Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Kick In's
Notts_Addick
Posts: 376
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61784848
Am I the only one who wishes they'd just leave the game alone? Perhaps I'm a traditionalist but it feels like laws are just being changed for the sake of it at the moment.
Am I the only one who wishes they'd just leave the game alone? Perhaps I'm a traditionalist but it feels like laws are just being changed for the sake of it at the moment.
12
Comments
-
Used to have kickings a lot in the 70’s & 80’s, especially at away games.9
-
Its a shite idea.. As well as allowing teams like Man City keep the ball easier, your almost giving a free kick to the opposition, the ball can then be lumped into the area from almost anywhere, meaning the CBs can be pushed forward.
If its an idea to limit time wasting then you'll never eradicate it, unless the whole approach to time Management gets changed... e.g. Clock gets stopped each time the ball goes out.4 -
Doesn't the article say there would be a time limit for the kick in though? So you wouldn't have the time to get people forward and then lump it in.ForeverAddickted said:Its a shite idea.. As well as allowing teams like Man City keep the ball easier, your almost giving a free kick to the opposition, the ball can then be lumped into the area from almost anywhere, meaning the CBs can be pushed forward.
If its an idea to limit time wasting then you'll never eradicate it, unless the whole approach to time Management gets changed... e.g. Clock gets stopped each time the ball goes out.1 -
I think a separate proposal they have mentioned separate to kick in's is to have a clock which automatically stops whenever the ball is out of play and then that time gets added at the end, so would remove the discretion of the referee.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Doesn't the article say there would be a time limit for the kick in though? So you wouldn't have the time to get people forward and then lump it in.ForeverAddickted said:Its a shite idea.. As well as allowing teams like Man City keep the ball easier, your almost giving a free kick to the opposition, the ball can then be lumped into the area from almost anywhere, meaning the CBs can be pushed forward.
If its an idea to limit time wasting then you'll never eradicate it, unless the whole approach to time Management gets changed... e.g. Clock gets stopped each time the ball goes out.
Not actually opposed to that although I also read there were some games in the Champions League where the ball was actually only in play for 55 minutes out of 90 so would drastically extend the timings of games2 -
The clock stopping idea is good. But the game would need to change to be 60 or 65 mins as that is the typical average amount of time the ball is in play. Not sure traditionalists would accept that change but time wasting is so frustrating so I’d like to see it trialed.3
-
I thought this was trialled a few years back in the non league.
Rubbish idea, the ball will be pumped forward high long at every opportunity by the mediocre teams throughout the leagues especially down here in basement. 90 minutes of absolute boredom.
Might be ok in the prem though where teams have players who can play the game properly.0 -
Just have a time limit on throw-ins.1
-
Stop the clock for every deadball situation and change it to 2x30 minute halves. Also eliminates the guesstimated injury time, and it also then doesn't matter if Suarez or Forestieri are rolling about on the floor for 3 minutes at a time0
-
And make sure they're taken from the right spot, like in rugby lineoutsNorth Lower Neil said:Just have a time limit on throw-ins.0 -
Always useful to ask what problem these 'new ideas' are trying to solve.
Speaking last year, Wenger said throw-ins and free-kicks were the "two big time-wasters at the moment".
Here's an idea, Arsene. Maybe appoint an official who could add any wasted time onto the end of the half.3 - Sponsored links:
-
Can you score direct from a kick in?1
-
He wants to watch Goal Kicks at this level thenDave Rudd said:Always useful to ask what problem these 'new ideas' are trying to solve.
Speaking last year, Wenger said throw-ins and free-kicks were the "two big time-wasters at the moment".
Here's an idea, Arsene. Maybe appoint an official who could add any wasted time onto the end of the half.0 -
But his argument was that it slows down the pace of the game etc, which remains the case when time is added on at the end.Dave Rudd said:Always useful to ask what problem these 'new ideas' are trying to solve.
Speaking last year, Wenger said throw-ins and free-kicks were the "two big time-wasters at the moment".
Here's an idea, Arsene. Maybe appoint an official who could add any wasted time onto the end of the half.
0 -
How is a kick-in faster than a throw-in?
The hoofball teams would love this. Get a 'throw' anywhere in the opponent's half, everyone get forward, hoof it into the box.2 -
It's all bullshit really. Changes for the sake of trying to be seen to be doing something.
How many people have ever left a game and said 'oh that throw in took too long'. Not many.
All you need to do is a) tell refs to clamp down and be tougher on the time wasting, book players straight away for it, no warnings or let offs and b) tell refs to ensure proper time is added on at the end. Too often we see games with goals, injuries, time wasting, players rolling around.......4 minutes added on. I saw a game the other week where 4 minutes were added on, and at least 90 seconds of that time were spent being wasted. Ball not in play, waiting for a goal kick or free kick to be taken etc. Ref didn't play a second past 4 minutes.3 -
As if that's gonna work! There's a time limit (6 seconds) on goalies clearing the ball that is 90% ignored by officials until the final minutes of a game.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Doesn't the article say there would be a time limit for the kick in though? So you wouldn't have the time to get people forward and then lump it in.ForeverAddickted said:Its a shite idea.. As well as allowing teams like Man City keep the ball easier, your almost giving a free kick to the opposition, the ball can then be lumped into the area from almost anywhere, meaning the CBs can be pushed forward.
If its an idea to limit time wasting then you'll never eradicate it, unless the whole approach to time Management gets changed... e.g. Clock gets stopped each time the ball goes out.
A directive to all officials to police time wasting from the very first minute, with sanctions for non-compliant refs is needed but there's no interest at official level cos there's no money in it.
An alternative is to separate the time keeping from the onfield officials and the game to last 45 minutes 'in-play' per half as supervised by a designated official, like Rugby Union - but until Rolex or Timex or someone ponies up gazillions to the relevant FIFA/UEFA embezzler it won't happen - We'd all also be at matches for 150 minutes minimum0 -
As soon as you do that the ball was only be in play for 35 to 40 mins out of the 60 min game.RenragRed said:The clock stopping idea is good. But the game would need to change to be 60 or 65 mins as that is the typical average amount of time the ball is in play. Not sure traditionalists would accept that change but time wasting is so frustrating so I’d like to see it trialed.
Have seen some thi ng like that in cricket.over the years they have reduced the number of overs bowled so the days play should end at 6pm and goes what we are still ending theists play at 630pm or later or nor getting the overs in. Players love not to work to hard or long in any sport.
0 -
They do these rule changes to try and justify to themselves the ridiculous salary that they are on in these governing bodies. in recent seasons they have pissed about with the offside rule, the subs, the handball rule on several occasions and no doubt other rules which continually baffle supporters nevermind the officials and players all so these overpaid suits feel like they are actually contributing to the world's game.Notts_Addick said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61784848
Am I the only one who wishes they'd just leave the game alone? Perhaps I'm a traditionalist but it feels like laws are just being changed for the sake of it at the moment.
2 -
They could trial 'the 60 minute game' using a stopwatch shown on the screen. Clock is stopped when ball not in play. Would eliminate time wasting straight away, wouldn't it?Notts_Addick said:
I think a separate proposal they have mentioned separate to kick in's is to have a clock which automatically stops whenever the ball is out of play and then that time gets added at the end, so would remove the discretion of the referee.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Doesn't the article say there would be a time limit for the kick in though? So you wouldn't have the time to get people forward and then lump it in.ForeverAddickted said:Its a shite idea.. As well as allowing teams like Man City keep the ball easier, your almost giving a free kick to the opposition, the ball can then be lumped into the area from almost anywhere, meaning the CBs can be pushed forward.
If its an idea to limit time wasting then you'll never eradicate it, unless the whole approach to time Management gets changed... e.g. Clock gets stopped each time the ball goes out.
Not actually opposed to that although I also read there were some games in the Champions League where the ball was actually only in play for 55 minutes out of 90 so would drastically extend the timings of games
I'd be up for that. Time wasting drives me nuts.0 -
If throw ins are the issue in time wasting why not just set a time limit for taking one. 15 seconds and if not taken then the throw in goes the other way. Would need the use of multiple balls available quickly but it’s a better idea than kick ins.2
- Sponsored links:
-
Just leave the game alone. Why do people insist on changing the rules to a sport which is already the greatest on the planet.5
-
Would this apply to all games of football at any level?JamesSeed said:
They could trial 'the 60 minute game' using a stopwatch shown on the screen. Clock is stopped when ball not in play. Would eliminate time wasting straight away, wouldn't it?Notts_Addick said:
I think a separate proposal they have mentioned separate to kick in's is to have a clock which automatically stops whenever the ball is out of play and then that time gets added at the end, so would remove the discretion of the referee.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Doesn't the article say there would be a time limit for the kick in though? So you wouldn't have the time to get people forward and then lump it in.ForeverAddickted said:Its a shite idea.. As well as allowing teams like Man City keep the ball easier, your almost giving a free kick to the opposition, the ball can then be lumped into the area from almost anywhere, meaning the CBs can be pushed forward.
If its an idea to limit time wasting then you'll never eradicate it, unless the whole approach to time Management gets changed... e.g. Clock gets stopped each time the ball goes out.
Not actually opposed to that although I also read there were some games in the Champions League where the ball was actually only in play for 55 minutes out of 90 so would drastically extend the timings of games
I'd be up for that. Time wasting drives me nuts.
0 -
Absolutely.stevexreeve said:
Would this apply to all games of football at any level?JamesSeed said:
They could trial 'the 60 minute game' using a stopwatch shown on the screen. Clock is stopped when ball not in play. Would eliminate time wasting straight away, wouldn't it?Notts_Addick said:
I think a separate proposal they have mentioned separate to kick in's is to have a clock which automatically stops whenever the ball is out of play and then that time gets added at the end, so would remove the discretion of the referee.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Doesn't the article say there would be a time limit for the kick in though? So you wouldn't have the time to get people forward and then lump it in.ForeverAddickted said:Its a shite idea.. As well as allowing teams like Man City keep the ball easier, your almost giving a free kick to the opposition, the ball can then be lumped into the area from almost anywhere, meaning the CBs can be pushed forward.
If its an idea to limit time wasting then you'll never eradicate it, unless the whole approach to time Management gets changed... e.g. Clock gets stopped each time the ball goes out.
Not actually opposed to that although I also read there were some games in the Champions League where the ball was actually only in play for 55 minutes out of 90 so would drastically extend the timings of games
I'd be up for that. Time wasting drives me nuts.As soon as they have fitted the VAR screens.1 -
I get the arguments against kick-ins, but throw-ins have always struck me as a strange concept in a game of 'foot'ball.
I think most of the reaction against it is centered on inertia, if it was the other way round, I think we would think it was crazy to introduce throw-ins to the game.
I think at grassroots level especially it could have a great effect on the game, which would eventually transition up. I'd be interested to see how it works, as with any concept there will be those who try to slow down the play (as with free-kicks, inevitably people will kick the ball away, stand in front of the kick-in etc.).
Considering, some of the recent proposed changes e.g. world cup every 2 years, this one isn't a bad one for me!0 -
stevexreeve said:
Would this apply to all games of football at any level?JamesSeed said:
They could trial 'the 60 minute game' using a stopwatch shown on the screen. Clock is stopped when ball not in play. Would eliminate time wasting straight away, wouldn't it?Notts_Addick said:
I think a separate proposal they have mentioned separate to kick in's is to have a clock which automatically stops whenever the ball is out of play and then that time gets added at the end, so would remove the discretion of the referee.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Doesn't the article say there would be a time limit for the kick in though? So you wouldn't have the time to get people forward and then lump it in.ForeverAddickted said:Its a shite idea.. As well as allowing teams like Man City keep the ball easier, your almost giving a free kick to the opposition, the ball can then be lumped into the area from almost anywhere, meaning the CBs can be pushed forward.
If its an idea to limit time wasting then you'll never eradicate it, unless the whole approach to time Management gets changed... e.g. Clock gets stopped each time the ball goes out.
Not actually opposed to that although I also read there were some games in the Champions League where the ball was actually only in play for 55 minutes out of 90 so would drastically extend the timings of games
I'd be up for that. Time wasting drives me nuts.
Absolutely hate time-wasting, maybe its because every time we do it, it comes to bite us back on the backside.0 -
The player of the team winning the throw in nearest to the ball should be made to take the throw in, that would stop players waiting for a player to walk half the pitch to take it.1
-
What if your longthrowsman is a centre-back though? Do you send him out to the wing every so often to try and win a throw-in?Dansk_Red said:The player of the team winning the throw in nearest to the ball should be made to take the throw in, that would stop players waiting for a player to walk half the pitch to take it.0 -
I guess that is the reason for switching from throws to kicks? If you want to impose a time limit (a good idea in my opinion) then there's always going to be complaints that a decent throw in is a specific skill that the nearest players won't necessarily have (it's a weak argument, but guaranteed someone will make it). The advantage of switching to a kick-in is that every player really should have the requisite skills to take the kick-in within the time limit.Leuth said:
What if your longthrowsman is a centre-back though? Do you send him out to the wing every so often to try and win a throw-in?Dansk_Red said:The player of the team winning the throw in nearest to the ball should be made to take the throw in, that would stop players waiting for a player to walk half the pitch to take it.
1 -
Nice tryLeuth said:
What if your longthrowsman is a centre-back though? Do you send him out to the wing every so often to try and win a throw-in?Dansk_Red said:The player of the team winning the throw in nearest to the ball should be made to take the throw in, that would stop players waiting for a player to walk half the pitch to take it.0 -
Wenger has had it in for throw-ins ever since Arsenal lost 2 or 3 years in a row at Stoke off a Rory Delap long throw.
Nothing at all wrong with the rule as it is - with clubs dedicated enough to spend time on strategy/tactics, throw ins will continue to be a unique part of the game.
If you make them a kick-in, a unique part of the game dies and it all blends into any other free kick elsewhere on the pitch.1
