Good News

[A Load of Squit 5,202]

If you're one of those people who like to leave early to beat the traffic, you've got more time to beat the traffic.

 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

I clicked into this thread expecting a compliment about one of the many features included with the Dacia Sandero.

[hogesar 9,719]

If we're going to be as fit as what's been suggested then surely this can only be a good thing for us?

And for the leaving-earliers too!

[Top corner 228]

The EFL statement is just a word salad for my uneducated brain. 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,836]

Good.

There were a lot of games at Carrow Road last season where we saw only five or six minutes added on despite an awful lot of time wasting from the opposition, when it really should've been about ten.

We saw this at the World Cup last year and I liked it. Basically, the message is that all time wasted will be added on, so there really isn't much point in doing it.

[KiwiScot 1,459]

Oh it's that thing where we end up with massive long games. Great.

[pete 320]

Won't go down with the locals from Wymondham, Attleboro and all stations to Cambridge the timing will likely mean the 17.20 from Norwich will not as busy as usual.

[RobJames 883]

Keepers are the main offenders. When it is added time they should be given a warning, then off - with no replacement keeper allowed on. Much as any opposition player standing in front of a free kick. Yellow card with a 5% fine of his wages.

Before the red card for such an offence, the 'professional foul was fairly common place. Now it is almost non extent. The deliberate one, that is.

It is not about changing the game, it is about ending what is seen by fans as cheating. Heavier sanctions is the one on way of dealing with this stuff. And as the time wasting diminishes, so will the need for extended added time. Merely adding time on will not stop it, as players will judge that it is worth trying. As if it doesn't work, there is only the time that would have been played anyway.

Rather like bring in a law that says if you are caught shoplifting you have to hand the stuff back.... and that is all. Where is the deterrent there ?

 

 

[Branston Pickle 3,675]

2 hours ago, KiwiScot said:

Oh it's that thing where we end up with massive long games. Great.

Not great for evening matches when you’re trying to get back for the last London train!

[shefcanary 2,441]

I still cannot see why a match clock starting at 90 and counting down only when the ball is in play, maintained by an independent 3rd party off the pitch (with the ref allowed to make adjustments if he believes they have not been recorded correctly) is the way to go. Then everyone in the stadium knows what is going on. It works in other sports, why football is so slow to adopt really is annoying.

[Branston Pickle 3,675]

5 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

I still cannot see why a match clock starting at 90 and counting down only when the ball is in play, maintained by an independent 3rd party off the pitch (with the ref allowed to make adjustments if he believes they have not been recorded correctly) is the way to go. Then everyone in the stadium knows what is going on. It works in other sports, why football is so slow to adopt really is annoying.

Quite so -‘and it’s always more than a little annoying that the stadium clock stops at 45/90.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,836]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

I still cannot see why a match clock starting at 90 and counting down only when the ball is in play, maintained by an independent 3rd party off the pitch (with the ref allowed to make adjustments if he believes they have not been recorded correctly) is the way to go. Then everyone in the stadium knows what is going on. It works in other sports, why football is so slow to adopt really is annoying.

The ball is in play during a football match for somewhere between 50-60 minutes, so a game with 90 minutes of playing time is unrealistic. It would have to be shortened significantly, or the game would end up being played a much slower tempo in order to compensate for such a large increase in playing time.

[lake district canary 4,542]

2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

I still cannot see why a match clock starting at 90 and counting down only when the ball is in play, maintained by an independent 3rd party off the pitch (with the ref allowed to make adjustments if he believes they have not been recorded correctly) is the way to go. Then everyone in the stadium knows what is going on. It works in other sports, why football is so slow to adopt really is annoying.

It's bizarre, isn't it. Common sense and football officialdom don't seem to go together. 

As for that great long spiel about the new rules, it could have been shortened to "any time wasting of any kind will be taken into account and added at the end". Do referees really need to have it spelled out? 

 

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

2 hours ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

The ball is in play during a football match for somewhere between 50-60 minutes, so a game with 90 minutes of playing time is unrealistic. It would have to be shortened significantly, or the game would end up being played a much slower tempo in order to compensate for such a large increase in playing time.

They have been looking at this though. So much data, so bring the time down to 60 minutes and incorporate the countdown clock. 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,836]

16 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

They have been looking at this though. So much data, so bring the time down to 60 minutes and incorporate the countdown clock. 

Yep, if they implemented a fixed amount of playing time then 60 minutes would be about right. Any more than that and the tempo would drop, so to maintain quality it would have to be 60.

[king canary 7,654]

1 hour ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Yep, if they implemented a fixed amount of playing time then 60 minutes would be about right. Any more than that and the tempo would drop, so to maintain quality it would have to be 60.

Fans would likely get bored too as a 90 minute match would end up taking over 2 hours plus half time.

Baseball recently changed a bunch of rules to bring down the overall length of a game to prevent losing fans and it has really helped the sport. I can't see football going in the other direction.

[sgncfc 1,253]

4 hours ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

The ball is in play during a football match for somewhere between 50-60 minutes, so a game with 90 minutes of playing time is unrealistic. It would have to be shortened significantly, or the game would end up being played a much slower tempo in order to compensate for such a large increase in playing time.

American football has four quarters lasting 60 minutes and games often take 3 hours.......

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,836]

14 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

American football has four quarters lasting 60 minutes and games often take 3 hours.......

So 60 minutes of playing time.

Footballers are currently used to a game in which the ball is in play for 50-60 minutes. Asking them to suddenly go for 90 would result in a massive drop in both tempo and quality of the play.

[dylanisabaddog 4,968]

13 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

Quite so -‘and it’s always more than a little annoying that the stadium clock stops at 45/90.

I moaned about that at a shareholders meeting a few years ago. It' stops on the instruction of the football authorities but God knows why. 

[KiwiScot 1,459]

I wonder if we will get the infinite game where the team keeps time wasting and it keeps getting added on.

That's the thing it wasn't the time wasting that people are bothering about. It's amongst a host of player behaviour that doesn't really get dealt with. It was this stat of 50-60mins of play in a game and everyone was like "Oh", "That game we've been watching and enjoying all our lives", "what a fraud, outrage." They want to act on something that always existed and nobody really cared about until we now have this permanent stat for people to point to.

Ain't broke. A winning or weaker team in a winning position is going to sit back and defend and keep the ball from the opposition. What they supposed to learn? The art of timewasting without timewasting?

[Capt. Pants 4,271]

It's a bit daft and another kick in the nuts for people who actually attend games and have timed travel commitments.

It will work against us as much as it works for. Don't forget it will apply to both halfs. I can't see many 3pms finishing before 5!

If anything it will encourage fans to leave early, especially if losing, just at the time when the players need support.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

16 hours ago, shefcanary said:

I still cannot see why a match clock starting at 90 and counting down only when the ball is in play, maintained by an independent 3rd party off the pitch (with the ref allowed to make adjustments if he believes they have not been recorded correctly) is the way to go. Then everyone in the stadium knows what is going on. It works in other sports, why football is so slow to adopt really is annoying.

Football loves to BS about their use of technology but they are way behind other sports and as you say why is timekeeping left in the hands of the referee? He has enough to do already without keep looking at his watch. Just sound a hooter at the end like rugby.

Cricket has taken the calling of no balls out of the hands of the umpire as he has too much much to do already despite the fact they use a review system.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,836]

20 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Football loves to BS about their use of technology but they are way behind other sports and as you say why is timekeeping left in the hands of the referee? He has enough to do already without keep looking at his watch. Just sound a hooter at the end like rugby.

Cricket has taken the calling of no balls out of the hands of the umpire as he has too much much to do already despite the fact they use a review system.

The reason for that, rightly or wrongly, is that FIFA want to maintain standardisation of rules and regulations from elite level down to Sunday league. Obviously the professional game has the resources to have a specialist timekeeper (although the fourth official could quite easily do this job) whereas the grassroots game might not always be able to have one, which would result in the professional game being 60 minutes of active play and the grassroots game remaining as it is now.

[city4eva 213]

Hope it happens but I doubt it will. Probably  be a few Refs who try it it early doors  and then give up when the others don’t follow

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 hours ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

The reason for that, rightly or wrongly, is that FIFA want to maintain standardisation of rules and regulations from elite level down to Sunday league. Obviously the professional game has the resources to have a specialist timekeeper (although the fourth official could quite easily do this job) whereas the grassroots game might not always be able to have one, which would result in the professional game being 60 minutes of active play and the grassroots game remaining as it is now.

FIFA wants to maintain standards is not a phrase I am familiar with. FIFA wants to maintain its corruption or large bank account is more applicable.

We also don't have standardisation in the professional leagues. And neither do Rugby or Cricket but they still use it.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,836]

5 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

FIFA wants to maintain standards is not a phrase I am familiar with. FIFA wants to maintain its corruption or large bank account is more applicable.

We also don't have standardisation in the professional leagues. And neither do Rugby or Cricket but they still use it.

Oh, I agree with you completely. But that is the reason that has been given for why FIFA do not want to implement the idea of a stopwatch that's only active when the ball is in play. 

[raunds canary 217]

21 hours ago, RobJames said:

Keepers are the main offenders. When it is added time they should be given a warning, then off - with no replacement keeper allowed on. Much as any opposition player standing in front of a free kick. Yellow card with a 5% fine of his wages.

Before the red card for such an offence, the 'professional foul was fairly common place. Now it is almost non extent. The deliberate one, that is.

It is not about changing the game, it is about ending what is seen by fans as cheating. Heavier sanctions is the one on way of dealing with this stuff. And as the time wasting diminishes, so will the need for extended added time. Merely adding time on will not stop it, as players will judge that it is worth trying. As if it doesn't work, there is only the time that would have been played anyway.

Rather like bring in a law that says if you are caught shoplifting you have to hand the stuff back.... and that is all. Where is the deterrent there ?

 

 

Absolutely 100 per cent!!! Shoplifting should be punished with 2 months in prison if u are caught a second time. Build some prisons now and take a hard line. Prices will come down and the majority of the population will benefit. And stop goalkeepers dropping on the ball too !