I shall be keeping a rheumy eye on this thread and comparing and contrasting with the advocates of video referees...
Have to say I'm for video assisted refs but against this.
Video refs help get the decisions right. This has no real tangible benefit.
It means they get the decision about the amount of time "added on" right. Same principal applies, nothing left to chance everything nice and clinical (at the rich end of the game). The game at the lower end of the spectrum becomes a different game altogether as a result, but that seems to be fine with advocates of video referees, so why the problem with this?
Leave it all alone during game play. But I would have retrospective punishments for cheating, which should be massive.
If they want to stop time wasting just ban substitutions in added time .
That would change precisely fuck all
Reasons ?
Wont stop timewasting at throw ins, feigning injury, fake bouts of cramp, free kick and corner dithering, keepers taking forever to take a goal kick or holding the ball for a good 15 seconds
There's a clear difference between the two. VAR just done an excellent job in the Portugal Mexico match btw. :-)
The argument is that no matter how good VAR is in the professional game, it's not possible in the amateur game therefore shouldn't exist. Although the amateur cricket and rugby scenes seem to be doing just fine. And I've never seen a professional ref, cheerleaders, square nets, stadiums, cameras, team buses or sofas down the park either.
This is just going down the American football line, the time outs and stoppage are just for the television advertising. I for one do not look forward to having 5 mins play then 5 mins stoppage will destroy the flow of the game.
There's a clear difference between the two. VAR just done an excellent job in the Portugal Mexico match btw. :-)
I honestly do not understand how you can possibly say this? You think it is fair that a referee can make an error in timing, therefore depriving a losing team of the chance to equalise (or a winning team to score a potentially important goal to improve their goal difference), or on the other hand allowing too much time, in which either scenario could occur and completely alter the outcome of the match, or a player may be sent off and miss crucial matches? But you are happy for one extra pair of eyes to cast an opinion (and that is all it is, an opinion) on an incident and that person's opinion is decreed hard fact? Please bear in mind time off/time on is - as set out in these proposals - a matter of fact, not conjecture or opinion.
You say you want decisions to be right, but then say you are happy for the length of the game to be decided on the whim of the same bloke you don't trust to get an offside call correct?
There's a clear difference between the two. VAR just done an excellent job in the Portugal Mexico match btw. :-)
The argument is that no matter how good VAR is in the professional game, it's not possible in the amateur game therefore shouldn't exist. Although the amateur cricket and rugby scenes seem to be doing just fine. And I've never seen a professional ref, cheerleaders, square nets, stadiums, cameras, team buses or sofas down the park either.
Millions of people around the world manage to play football to a reasonable standard without a referee. I think football differs from most team games in this respect and explains some its popularity.
VAR does not really change the actual rules of the game - just the implementation.
But this suggestion would make it impossible to have a game in the park on a Sunday morning unless played to completely different rules (ie 45 minute halves). Not a disaster but I think the law makers should resist this sort of rule change.
45 minute halves were designed to allow teams to review their gameplan and more importantly to get some refreshments on board whilst recovering and stretching etc. Football is a mix of Aerobic and Anaerobic exercise, this would be extremely hard to maintain for 60 minutes without a break at professional level let alone 90.
However adding more breaks would be far from beneficial to the sport.
There will be breaks, the only difference is the clock will be stopped for the duration of those breaks. At the moment they are saying that in 45 minutes there is about 30 minutes actual play, so they will formalise those 30 minutes.
I am against it by the way, but I am for deliberate timewasting being punished within the confines of the laws currently laid down, which does not always happen.
Sounds like a TV derived plan to squeeze more adverts in. Why can't the football authorities spend their time on something useful like sorting out the failing ownership model, funding inequality and the lack of English coaches and players at the top level.
not surprised and I do understand the average game of football is around 60-65 minutes if you were to stop the clock like they do in Rugby. But this is so pointless, leave it alone. Introducing video referees and all that does help the game, this does not, except for advertising and bringing more money in.
not surprised and I do understand the average game of football is around 60-65 minutes if you were to stop the clock like they do in Rugby. But this is so pointless, leave it alone. Introducing video referees and all that does help the game, this does not, except for advertising and bringing more money in.
See my answers to Callum. Logically there is no difference. It makes no sense to want one change to make the game fairer and not another.
Comments
Video refs help get the decisions right. This has no real tangible benefit.
Leave it all alone during game play. But I would have retrospective punishments for cheating, which should be massive.
You say you want decisions to be right, but then say you are happy for the length of the game to be decided on the whim of the same bloke you don't trust to get an offside call correct?
Sorry fella, it really makes no sense at all.
VAR does not really change the actual rules of the game - just the implementation.
But this suggestion would make it impossible to have a game in the park on a Sunday morning unless played to completely different rules (ie 45 minute halves). Not a disaster but I think the law makers should resist this sort of rule change.
However adding more breaks would be far from beneficial to the sport.
I am against it by the way, but I am for deliberate timewasting being punished within the confines of the laws currently laid down, which does not always happen.