the touchline for drinks, get back into their shape, whatever before play restarts. At least with a running clock there is some pressure to keep the game flowing and get on with things. I can't believe anyone thinks this idea would reduce time-wasting, it would make it drastically worse in my view. Also it doesn't address the fact that the amount of time the ball is in play varies a lot depending on the game and the teams involved, and that's the way it should be. Why should we limit an open, flowing game to strictly 60 minutes of play? Similarly why should we put the viewing public through any more of the tooth-pulling of an attritional game between two unadventurous sides than absolutely necessary?? Terrible idea for me.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Jul 19, 2021 18:10:20 GMT
Does anyone remember a game at Exeter...we were on the attack and their player was down on the edge of his own box. Was like a 2 on 2 attack. Their physio ran on without permission and the ref stopped the game and allowed him to see to their player then gave a drop ball. Was nuts. Until refs allow play to go on if a player down injured unless obviously serious then makes it hard for them. A few players got wise during the Euros feigning head injuries when the replay showed no head contact at all. On the other hand we had a great spot by a ref of course that could have saved a player so a bit of a tough spot for them to be in. When do they know for sure? The refs have to give what they see, which is why so many cheats prosper. Retro punishments, proper use of var, could and should deal with those feigning head injuries. It would be shameful if a ref had to decide if a player was cheating and allowed play to go on, only to find that said player was severely hurt. That shame would, imho, lay squarely at the feet of the cheats. It never ceases to amaze me that the PFA doesn't stand up stronger to cheats. All players are members (I believe) so the cheats are cheating their fellow PFA members...they just don't seem to get it. Same with the pundits who condone players going down at the slightest touch...cheating their fellow professionals
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jul 19, 2021 21:03:52 GMT
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! There's no way a game with a stopping clock would end by 4.45 imo. 30-minute halves with a stopping clock would turn into interminable stop-start affairs that would drag on and on, particularly towards the end of games. Teams would become experts in strategised "plays", with a series of plans to get the ball into areas they know are statistically the best for running down the time and getting to the next break in play. At which point they all regroup, go to the touchline for drinks, get back into their shape, whatever before play restarts. At least with a running clock there is some pressure to keep the game flowing and get on with things. I can't believe anyone thinks this idea would reduce time-wasting, it would make it drastically worse in my view. Also it doesn't address the fact that the amount of time the ball is in play varies a lot depending on the game and the teams involved, and that's the way it should be. Why should we limit an open, flowing game to strictly 60 minutes of play? Similarly why should we put the viewing public through any more of the tooth-pulling of an attritional game between two unadventurous sides than absolutely necessary?? Terrible idea for me. As I've already said ( oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/post/7223259/thread ), in a reply to a post similar to yours, earlier in the thread, I didn't suggest that I was an advocate of the change but rather, I simply explained, why it wouldn't reduce the game to 60 minutes in length.
|
|
|
Post by riccyfuller93 on Jul 19, 2021 21:20:36 GMT
The biggest sport in the world and people really want to change it.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jul 19, 2021 22:42:58 GMT
There's no way a game with a stopping clock would end by 4.45 imo. 30-minute halves with a stopping clock would turn into interminable stop-start affairs that would drag on and on, particularly towards the end of games. Teams would become experts in strategised "plays", with a series of plans to get the ball into areas they know are statistically the best for running down the time and getting to the next break in play. At which point they all regroup, go to the touchline for drinks, get back into their shape, whatever before play restarts. At least with a running clock there is some pressure to keep the game flowing and get on with things. I can't believe anyone thinks this idea would reduce time-wasting, it would make it drastically worse in my view. Also it doesn't address the fact that the amount of time the ball is in play varies a lot depending on the game and the teams involved, and that's the way it should be. Why should we limit an open, flowing game to strictly 60 minutes of play? Similarly why should we put the viewing public through any more of the tooth-pulling of an attritional game between two unadventurous sides than absolutely necessary?? Terrible idea for me. As I've already said ( oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/post/7223259/thread ), in a reply to a post similar to yours, earlier in the thread, I didn't suggest that I was an advocate of the change but rather, I simply explained, why it wouldn't reduce the game to 60 minutes in length. I know Paul I realise that, I was just latching onto your comment about timing and ended up making a more general point.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Jul 19, 2021 23:03:09 GMT
Good point. Initially I was disappointed with any changes but that makes sense. The only issue would be in how this would translate to the grassroots sport. It's easy to enforce with a 4th official timekeeper. The beauty of football is it's relatability from the elite to the Sunday league. This is why VAR has to be phased out Don't grassroots officials have stop watches then? Can't be beyond the will of man to sort that one out surely??? "relatability"? You must be watching some top class Sunday League mar mate! Any game I have been to in this country from high school up has a stop clock run by another official. It’s not complicated or expensive. the worrying part is this would give them the excuse to add times out for TV commercial, which is dreadful if you’re watching live because everyone is sitting around contemplating their navels.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jul 20, 2021 5:50:28 GMT
Anything that cuts this type of nonsense out of the game is good news…
|
|