ScoRoss 800 Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 Currently being trialed in several youth tournaments, taking a basketball approach to the length of a match. Reducing time wasting in games, and maximizing the length of time that play is ongoing within a game. Would it improve football matches? And would it be something you'd like introduced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ploughendplonker 32 Posted August 11, 2021 Share Posted August 11, 2021 Just wouldn't feel right having anything other than 45 minutes halves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honey Honey 3,767 Posted August 11, 2021 Share Posted August 11, 2021 Let's see how much it adds to the time you leave. Potentially not good for away fans who travel via scheduled train times. Particularly if Mourinho comes back to England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coma 1,766 Posted August 11, 2021 Share Posted August 11, 2021 I have no problem with stopping the clock when the ref blows the whistle, like for free kicks, injuries, subs, etc. I think that would help with the time wasting. I'm not so sure it's needed when the ball goes out of play. Stick with the 45-min halves though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo 8,185 Posted August 11, 2021 Share Posted August 11, 2021 I don't think I like this idea very much. Like @Coma, I'm fine with stopping the clock for stoppages (thus ending contentious stoppage time bullshit, but yeah... it will help with time wasting) but 30 minute halves seems bizarre to me. Also it's a shit deal for any traveling away fans. They'll pay the same ticket prices, travel costs, etc... but will lose 30 minutes (plus stoppages) to watch their side play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike 5,103 Posted August 11, 2021 Share Posted August 11, 2021 22 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said: I don't think I like this idea very much. Like @Coma, I'm fine with stopping the clock for stoppages (thus ending contentious stoppage time bullshit, but yeah... it will help with time wasting) but 30 minute halves seems bizarre to me. Also it's a shit deal for any traveling away fans. They'll pay the same ticket prices, travel costs, etc... but will lose 30 minutes (plus stoppages) to watch their side play. I think it was lost in translation, surely they mean 30minute thirds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ploughendplonker 32 Posted August 11, 2021 Share Posted August 11, 2021 40 minutes ago, Coma said: I have no problem with stopping the clock when the ref blows the whistle, like for free kicks, injuries, subs, etc. I think that would help with the time wasting. I'm not so sure it's needed when the ball goes out of play. Stick with the 45-min halves though. A lot of time when play stops for injuries and free kicks, referees hold their arms in the air, somewhat theatrically pointing to their watch, which I presume indicates they stop their watch anyway when these stoppages occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoRoss 800 Posted August 11, 2021 Author Share Posted August 11, 2021 From a write up about the trials Quote The Athletic watched AZ’s 6-0 demolition of Leipzig to try to understand what impact, if any, these potential rule changes might have. First things first: it did feel quicker. The first half did, at any rate. Referee Nick Smit, who had the dubious honour of enforcing the new rules, generally did a fine job although there was one instance where the ball went out for a Leipzig goal kick and the clock maintained its relentless march downwards. In real-time, the first 30 minutes lasted dead on 38; the second 30 took 48min 32sec, about as long as a normal half and with the ball in play for about as long. And from a write up about it in 2018 Quote Ninety minutes is the obvious answer, of course. Except it isn’t. When it comes to how long the ball is in play, matches do not last remotely 90 minutes – and there is an extraordinary difference in the real length of matches. This season in the Premier League, the average amount of ball in play in each match is 59 minutes and 23 seconds, according to Opta. Yet the divergence between games is remarkable. When Stoke hosted Watford in a stultifying 0-0 draw at the end of January, the ball was in play for a meagre 42 minutes and eight seconds: less than half the 90 minutes that a match notionally comprises. Therefore it wouldn't decrease the time of an average match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coma 1,766 Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 17 hours ago, Ploughendplonker said: A lot of time when play stops for injuries and free kicks, referees hold their arms in the air, somewhat theatrically pointing to their watch, which I presume indicates they stop their watch anyway when these stoppages occur. I agree. I think the point of stopping the clock is to make players and fans aware of how much time is actually left instead of trying to guess when he'll blow for full time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coma 1,766 Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 17 hours ago, ScoRoss said: From a write up about the trials And from a write up about it in 2018 Therefore it wouldn't decrease the time of an average match. I think all Stoke matches should last 42 minutes. The league would be doing everyone a favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.