I think it's a terrible idea. It will create confusion, move the elite sport even further away from grassroots football, make games last much longer (why hurry to take a free kick, ever?), make the game more Americanised and away from its origins, cause lengthy breaks in the game, and make the game more appealing to television viewers and less appealing for live crowds (as the tv viewers will have greater access to information on timing data).
For all these reasons, I expect it to be adopted, very soon.
You're simply making game lengths 60mins and stopping the clock if the ball goes out of play. How will it create confusion? Ball in play, clock ticks on, ball out of play, clock stops. I think a 5yr old could grasp that concept.
Game length could be longer but could also be shorter depending on how long the ball is in play for. You'd hurry to take a FK because it could gain you an advantage, no different to how it is now. Same with throws, corners or goal kicks.
Why would it cause lengthy breaks? They're surely less likely as teams who are trying to run down the clock know they now can't. Faking injuries, leaving throws for other players, keepers dicking around swapping sides for goal kicks. It takes all that away. If teams are deliberately doing it to break the momentum of another team, out comes the yellow cards.
Let me exaggerate the point in order to make it. What's to stop a player taking half an hour over a throw, if he has teammates trying to run off injuries?
Yellow cards for time wasting become yellow cards for delaying restarts?
I think it's a terrible idea. It will create confusion, move the elite sport even further away from grassroots football, make games last much longer (why hurry to take a free kick, ever?), make the game more Americanised and away from its origins, cause lengthy breaks in the game, and make the game more appealing to television viewers and less appealing for live crowds (as the tv viewers will have greater access to information on timing data).
For all these reasons, I expect it to be adopted, very soon.
You're simply making game lengths 60mins and stopping the clock if the ball goes out of play. How will it create confusion? Ball in play, clock ticks on, ball out of play, clock stops. I think a 5yr old could grasp that concept.
Game length could be longer but could also be shorter depending on how long the ball is in play for. You'd hurry to take a FK because it could gain you an advantage, no different to how it is now. Same with throws, corners or goal kicks.
Why would it cause lengthy breaks? They're surely less likely as teams who are trying to run down the clock know they now can't. Faking injuries, leaving throws for other players, keepers dicking around swapping sides for goal kicks. It takes all that away. If teams are deliberately doing it to break the momentum of another team, out comes the yellow cards.
Let me exaggerate the point in order to make it. What's to stop a player taking half an hour over a throw, if he has teammates trying to run off injuries?
Yellow cards for time wasting become yellow cards for delaying restarts?
So, the game would have to be changed, dramatically, in order to prevent time wasting, which already carries sanctions of cards, but then different offences are used, that carry the same sanctions?
And, if a player is booked for taking thirty minutes, would they get booked for taking fifteen? Or ten? Or two? Or one? And would teams and fans know how long players can take?
I timed at Saturdays Stockport game in the second half the subs, stoppages for injuries and times it at 6 mins 45 seconds. We played 7 mins. If there was a goal I would have timed the celebrations where every player seems to run to the furthest part of the ground these days which is ridiculous. Ipswich goals the main game in recent weeks.
I think it's a terrible idea. It will create confusion, move the elite sport even further away from grassroots football, make games last much longer (why hurry to take a free kick, ever?), make the game more Americanised and away from its origins, cause lengthy breaks in the game, and make the game more appealing to television viewers and less appealing for live crowds (as the tv viewers will have greater access to information on timing data).
For all these reasons, I expect it to be adopted, very soon.
You're simply making game lengths 60mins and stopping the clock if the ball goes out of play. How will it create confusion? Ball in play, clock ticks on, ball out of play, clock stops. I think a 5yr old could grasp that concept.
Game length could be longer but could also be shorter depending on how long the ball is in play for. You'd hurry to take a FK because it could gain you an advantage, no different to how it is now. Same with throws, corners or goal kicks.
Why would it cause lengthy breaks? They're surely less likely as teams who are trying to run down the clock know they now can't. Faking injuries, leaving throws for other players, keepers dicking around swapping sides for goal kicks. It takes all that away. If teams are deliberately doing it to break the momentum of another team, out comes the yellow cards.
Let me exaggerate the point in order to make it. What's to stop a player taking half an hour over a throw, if he has teammates trying to run off injuries?
Yellow cards for time wasting become yellow cards for delaying restarts?
So, the game would have to be changed, dramatically, in order to prevent time wasting, which already carries sanctions of cards, but then different offences are used, that carry the same sanctions?
And, if a player is booked for taking thirty minutes, would they get booked for taking fifteen? Or ten? Or two? Or one? And would teams and fans know how long players can take?
(If not, then what have we fixed?)
Not really a dramatic change though is it?
Now: Ball goes out for a throw, player takes too long to take throw, player gets booked for time wasting.
Proposed: Ball goes out for a throw, clock stopped, player takes too long to take throw, player gets booked for delaying restart.
Same applies for corners, goal kicks, injuries.
What you fix is time wasting. I could be wrong but there is no set amount of time to take a throw, down to judgement of the ref. This wouldn't be any different.
Players don't care about receiving yellow cards for time wasting. They'll earn the 10 quid for the fine in the time they've wasted and the opposition will rarely get it back.
I think it's a terrible idea. It will create confusion, move the elite sport even further away from grassroots football, make games last much longer (why hurry to take a free kick, ever?), make the game more Americanised and away from its origins, cause lengthy breaks in the game, and make the game more appealing to television viewers and less appealing for live crowds (as the tv viewers will have greater access to information on timing data).
For all these reasons, I expect it to be adopted, very soon.
You're simply making game lengths 60mins and stopping the clock if the ball goes out of play. How will it create confusion? Ball in play, clock ticks on, ball out of play, clock stops. I think a 5yr old could grasp that concept.
Game length could be longer but could also be shorter depending on how long the ball is in play for. You'd hurry to take a FK because it could gain you an advantage, no different to how it is now. Same with throws, corners or goal kicks.
Why would it cause lengthy breaks? They're surely less likely as teams who are trying to run down the clock know they now can't. Faking injuries, leaving throws for other players, keepers dicking around swapping sides for goal kicks. It takes all that away. If teams are deliberately doing it to break the momentum of another team, out comes the yellow cards.
Let me exaggerate the point in order to make it. What's to stop a player taking half an hour over a throw, if he has teammates trying to run off injuries?
or simply to stop the opposition if they are building a bit of momentum
I think it's a terrible idea. It will create confusion, move the elite sport even further away from grassroots football, make games last much longer (why hurry to take a free kick, ever?), make the game more Americanised and away from its origins, cause lengthy breaks in the game, and make the game more appealing to television viewers and less appealing for live crowds (as the tv viewers will have greater access to information on timing data).
For all these reasons, I expect it to be adopted, very soon.
You're simply making game lengths 60mins and stopping the clock if the ball goes out of play. How will it create confusion? Ball in play, clock ticks on, ball out of play, clock stops. I think a 5yr old could grasp that concept.
Game length could be longer but could also be shorter depending on how long the ball is in play for. You'd hurry to take a FK because it could gain you an advantage, no different to how it is now. Same with throws, corners or goal kicks.
Why would it cause lengthy breaks? They're surely less likely as teams who are trying to run down the clock know they now can't. Faking injuries, leaving throws for other players, keepers dicking around swapping sides for goal kicks. It takes all that away. If teams are deliberately doing it to break the momentum of another team, out comes the yellow cards.
Let me exaggerate the point in order to make it. What's to stop a player taking half an hour over a throw, if he has teammates trying to run off injuries?
Yellow cards for time wasting become yellow cards for delaying restarts?
So, the game would have to be changed, dramatically, in order to prevent time wasting, which already carries sanctions of cards, but then different offences are used, that carry the same sanctions?
And, if a player is booked for taking thirty minutes, would they get booked for taking fifteen? Or ten? Or two? Or one? And would teams and fans know how long players can take?
(If not, then what have we fixed?)
ridiculous comments, there should be a time limit on taking restarts, a player breaks the limit, he's booked, he continues to delay, he's sent off .. in Rugby Union for example, the time allowed to take penalties is clocked, once the clock 'goes red', the penalty is disallowed .. football just needs to get stricter on time wasting a k a cheating .. I'd also like to see every instance of a player kicking or throwing the ball away to prevent a restart receiving a yellow, if that becomes a red card, tough
I think it's a terrible idea. It will create confusion, move the elite sport even further away from grassroots football, make games last much longer (why hurry to take a free kick, ever?), make the game more Americanised and away from its origins, cause lengthy breaks in the game, and make the game more appealing to television viewers and less appealing for live crowds (as the tv viewers will have greater access to information on timing data).
For all these reasons, I expect it to be adopted, very soon.
You're simply making game lengths 60mins and stopping the clock if the ball goes out of play. How will it create confusion? Ball in play, clock ticks on, ball out of play, clock stops. I think a 5yr old could grasp that concept.
Game length could be longer but could also be shorter depending on how long the ball is in play for. You'd hurry to take a FK because it could gain you an advantage, no different to how it is now. Same with throws, corners or goal kicks.
Why would it cause lengthy breaks? They're surely less likely as teams who are trying to run down the clock know they now can't. Faking injuries, leaving throws for other players, keepers dicking around swapping sides for goal kicks. It takes all that away. If teams are deliberately doing it to break the momentum of another team, out comes the yellow cards.
Let me exaggerate the point in order to make it. What's to stop a player taking half an hour over a throw, if he has teammates trying to run off injuries?
Yellow cards for time wasting become yellow cards for delaying restarts?
So, the game would have to be changed, dramatically, in order to prevent time wasting, which already carries sanctions of cards, but then different offences are used, that carry the same sanctions?
And, if a player is booked for taking thirty minutes, would they get booked for taking fifteen? Or ten? Or two? Or one? And would teams and fans know how long players can take?
(If not, then what have we fixed?)
Not really a dramatic change though is it?
Now: Ball goes out for a throw, player takes too long to take throw, player gets booked for time wasting.
Proposed: Ball goes out for a throw, clock stopped, player takes too long to take throw, player gets booked for delaying restart.
Same applies for corners, goal kicks, injuries.
What you fix is time wasting. I could be wrong but there is no set amount of time to take a throw, down to judgement of the ref. This wouldn't be any different.
Players don't care about receiving yellow cards for time wasting. They'll earn the 10 quid for the fine in the time they've wasted and the opposition will rarely get it back.
The 'dramatic change' I referred to is the change from 90 minutes (which has been the length of football matches for the last 155 years) to however-long-a-stop-start-60-minute-game-would-be.
If changing this fundamental area of the game (ie its duration) is supposed to 'fix' a problem of 'time-wasting' and ends up not doing so because players find other ways, then it's a terrible fix.
I am all for solving problems. But I don't think that 'time-wasting' is a significant enough problem to be fixed by making such a dramatic change to the game.
VAR is designed to ensure decisions are accurate and sanctions are handed out properly. VAR has changed what the result would have been had it not been in place.
Goal-line technology is designed accurately to confirm whether the ball has crossed the line and that a goal can be awarded. Goal-line technology has changed what the result would have been had it not been in place.
Are there many - or, indeed, any - results which would have gone differently if this big chance had been implemented?
I think it's a terrible idea. It will create confusion, move the elite sport even further away from grassroots football, make games last much longer (why hurry to take a free kick, ever?), make the game more Americanised and away from its origins, cause lengthy breaks in the game, and make the game more appealing to television viewers and less appealing for live crowds (as the tv viewers will have greater access to information on timing data).
For all these reasons, I expect it to be adopted, very soon.
You're simply making game lengths 60mins and stopping the clock if the ball goes out of play. How will it create confusion? Ball in play, clock ticks on, ball out of play, clock stops. I think a 5yr old could grasp that concept.
Game length could be longer but could also be shorter depending on how long the ball is in play for. You'd hurry to take a FK because it could gain you an advantage, no different to how it is now. Same with throws, corners or goal kicks.
Why would it cause lengthy breaks? They're surely less likely as teams who are trying to run down the clock know they now can't. Faking injuries, leaving throws for other players, keepers dicking around swapping sides for goal kicks. It takes all that away. If teams are deliberately doing it to break the momentum of another team, out comes the yellow cards.
Let me exaggerate the point in order to make it. What's to stop a player taking half an hour over a throw, if he has teammates trying to run off injuries?
Yellow cards for time wasting become yellow cards for delaying restarts?
So, the game would have to be changed, dramatically, in order to prevent time wasting, which already carries sanctions of cards, but then different offences are used, that carry the same sanctions?
And, if a player is booked for taking thirty minutes, would they get booked for taking fifteen? Or ten? Or two? Or one? And would teams and fans know how long players can take?
(If not, then what have we fixed?)
Not really a dramatic change though is it?
Now: Ball goes out for a throw, player takes too long to take throw, player gets booked for time wasting.
Proposed: Ball goes out for a throw, clock stopped, player takes too long to take throw, player gets booked for delaying restart.
Same applies for corners, goal kicks, injuries.
What you fix is time wasting. I could be wrong but there is no set amount of time to take a throw, down to judgement of the ref. This wouldn't be any different.
Players don't care about receiving yellow cards for time wasting. They'll earn the 10 quid for the fine in the time they've wasted and the opposition will rarely get it back.
The 'dramatic change' I referred to is the change from 90 minutes (which has been the length of football matches for the last 155 years) to however-long-a-stop-start-60-minute-game-would-be.
If changing this fundamental area of the game (ie its duration) is supposed to 'fix' a problem of 'time-wasting' and ends up not doing so because players find other ways, then it's a terrible fix.
I am all for solving problems. But I don't think that 'time-wasting' is a significant enough problem to be fixed by making such a dramatic change to the game.
VAR is designed to ensure decisions are accurate and sanctions are handed out properly. VAR has changed what the result would have been had it not been in place.
Goal-line technology is designed accurately to confirm whether the ball has crossed the line and that a goal can be awarded. Goal-line technology has changed what the result would have been had it not been in place.
Are there many - or, indeed, any - results which would have gone differently if this big chance had been implemented?
Why would the game be any more stop / start than it is now?
How are players going to waste time if the clock is stopped when the ball is not in play?
Why does it have to solve a problem, why can't it be simply to improve the game?
I think it's a terrible idea. It will create confusion, move the elite sport even further away from grassroots football, make games last much longer (why hurry to take a free kick, ever?), make the game more Americanised and away from its origins, cause lengthy breaks in the game, and make the game more appealing to television viewers and less appealing for live crowds (as the tv viewers will have greater access to information on timing data).
For all these reasons, I expect it to be adopted, very soon.
You're simply making game lengths 60mins and stopping the clock if the ball goes out of play. How will it create confusion? Ball in play, clock ticks on, ball out of play, clock stops. I think a 5yr old could grasp that concept.
Game length could be longer but could also be shorter depending on how long the ball is in play for. You'd hurry to take a FK because it could gain you an advantage, no different to how it is now. Same with throws, corners or goal kicks.
Why would it cause lengthy breaks? They're surely less likely as teams who are trying to run down the clock know they now can't. Faking injuries, leaving throws for other players, keepers dicking around swapping sides for goal kicks. It takes all that away. If teams are deliberately doing it to break the momentum of another team, out comes the yellow cards.
Let me exaggerate the point in order to make it. What's to stop a player taking half an hour over a throw, if he has teammates trying to run off injuries?
or simply to stop the opposition if they are building a bit of momentum
But players would still be shown a yellow (or even a red in the case of a second yellow) for wasting time in such circumstances. Managers, coaches and subs are currently given cards when the ball isn't in play so there is absolutely nothing preventing a Ref from doing the same to a player or official, on the pitch or otherwise, deliberately deemed to be acting in such a manner.
For example, a sub might, under the current system, deliberately kick a ball away when it goes into touch in order to stop the momentum in play. The same goes for feigning injuries and it is refreshing, in this respect, to see how in the last year, the directive has been to wave play on - we've seen far less rolling about in this World Cup for that very reason because the player looks an absolute idiot when he has to jump up and run back after doing so.
So the player would receive a yellow card for time wasting whether the ball is in play or not. The only difference is that the Ref won't have to guess how many seconds to add at the end of the game for time wasting - as opposed to a time keeper, under the new system, doing it to the second.
I think it's a terrible idea. It will create confusion, move the elite sport even further away from grassroots football, make games last much longer (why hurry to take a free kick, ever?), make the game more Americanised and away from its origins, cause lengthy breaks in the game, and make the game more appealing to television viewers and less appealing for live crowds (as the tv viewers will have greater access to information on timing data).
For all these reasons, I expect it to be adopted, very soon.
You're simply making game lengths 60mins and stopping the clock if the ball goes out of play. How will it create confusion? Ball in play, clock ticks on, ball out of play, clock stops. I think a 5yr old could grasp that concept.
Game length could be longer but could also be shorter depending on how long the ball is in play for. You'd hurry to take a FK because it could gain you an advantage, no different to how it is now. Same with throws, corners or goal kicks.
Why would it cause lengthy breaks? They're surely less likely as teams who are trying to run down the clock know they now can't. Faking injuries, leaving throws for other players, keepers dicking around swapping sides for goal kicks. It takes all that away. If teams are deliberately doing it to break the momentum of another team, out comes the yellow cards.
Let me exaggerate the point in order to make it. What's to stop a player taking half an hour over a throw, if he has teammates trying to run off injuries?
Yellow cards for time wasting become yellow cards for delaying restarts?
So, the game would have to be changed, dramatically, in order to prevent time wasting, which already carries sanctions of cards, but then different offences are used, that carry the same sanctions?
And, if a player is booked for taking thirty minutes, would they get booked for taking fifteen? Or ten? Or two? Or one? And would teams and fans know how long players can take?
(If not, then what have we fixed?)
Not really a dramatic change though is it?
Now: Ball goes out for a throw, player takes too long to take throw, player gets booked for time wasting.
Proposed: Ball goes out for a throw, clock stopped, player takes too long to take throw, player gets booked for delaying restart.
Same applies for corners, goal kicks, injuries.
What you fix is time wasting. I could be wrong but there is no set amount of time to take a throw, down to judgement of the ref. This wouldn't be any different.
Players don't care about receiving yellow cards for time wasting. They'll earn the 10 quid for the fine in the time they've wasted and the opposition will rarely get it back.
The 'dramatic change' I referred to is the change from 90 minutes (which has been the length of football matches for the last 155 years) to however-long-a-stop-start-60-minute-game-would-be.
If changing this fundamental area of the game (ie its duration) is supposed to 'fix' a problem of 'time-wasting' and ends up not doing so because players find other ways, then it's a terrible fix.
I am all for solving problems. But I don't think that 'time-wasting' is a significant enough problem to be fixed by making such a dramatic change to the game.
VAR is designed to ensure decisions are accurate and sanctions are handed out properly. VAR has changed what the result would have been had it not been in place.
Goal-line technology is designed accurately to confirm whether the ball has crossed the line and that a goal can be awarded. Goal-line technology has changed what the result would have been had it not been in place.
Are there many - or, indeed, any - results which would have gone differently if this big chance had been implemented?
Why would the game be any more stop / start than it is now?
How are players going to waste time if the clock is stopped when the ball is not in play?
Why does it have to solve a problem, why can't it be simply to improve the game?
I would suggest that, if it doesn't solve a problem, then it's not required.
I think it's a terrible idea. It will create confusion, move the elite sport even further away from grassroots football, make games last much longer (why hurry to take a free kick, ever?), make the game more Americanised and away from its origins, cause lengthy breaks in the game, and make the game more appealing to television viewers and less appealing for live crowds (as the tv viewers will have greater access to information on timing data).
For all these reasons, I expect it to be adopted, very soon.
You're simply making game lengths 60mins and stopping the clock if the ball goes out of play. How will it create confusion? Ball in play, clock ticks on, ball out of play, clock stops. I think a 5yr old could grasp that concept.
Game length could be longer but could also be shorter depending on how long the ball is in play for. You'd hurry to take a FK because it could gain you an advantage, no different to how it is now. Same with throws, corners or goal kicks.
Why would it cause lengthy breaks? They're surely less likely as teams who are trying to run down the clock know they now can't. Faking injuries, leaving throws for other players, keepers dicking around swapping sides for goal kicks. It takes all that away. If teams are deliberately doing it to break the momentum of another team, out comes the yellow cards.
Let me exaggerate the point in order to make it. What's to stop a player taking half an hour over a throw, if he has teammates trying to run off injuries?
Yellow cards for time wasting become yellow cards for delaying restarts?
So, the game would have to be changed, dramatically, in order to prevent time wasting, which already carries sanctions of cards, but then different offences are used, that carry the same sanctions?
And, if a player is booked for taking thirty minutes, would they get booked for taking fifteen? Or ten? Or two? Or one? And would teams and fans know how long players can take?
(If not, then what have we fixed?)
Not really a dramatic change though is it?
Now: Ball goes out for a throw, player takes too long to take throw, player gets booked for time wasting.
Proposed: Ball goes out for a throw, clock stopped, player takes too long to take throw, player gets booked for delaying restart.
Same applies for corners, goal kicks, injuries.
What you fix is time wasting. I could be wrong but there is no set amount of time to take a throw, down to judgement of the ref. This wouldn't be any different.
Players don't care about receiving yellow cards for time wasting. They'll earn the 10 quid for the fine in the time they've wasted and the opposition will rarely get it back.
The 'dramatic change' I referred to is the change from 90 minutes (which has been the length of football matches for the last 155 years) to however-long-a-stop-start-60-minute-game-would-be.
If changing this fundamental area of the game (ie its duration) is supposed to 'fix' a problem of 'time-wasting' and ends up not doing so because players find other ways, then it's a terrible fix.
I am all for solving problems. But I don't think that 'time-wasting' is a significant enough problem to be fixed by making such a dramatic change to the game.
VAR is designed to ensure decisions are accurate and sanctions are handed out properly. VAR has changed what the result would have been had it not been in place.
Goal-line technology is designed accurately to confirm whether the ball has crossed the line and that a goal can be awarded. Goal-line technology has changed what the result would have been had it not been in place.
Are there many - or, indeed, any - results which would have gone differently if this big chance had been implemented?
Why would the game be any more stop / start than it is now?
How are players going to waste time if the clock is stopped when the ball is not in play?
Why does it have to solve a problem, why can't it be simply to improve the game?
I would suggest that, if it doesn't solve a problem, then it's not required.
It solves the problem of time wasting. There you go. Required.
I think it's a terrible idea. It will create confusion, move the elite sport even further away from grassroots football, make games last much longer (why hurry to take a free kick, ever?), make the game more Americanised and away from its origins, cause lengthy breaks in the game, and make the game more appealing to television viewers and less appealing for live crowds (as the tv viewers will have greater access to information on timing data).
For all these reasons, I expect it to be adopted, very soon.
You're simply making game lengths 60mins and stopping the clock if the ball goes out of play. How will it create confusion? Ball in play, clock ticks on, ball out of play, clock stops. I think a 5yr old could grasp that concept.
Game length could be longer but could also be shorter depending on how long the ball is in play for. You'd hurry to take a FK because it could gain you an advantage, no different to how it is now. Same with throws, corners or goal kicks.
Why would it cause lengthy breaks? They're surely less likely as teams who are trying to run down the clock know they now can't. Faking injuries, leaving throws for other players, keepers dicking around swapping sides for goal kicks. It takes all that away. If teams are deliberately doing it to break the momentum of another team, out comes the yellow cards.
Let me exaggerate the point in order to make it. What's to stop a player taking half an hour over a throw, if he has teammates trying to run off injuries?
Yellow cards for time wasting become yellow cards for delaying restarts?
So, the game would have to be changed, dramatically, in order to prevent time wasting, which already carries sanctions of cards, but then different offences are used, that carry the same sanctions?
And, if a player is booked for taking thirty minutes, would they get booked for taking fifteen? Or ten? Or two? Or one? And would teams and fans know how long players can take?
(If not, then what have we fixed?)
Not really a dramatic change though is it?
Now: Ball goes out for a throw, player takes too long to take throw, player gets booked for time wasting.
Proposed: Ball goes out for a throw, clock stopped, player takes too long to take throw, player gets booked for delaying restart.
Same applies for corners, goal kicks, injuries.
What you fix is time wasting. I could be wrong but there is no set amount of time to take a throw, down to judgement of the ref. This wouldn't be any different.
Players don't care about receiving yellow cards for time wasting. They'll earn the 10 quid for the fine in the time they've wasted and the opposition will rarely get it back.
The 'dramatic change' I referred to is the change from 90 minutes (which has been the length of football matches for the last 155 years) to however-long-a-stop-start-60-minute-game-would-be.
If changing this fundamental area of the game (ie its duration) is supposed to 'fix' a problem of 'time-wasting' and ends up not doing so because players find other ways, then it's a terrible fix.
I am all for solving problems. But I don't think that 'time-wasting' is a significant enough problem to be fixed by making such a dramatic change to the game.
VAR is designed to ensure decisions are accurate and sanctions are handed out properly. VAR has changed what the result would have been had it not been in place.
Goal-line technology is designed accurately to confirm whether the ball has crossed the line and that a goal can be awarded. Goal-line technology has changed what the result would have been had it not been in place.
Are there many - or, indeed, any - results which would have gone differently if this big chance had been implemented?
Why would the game be any more stop / start than it is now?
How are players going to waste time if the clock is stopped when the ball is not in play?
Why does it have to solve a problem, why can't it be simply to improve the game?
I would suggest that, if it doesn't solve a problem, then it's not required.
It solves the problem of time wasting. There you go. Required.
Surley an easier way of dealing with time wasting is refs being consistent in dealing with it?
You don't need to fundamentally change the game because the refs/governing body/competition organisers won't deal with it.
They need a clock for all the time wasting every goalkeeper does week in wee out and they continually get away with it until they go behind then the decide to get a move on. The law should change to allow just 10 seconds to take the kick once they have the ball. Makes my blood boil.
Just like the 6 second for a keeper to release the ball law has been strictly implemented since it’s introduction.
Sometimes I am standing behind a linesman counting up. I got to 26 seconds at Oldham this season and he still didn't do anything.
Football timekeeping has very little logic behind it. Some refs I have spoken to add time for goals, others don't unless it's an excessive celebration, but couldn't give me an exact idea of what an excessive celebration consists of or how much they add on for it. Other than when a penalty is awarded, the ref is supposed to blow his whistle no matter where the ball is, yet they will let attacks finish or corners be taken. that's just stupid.
I used to think the ref stopped his watch for time wasting, but if that was the case, they couldn't possibly know how much time to indicate to the fourth official. So I thought maybe they ran a second watch to calculate the time. But that's apparently not true either I'm told. So it seems to me they really are guessing.
I agree with Chizz that there are issues with this plan but I think they could be ironed out. I'd love to see a way of finally making football timekeeping an exact science.
The NFL is actively trying to reduce the length of games because it’s turning younger fans away. Cricket is continuously introducing new, shorter forms to attract young people. Meanwhile, FIFA is trying to extend the length of the game.
it would certainly help to stop timewasting, BUT who stops and starts the clock?
The 4th official. Gives them a clear role instead of the murky one they have now. That means they can get away from the pitch and sit in a box where they can‘t be offended by swearing managers.
They need a clock for all the time wasting every goalkeeper does week in wee out and they continually get away with it until they go behind then the decide to get a move on. The law should change to allow just 10 seconds to take the kick once they have the ball. Makes my blood boil.
Just like the 6 second for a keeper to release the ball law has been strictly implemented since it’s introduction.
Sometimes I am standing behind a linesman counting up. I got to 26 seconds at Oldham this season and he still didn't do anything.
Football timekeeping has very little logic behind it. Some refs I have spoken to add time for goals, others don't unless it's an excessive celebration, but couldn't give me an exact idea of what an excessive celebration consists of or how much they add on for it. Other than when a penalty is awarded, the ref is supposed to blow his whistle no matter where the ball is, yet they will let attacks finish or corners be taken. that's just stupid.
I used to think the ref stopped his watch for time wasting, but if that was the case, they couldn't possibly know how much time to indicate to the fourth official. So I thought maybe they ran a second watch to calculate the time. But that's apparently not true either I'm told. So it seems to me they really are guessing.
I agree with Chizz that there are issues with this plan but I think they could be ironed out. I'd love to see a way of finally making football timekeeping an exact science.
These are professional refs you‘ve spoken to? If so that‘s fascinating and confirms my darkest suspicions.
I don't think that a stop for every incident is a good idea but I wouldn't be surprised if all this added time in the WC is a precursor to a change.
I reckon the clock should be stopped for injuries, substitutions, goal celebrations and, the most obvious one that we see during hot weather now, water breaks but I also think the 45 minutes should be retained.
I'd suggest that the referee does have the option to stop the clock for time-wasting but if he does have to do this, the player responsible should get a yellow card.
I also quite like the rugby system whereby the final whistle doesn't blow until the time is up and the ball is out of play.
I don't think that a stop for every incident is a good idea but I wouldn't be surprised if all this added time in the WC is a precursor to a change.
I reckon the clock should be stopped for injuries, substitutions, goal celebrations and, the most obvious one that we see during hot weather now, water breaks but I also think the 45 minutes should be retained.
I'd suggest that the referee does have the option to stop the clock for time-wasting but if he does have to do this, the player responsible should get a yellow card.
I also quite like the rugby system whereby the final whistle doesn't blow until the time is up and the ball is out of play.
Add to that list any time while the referee has stopped play for some reason. Sometimes it can take the ref a minute a two to line up a wall even though the attacking team want to take the kick as quickly as possible. In this situation, the defenders tend to stand a few feet forward of the line and are effectively getting the referee to do the time-wasting for them.
it would certainly help to stop timewasting, BUT who stops and starts the clock?
The 4th official. Gives them a clear role instead of the murky one they have now. That means they can get away from the pitch and sit in a box where they can‘t be offended by swearing managers.
not a bad idea, however who will then manage the childish antics of the managers on the sidelines ?
This is why, with so many matches during the World Cup, I record most matches and fast forward through injuries (x8 normal speed) and substitutions (x16), and before free kicks (x8), goal kicks(x8) corners (x8) and throws (x4). I often also go at x4 when teams are listlessly passing it around the back four.
This allows me to watch every game in 45-60 minutes, still without knowing the result. For the 8pm kick-offs I have 'the luxury' of watching live but I realise more how slow it is. Players generally only really get a move on when losing with less than 15 minutes to go.
I would also change the obstruction laws to stop 'game management.'
it would certainly help to stop timewasting, BUT who stops and starts the clock?
The 4th official. Gives them a clear role instead of the murky one they have now. That means they can get away from the pitch and sit in a box where they can‘t be offended by swearing managers.
not a bad idea, however who will then manage the childish antics of the managers on the sidelines ?
Do they need to be managed? Unless they encroach, or start fighting each other, just ignore them. The 4th official standing there is a lightning conductor with an ego.
Seems to me that people are conflating timewasting with the ball just going out of play. They're two completely different things.
The current system seems to work pretty well so I don't really see the point in trying to change things. But if you did change it then how is that going to work in park football? Or is the suggestion that this is only something that's done at the highest levels?
But when the ball goes out of play in professional football it takes far too long to get it back in play. Much timewasting happens when the ball is out of play. Even in park football when the right back has to go and fetch the ball from the road / bush/ lake , it gets back in play more quickly. League One has to be the worst league for time wasting in the world.
it would certainly help to stop timewasting, BUT who stops and starts the clock?
The 4th official. Gives them a clear role instead of the murky one they have now. That means they can get away from the pitch and sit in a box where they can‘t be offended by swearing managers.
not a bad idea, however who will then manage the childish antics of the managers on the sidelines ?
Do they need to be managed? Unless they encroach, or start fighting each other, just ignore them. The 4th official standing there is a lightning conductor with an ego.
Re. your question from earlier, yes I was speaking to refs at Step 1 and 2 level as well as Step 7. All seem to have a different handle on the time keeping.
As for the fourth official, I stand pretty close to them each week and I've found that really interesting. They take a lot of stick, stick that might otherwise be pointed at the other three. But equally their very presence seems to encourage it. But they are toothless. They take dog's abuse and don't respond. Otherwise their role is to manage the benches (only three people allowed standing up), the subs process and the extra time board. It takes some incredibly thick skin to do it, but I do wonder what would happen if they clamped down on the abuse from the first minute. It would certainly give me less content.
One time I was filming a match and there was an off the ball incident. It was blatantly obvious that a player had done something to his opponent. A punch, slap, elbow. Nobody really knew. But it was obvious. The ref didn't see it, so they consulted the lino, who didn't see it either. Then they asked the fourth and had a chat. Then they sent the guy off. They (and I) didn't realise my mic was picking up the conversation which I listened to later, and went something like "did you see it?" / "No but it's obvious he's done something" / "Ok well I will send him and they'll assume you saw it".
The player and bench didn't argue and when I got home I had an angle that backed up the red card. But that was a gamble! I didn't use it in my edit because it's not in my interests to show stuff like that - the refs would soon start objecting to me being there. Maybe I will release it after I retire.
Only the top 5 tiers have fourths. And Steps 6-7 don't even have linos (I think, might just be 7) so if there is a change it will be very different at the lower levels.
I think what we need is a time-wasting switch around rule. If the ref spots someone time wasting he can grant possession to the opposition. Mucking about at a throw in? Other side gets the throw in instead. Mucking about at a goal kick? Other side gets a corner. Mucking about before a drop kick? Indirect free kick in the box. They'd soon stop messing about. Simple.
I think what we need is a time-wasting switch around rule. If the ref spots someone time wasting he can grant possession to the opposition. Mucking about at a throw in? Other side gets the throw in instead. Mucking about at a goal kick? Other side gets a corner. Mucking about before a drop kick? Indirect free kick in the box. They'd soon stop messing about. Simple.
Great idea - (except maybe the drop kick should just be a corner).
Best thing would be if the ref did this routinely without warning twenty seconds after the player first has the opportunity to restart the game. Most goalies wouldn't risk their own judgement of twenty seconds and would try to get the ball away as quickly as possible - especially if their team was hanging on to a one goal lead. Completely the opposite of what we have now.
I am thinking there must be a simple cheap device any ref could carry in his hand where they simply click a button and get a beep exactly twenty seconds later. If the ball isn't away before the beep it's an automatic "reversal" - no debate or excuses!
The beeper method would work at grass roots level if it were cheaper than a whistle, so this isn't just for the elite.
Think last night's game showed a need for something to happen. Time wasting is one of the most annoying things that could easily be eradicated if there was a will.
Could we not eradicate time-wasting by having an electrode fitted to every player, through which the referee can administer electric shocks of increasing magnitude to 'persuade' them to get on with it?
Comments
And, if a player is booked for taking thirty minutes, would they get booked for taking fifteen? Or ten? Or two? Or one? And would teams and fans know how long players can take?
(If not, then what have we fixed?)
Now: Ball goes out for a throw, player takes too long to take throw, player gets booked for time wasting.
Proposed: Ball goes out for a throw, clock stopped, player takes too long to take throw, player gets booked for delaying restart.
Same applies for corners, goal kicks, injuries.
What you fix is time wasting. I could be wrong but there is no set amount of time to take a throw, down to judgement of the ref. This wouldn't be any different.
Players don't care about receiving yellow cards for time wasting. They'll earn the 10 quid for the fine in the time they've wasted and the opposition will rarely get it back.
If changing this fundamental area of the game (ie its duration) is supposed to 'fix' a problem of 'time-wasting' and ends up not doing so because players find other ways, then it's a terrible fix.
I am all for solving problems. But I don't think that 'time-wasting' is a significant enough problem to be fixed by making such a dramatic change to the game.
VAR is designed to ensure decisions are accurate and sanctions are handed out properly. VAR has changed what the result would have been had it not been in place.
Goal-line technology is designed accurately to confirm whether the ball has crossed the line and that a goal can be awarded. Goal-line technology has changed what the result would have been had it not been in place.
Are there many - or, indeed, any - results which would have gone differently if this big chance had been implemented?
How are players going to waste time if the clock is stopped when the ball is not in play?
Why does it have to solve a problem, why can't it be simply to improve the game?
For example, a sub might, under the current system, deliberately kick a ball away when it goes into touch in order to stop the momentum in play. The same goes for feigning injuries and it is refreshing, in this respect, to see how in the last year, the directive has been to wave play on - we've seen far less rolling about in this World Cup for that very reason because the player looks an absolute idiot when he has to jump up and run back after doing so.
So the player would receive a yellow card for time wasting whether the ball is in play or not. The only difference is that the Ref won't have to guess how many seconds to add at the end of the game for time wasting - as opposed to a time keeper, under the new system, doing it to the second.
You don't need to fundamentally change the game because the refs/governing body/competition organisers won't deal with it.
Football timekeeping has very little logic behind it. Some refs I have spoken to add time for goals, others don't unless it's an excessive celebration, but couldn't give me an exact idea of what an excessive celebration consists of or how much they add on for it. Other than when a penalty is awarded, the ref is supposed to blow his whistle no matter where the ball is, yet they will let attacks finish or corners be taken. that's just stupid.
I used to think the ref stopped his watch for time wasting, but if that was the case, they couldn't possibly know how much time to indicate to the fourth official. So I thought maybe they ran a second watch to calculate the time. But that's apparently not true either I'm told. So it seems to me they really are guessing.
I agree with Chizz that there are issues with this plan but I think they could be ironed out. I'd love to see a way of finally making football timekeeping an exact science.
I reckon the clock should be stopped for injuries, substitutions, goal celebrations and, the most obvious one that we see during hot weather now, water breaks but I also think the 45 minutes should be retained.
I'd suggest that the referee does have the option to stop the clock for time-wasting but if he does have to do this, the player responsible should get a yellow card.
I also quite like the rugby system whereby the final whistle doesn't blow until the time is up and the ball is out of play.
This allows me to watch every game in 45-60 minutes, still without knowing the result. For the 8pm kick-offs I have 'the luxury' of watching live but I realise more how slow it is. Players generally only really get a move on when losing with less than 15 minutes to go.
I would also change the obstruction laws to stop 'game management.'
(Edit: spelling / vocab error )
The current system seems to work pretty well so I don't really see the point in trying to change things. But if you did change it then how is that going to work in park football? Or is the suggestion that this is only something that's done at the highest levels?
Nah, no thanks.
Even in park football when the right back has to go and fetch the ball from the road / bush/ lake , it gets back in play more quickly. League One has to be the worst league for time wasting in the world.
As for the fourth official, I stand pretty close to them each week and I've found that really interesting. They take a lot of stick, stick that might otherwise be pointed at the other three. But equally their very presence seems to encourage it. But they are toothless. They take dog's abuse and don't respond. Otherwise their role is to manage the benches (only three people allowed standing up), the subs process and the extra time board. It takes some incredibly thick skin to do it, but I do wonder what would happen if they clamped down on the abuse from the first minute. It would certainly give me less content.
One time I was filming a match and there was an off the ball incident. It was blatantly obvious that a player had done something to his opponent. A punch, slap, elbow. Nobody really knew. But it was obvious. The ref didn't see it, so they consulted the lino, who didn't see it either. Then they asked the fourth and had a chat. Then they sent the guy off. They (and I) didn't realise my mic was picking up the conversation which I listened to later, and went something like "did you see it?" / "No but it's obvious he's done something" / "Ok well I will send him and they'll assume you saw it".
The player and bench didn't argue and when I got home I had an angle that backed up the red card. But that was a gamble! I didn't use it in my edit because it's not in my interests to show stuff like that - the refs would soon start objecting to me being there. Maybe I will release it after I retire.
Only the top 5 tiers have fourths. And Steps 6-7 don't even have linos (I think, might just be 7) so if there is a change it will be very different at the lower levels.
Mucking about at a throw in? Other side gets the throw in instead.
Mucking about at a goal kick? Other side gets a corner.
Mucking about before a drop kick? Indirect free kick in the box.
They'd soon stop messing about. Simple.
Best thing would be if the ref did this routinely without warning twenty seconds after the player first has the opportunity to restart the game. Most goalies wouldn't risk their own judgement of twenty seconds and would try to get the ball away as quickly as possible - especially if their team was hanging on to a one goal lead. Completely the opposite of what we have now.
I am thinking there must be a simple cheap device any ref could carry in his hand where they simply click a button and get a beep exactly twenty seconds later. If the ball isn't away before the beep it's an automatic "reversal" - no debate or excuses!
The beeper method would work at grass roots level if it were cheaper than a whistle, so this isn't just for the elite.