Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Scrapping 45 minute halves to be discussed by football lawmakers.

Among a number of interesting proposals to improve the game.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40311889
«1

Comments

  • I've thought they should stop the clock the moment the ball is out of play regardless...

    To lower the halves to 30mins though... NO!!
  • I've thought they should stop the clock the moment the ball is out of play regardless...

    To lower the halves to 30mins though... NO!!

    You actively want players to become injured or exhausted? Because that's what stopped-clock 45-minute halves would achieve
  • Make the game 80 mins with 15 mins breaks every 20 mins so we can get a beer in and do away with time added on. Most games get frequently held up these days anyway with injuries and players taking on fluids so having an official break gives everybody a set time to plan around. And only allow 1 substitution per team per period of game play.
  • The biggest trouble I have with this is that it difficult to do at all levels of football. It is hard enough for a local referee without him having to stop his watch every time the balls go out. Also difficult for fans as we would have no idea when a game is coming to an end (or managers thinking of subs),
  • I've thought they should stop the clock the moment the ball is out of play regardless...

    To lower the halves to 30mins though... NO!!

    It is not reducing to 30 minute halves really, it is stating there will be 30minutes play which is what it is now on average but if you stop the clock there can be no time wasting and the crowd and players can all see exactly how much time is left.
  • But surely with the clock stopped it doesn't matter how long they take to the ball back into play. How many time when defending a lead and ball goes for a throw one player picks it up, feints a throw then they decide another player will amble up and take it?

    Taking ball to the corner is at least a bit of skill.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited June 18
    As much as I dont really want to see the 30 minutes of play come in to the game it sort of does make sense , at least from the Refs perspective.
    Removes any doubts over extra time, kills time wasting and makes their lives generally easier.
  • Make the game 80 mins with 15 mins breaks every 20 mins so we can get a beer in and do away with time added on. Most games get frequently held up these days anyway with injuries and players taking on fluids so having an official break gives everybody a set time to plan around. And only allow 1 substitution per team per period of game play.

    30 minute breaks every 20 minutes would be better. That would give enough time to nip round to the oak for a proper pint.
  • edited June 18
    I have been advocating this for some time including on here. The reasons for that are I recall watching Arsenal play Bayern Munich, were Munich took over 2 minutes to take a free kick in additional time and the ref did not add on a second extra I have noticed foreign fref are even worse than our ones on this. Time wasting is effectively rewarded. Also I always estimate the amount of added time I think refs are going to add on when I watch a game - not what I think should be added on and the figure is always lower and 90% of the time I guess right! Sometimes long breaks for injuries during a game make this look obviously ridiculous.

    What we would get is better value as we would see more actual play and it would wipe out the practise of tiem wasting. The only objection you can have is if you are stuck in tradition too much and that is what has kept football back in my opinion when sports like Rugby and Cricket and gone past it. I don't mean in popularity - football is the beautiful game and always will be - but Rugby and Cricket have through modernisation become much more entertaining. Respect the past but always look at the future.
  • Goalkeepers are the biggest culprits when it comes to time wasting, if the refs applied the rules that are already in place and handed out more bookings to goalkeepers for blatant time wasting, some are time wasting from the first five minutes. One rule that should revert back to the original rule, is that the goal kick should be taken from the side the ball crossed the line, after all you do not get a choice with regards corners.
  • edited June 18
    My son is a keeper and is a master of it - and he is inspired by his heroes who do it. He gains advantage from it in the same way other dishonest play is rewarded in all positions. The dirty play many advocate injures players do is worse. How can I tell him not to do it when the best in the world do it. Some would say I still should, but my approach is the whole game has to change not just one person. Otherwise we should all be playing like Corinthian Casuals. Accept people will push the rules and change the rules to prevent it!
  • I Would like the clock stopped just for injuries when the trainer is on the pitch, substitutions and maybe goal celebrations. Then play 45 minutes with the ref adding on some time if he feels there has been some timewasting.

    Otherwise I agree that defenders will take even more time over throw ins and goal kicks because they will no longer technically be time wasting and the ref won't be able to do much about it!

    The primary reason for slow goal kicks etc is to break the game up and frustrate the attacking team - not really to waste a few seconds.
  • Dansk_Red said:

    Goalkeepers are the biggest culprits when it comes to time wasting, if the refs applied the rules that are already in place and handed out more bookings to goalkeepers for blatant time wasting, some are time wasting from the first five minutes. One rule that should revert back to the original rule, is that the goal kick should be taken from the side the ball crossed the line, after all you do not get a choice with regards corners.

    I was @ Charlton 0 Ipswich Town 1, first goal scored under the new 5-6 seconds golakeeping rule, freekick given from the 6 yard line which won the game for Ipswich. Why not just re-introduce this and it will save time wasting.
  • with the ref adding on some time if he feels there has been some timewasting

    This is the very last thing we should do. Adding on random amounts of time (and equally, blowing the whistle once an attack has come to an end) is a ridiculous way to manage the game, and I wish they'd fix it.

    Otherwise I agree that defenders will take even more time over throw ins and goal kicks because they will no longer technically be time wasting and the ref won't be able to do much about it!

    Why would they do that? Play has already been broken up by the stoppage, what's the purpose in taking longer? And what makes you think the referee would be powerless anyway?
  • Dansk_Red said:

    Goalkeepers are the biggest culprits when it comes to time wasting, if the refs applied the rules that are already in place and handed out more bookings to goalkeepers for blatant time wasting, some are time wasting from the first five minutes. One rule that should revert back to the original rule, is that the goal kick should be taken from the side the ball crossed the line, after all you do not get a choice with regards corners.

    This. The rule should be that a goal kick can be taken from either side, but from where it is nearest to the where the ball is.

    I also hate the idea of 30 min "full" halves. Who controls the clock ? Is it the ref & if so why would it be any different to what happens now ? At present the ref can add on time if the ball has gone into the crowd & it takes 30 secs to get it back - the fact that they don't is down to the ref - how is this going to change unless you have someone sitting in the stands doing it.

    As said above - leave the game alone.

  • Sponsored links:


  • Don't think that is a good idea what they are suggesting. There will be time wasting even when they cut the half to 30 mins. Next they will reduce it to 20mins because of the same reason. Stricter refereeing (yellow cards) would stop it and maybe free kicks awarded for blatant time wasting.
  • Had to check the date. It's definitely not April yet, is it
  • Who would handle timekeeping for the Dog & Duck v the Red Lion on Hackney Marshes on a Sunday morning?

    Not only is it a stupid idea (why does the world's most popular game need people fucking about with something as fundamental as Law 7?) but it's unworkable at any level below the level at which a fifth official can be utilised.

    One other point: how long could a 30-minute half last? If the timekeeper turns the clock off every time the ball goes out of play, why wouldn't a side with an injured player just take 10, 20, 30 minutes to take a throw in? A 60-minutes game could last hours. Like gridiron. It's a perfect solution to a problem, if the problem is "how do we make football much more boring and ensure fewer people watch?"
  • I have been advocating this for some time including on here. The reasons for that are I recall watching Arsenal play Bayern Munich, were Munich took over 2 minutes to take a free kick in additional time and the ref did not add on a second extra I have noticed foreign fref are even worse than our ones on this. Time wasting is effectively rewarded. Also I always estimate the amount of added time I think refs are going to add on when I watch a game - not what I think should be added on and the figure is always lower and 90% of the time I guess right! Sometimes long breaks for injuries during a game make this look obviously ridiculous.

    What we would get is better value as we would see more actual play and it would wipe out the practise of tiem wasting. The only objection you can have is if you are stuck in tradition too much and that is what has kept football back in my opinion when sports like Rugby and Cricket and gone past it. I don't mean in popularity - football is the beautiful game and always will be - but Rugby and Cricket have through modernisation become much more entertaining. Respect the past but always look at the future.

    Still no need to change anything. Instruct referees to apply the laws of the game and book players for obvious time wasting. It's a simple game if it's played properly. I say let's just play it properly before any rule changes are remotely considered.
  • Laddick01 said:

    As much as I dont really want to see the 30 minutes of play come in to the game it sort of does make sense , at least from the Refs perspective.
    Removes any doubts over extra time, kills time wasting and makes their lives generally easier.

    I'm sure you've posted that for good reasons, but I'm struggling to see the logic of it.
  • Chizz said:

    Who would handle timekeeping for the Dog & Duck v the Red Lion on Hackney Marshes on a Sunday morning?

    Not only is it a stupid idea (why does the world's most popular game need people fucking about with something as fundamental as Law 7?) but it's unworkable at any level below the level at which a fifth official can be utilised.

    One other point: how long could a 30-minute half last? If the timekeeper turns the clock off every time the ball goes out of play, why wouldn't a side with an injured player just take 10, 20, 30 minutes to take a throw in? A 60-minutes game could last hours. Like gridiron. It's a perfect solution to a problem, if the problem is "how do we make football much more boring and ensure fewer people watch?"

    Im fairly sure they'd have additional rules in place to prevent teams taking a week to take a throw in because Danny "cheesestrings" Haynes has tweaked his leg yet again

    Bring back the 6 second rule for goalkeepers, 30 minute halfs with time stopped for dead ball situations, stricter rules for holding up play (delay of game akin to NFL)

    I'd personally bring in sin bins too, but that's just me
  • For interest, as someone at FIFA has clearing been watching how the referee controls the clock in Rugby, how does amateur rugby work? Does the referee still stop his watch when there's a delay (for an injury say), or does he just estimate extra time like football refs do?
  • edited June 18
    No thank you. Too much like NFL. "And Charlton have won a corner... now it's time for a message from our sponsors"

    I do like NFL but the amount of bloody ads every 5 minutes does do my head in sometimes.

    Please don't bring that to football.
  • Incredibly reducing halves to 30 minutes is just 1 of a number of idiotic ideas.
    They are also discussing being able to take a free kick to yourself and no rebounds from penalties.
  • Considering Refs in most major pro leagues already wear watches that can connect to the stadium clock already, most European leagues, including the EFL, the refs are wearing Android watches that connect back to transmitters, as well as the hawkeye GLT watches, so this should be an easy one.

    For interest, as someone at FIFA has clearing been watching how the referee controls the clock in Rugby, how does amateur rugby work? Does the referee still stop his watch when there's a delay (for an injury say), or does he just estimate extra time like football refs do?

    He stops the watch on the field, but gives a clear signal that it's stopped, same applies at all levels of the game.
Sign In or Register to comment.