30minute halfs???

wilks_bfc · Post by **wilks_bfc** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:17 pm

Apparently one of the proposals to be discussed at the IFAB along with some others

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40311889" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:20 pm

Just leave it alone you messers.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:22 pm

: wp_ss_20170617_0002.png (155.71 KiB) Viewed 4488 times

Increase respect from players etc?

Why don't Rugby refs have the same problem as football refs?

ClaretTony · Post by **ClaretTony** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:22 pm

Some strange ideas

wilks_bfc · Post by **wilks_bfc** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:34 pm

I don't think I understand what's to discuss about this one under "Which ideas are up for discussion?" - a goal-kick being taken on the same side that the ball went out on

Weren't the rules changed to allow the kick to be taken from any side? So now they want to change back?

Shore claret · Post by **Shore claret** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:01 pm

The respect can be sorted out in 2 minutes, put a microphone on the ref and let's hear what's said.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:05 pm

I think allowing the referee to stop his watch when people are feigning injury or wasting time is a better idea.

conyoviejo · Post by **conyoviejo** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:11 pm

Shore claret wrote:The respect can be sorted out in 2 minutes, put a microphone on the ref and let's hear what's said.

Also nobody is allowed to talk to the ref only the team captains..

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:13 pm

FactualFrank wrote:I think allowing the referee to stop his watch when people are feigning injury or wasting time is a better idea.

Both are too subjective and would only cause more frustration over decisions.

The ref should not be the arbiter of whether a play is injured or not. Anyway that time is added on in extra time or to use it's older lesser used name 'injury time'.

You do see refs tell players who appear to be time wasting they will add on additional minutes, if they persist they get booked too.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:26 pm

But by the same token, you can't expect referees to be robots. They need to be given a decent amount of trust and go off how they see the game. Otherwise, in years to come, we'll have computers refereeing the game.

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:37 pm

90 minutes reduced to 60? including the proportionate reduction in entrance fee for the fans as well.. only fair I would say.

minnieclaret · Post by **minnieclaret** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:09 pm

what's your problem guys. a guaranteed 60 mins is more than you get now also eases back on all the ridiculous methods of time wasting. As does the changing back of the rule on goal kicks, how often does a winning keeper take the ball to the furthest side to restart?

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:12 pm

conyoviejo wrote:Also nobody is allowed to talk to the ref only the team captains..

I think that's a current rule isn't it?

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:58 pm

minnieclaret wrote:what's your problem guys. a guaranteed 60 mins is more than you get now also eases back on all the ridiculous methods of time wasting. As does the changing back of the rule on goal kicks, how often does a winning keeper take the ball to the furthest side to restart?

I just think 90 minutes and professional football should stay together. It's not like we have a major problem that needs sorting, in that respect. Dumbing down on teams wasting time can be solved without the need for reducing 90 minutes.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 7:09 pm

South West Claret. wrote:90 minutes reduced to 60? including the proportionate reduction in entrance fee for the fans as well.. only fair I would say.

What they are saying is 60 minutes playing time. Clock stopped every time the ball is out of play; free kick, corner, throw in, penalty, not just when trainer is on for injuries etc. No time wasted with goal celebrations. So long as they get the right proportion of the current 90 minutes this will be an improvement. Clock visible to all players and spectators - just like at rugby. Also, time up only when ball is out of play.

Some more interesting ideas:
Penalty during game is "one shot" only, if it's saved by keeper there is no follow up by attacking team.
Penalty goal awarded for handball on the line (by defender, of course - I'm not sure where Sam would be on this one).
More than one touch allowed from fk, corner - so, player can "pass to himself" or dribble. Also, ball doesn't need to be still when kick taken.

I'm still a little stuck in the time when you could pass back to your keeper and the keeper could only take 4 paces with the ball and limited time. (I'm sure I'm mixing a few things up there).

VAR for corners will sort out a lot of the irritations with the game today. "Ref mike" - like rugby - would be fun.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 7:28 pm

...Yeah, and a 1/3 off the price of admission?

starting_11 · Post by **starting_11** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 7:46 pm

It won't work.

You'll end up with situations where goals have gone in 0.1 second after the "whistle" etc.

It's a novel idea, and sounds alright but the technicalities of this will be a complete ballache.

minnieclaret · Post by **minnieclaret** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:16 pm

FactualFrank wrote:I just think 90 minutes and professional football should stay together. It's not like we have a major problem that needs sorting, in that respect. Dumbing down on teams wasting time can be solved without the need for reducing 90 minutes.

they could start with not stopping the game for minor injuries. cramp, etc.,

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:35 pm

minnieclaret wrote:they could start with not stopping the game for minor injuries. cramp, etc.,

Maybe. But you'd then have people pretending they'd been shot, whenever they get cramp. Assuming their team is winning of course.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:41 pm

starting_11 wrote:It won't work.

You'll end up with situations where goals have gone in 0.1 second after the "whistle" etc.

It's a novel idea, and sounds alright but the technicalities of this will be a complete ballache.

New rules would take care of that - the game is only over when the ball is out of play, so the whistle goes after the goal has been scored, 0.1 second later.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:45 pm

FactualFrank wrote:Maybe. But you'd then have people pretending they'd been shot, whenever they get cramp. Assuming their team is winning of course.

As I understand the proposed possible new rules if a player is injured or if a player pretends he is injured then the clock is stopped - so no time is lost/wasted - and we aren't paying to watch an "amateur dram" audition for "pretend I am injured" or "I'm a waster of time on a football pitch."

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:51 pm

Paul Waine wrote:and we aren't paying to watch an "amateur dram" audition for "pretend I am injured" or "I'm a waster of time on a football pitch."

Now now, there's no need to bring the national football team into this.

Wokingclaret · Post by **Wokingclaret** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 11:16 pm

Time to pack it in, if this 30 minute cr*p came in

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:32 am

Pstotto wrote:...Yeah, and a 1/3 off the price of admission?

And 1/3 off players wages ?

The game would suit a number of modern players who can't do 90 mins anyway.

What about 3 lots of 30 mins ?

mikeS · Post by **mikeS** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:39 am

Three periods of 30 mins might be an idea - certainly for the media orgs, who could sell more advertising space etc. But it would mean seeing Linekar and his chums more than the actual game lasted.

the_fat_shearer · Post by **the_fat_shearer** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:41 am

For people who are asking for 1/3 price reduction I'm not sure you understand what you would be getting - years ago Sky used to to show in the stats at the end of the game how long the ball had been in play during the 90 minutes and most of the time it was between 55 and 57 minutes. So 60 minutes of ball in play would get you more - would you like a price increase?

I'm not saying that I support this idea but you certainly don't lose out on the amount of football.

One thing that I would be happy to have is the system from Rugby where the physio can come on to the pitch and treat players while the ball is still in play.

NottsClaret · Post by **NottsClaret** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:00 pm

I like the idea. Watching 8 or 9 minutes of time wasting in the last 15 minutes isn't much fun. I think it would be like the back pass rule, within a season we'll be wondering why we didn't do it before.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:17 pm

They'd like three lots of 30 mins to increase advertising revenue by having more ad breaks. That not about football it's a parasite on the back of football, coca cola etc.

IndigoLake · Post by **IndigoLake** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:23 pm

Games should be split into 4 quarters of 12 minutes each. Each team should be allowed one 20-second timeout over each half (or two quarters) as well as six full 1-minute timeouts over the course of the whole game. The goal is too big in football so it should be made smaller and higher up to make it more difficult to score. The handball rule should also be scrapped.

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:29 pm

Games should be left as they are...with just more control by the referee.

NEILTHO61 · Post by **NEILTHO61** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:41 pm

the_fat_shearer wrote:For people who are asking for 1/3 price reduction I'm not sure you understand what you would be getting - years ago Sky used to to show in the stats at the end of the game how long the ball had been in play during the 90 minutes and most of the time it was between 55 and 57 minutes. So 60 minutes of ball in play would get you more - would you like a price increase?

I'm not saying that I support this idea but you certainly don't lose out on the amount of football.

One thing that I would be happy to have is the system from Rugby where the physio can come on to the pitch and treat players while the ball is still in play.

You do loose out,because this game was in league use in the late 1800s onwards to the late 1960s 70s until money men, and cheating players decided that they would take the game from the inventors and ruin it
Up until that time 90 minutes was good value and no one complained in the working classes.Imagine Wembley in the exec box with these rules,there wouldn't be enough time for them to eat their Prawn sandwiches
South American players and Klinsman are big factors to the games decline,how did we manage to give the game we invented away to the idiots in charge now
Kick out the cheats who roll over feining injury by bringing in a health and safety rule that they must be badly injured so they must wait on the side lines for 5 mins to be checked over that would put a stop to that

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:54 pm

The 100 minutes' match duration is fine, leave it alone!
We go to games for the whole experience, but if I ran a TV company I would probably choose shorter game time with a longer half-time(advertising) break in the middle

Funkydrummer · Post by **Funkydrummer** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:59 pm

Why don't we just have ten penalties by each side and avoid having to sit around for an hour
and a half getting frozen to the core or wet through ?

Just think of the time that would be saved in our lives that could be put to much better use. ! ! !

NEILTHO61 · Post by **NEILTHO61** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:55 am

Funkydrummer wrote:Why don't we just have ten penalties by each side and avoid having to sit around for an hour
and a half getting frozen to the core or wet through ?

Just think of the time that would be saved in our lives that could be put to much better use. ! ! !

Brilliant idea. Sky would be able to fit more games in

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:49 am

So the problem is that a 90 minute match only gives 60 minutes playing time and they want to solve it by having 60 minutes of playing time. Yeah, well done guys.

Silkyskills1 · Post by **Silkyskills1** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:58 pm

IanMcL wrote:Games should be left as they are...with just more control by the referee.

And presumably that is how the new season will begin.............again. Full of good intentions from referees( last season Mike Dean awarding penalties for seemingly minor infringements.......and missing others) until they are worn down once more by whingeing players, managers and so-called experts. I grew up believing that both playing and officiating were supposed to be enjoyable; I'm sure they were once but there must be lots of times now where the ref is checking his watch to see how much time is left and despairing that there is a lot longer left than he thought. Even more so in local amateur football played up and down the country. Would you add on an extra 5 minutes if you had been subjected to intimidation/ verbal abuse for the previous 90?

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:09 pm

That is for the authorities to sort out. Abuse is easily recorded and if the players know, they will stop.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:34 pm

the_fat_shearer wrote:For people who are asking for 1/3 price reduction I'm not sure you understand what you would be getting - years ago Sky used to to show in the stats at the end of the game how long the ball had been in play during the 90 minutes and most of the time it was between 55 and 57 minutes. So 60 minutes of ball in play would get you more - would you like a price increase?

I'm not saying that I support this idea but you certainly don't lose out on the amount of football.

One thing that I would be happy to have is the system from Rugby where the physio can come on to the pitch and treat players while the ball is still in play.

In rugby, they stop play as soon as there's any chance that the ball would go near the injured player. Because in rugby league, at least, if the man is behind the ball he's safe until they kick it. In football, possession changes a lot more often and the movement of the action is a lot more random, so there are no safe places on the field.

RocketLawnChair · Post by **RocketLawnChair** » Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:42 pm

So they want to change rules because everyone's found numerous ways of breaking the current ones.

What makes them think changing the rules would make managers and players behave any different ? They will find a way to cheat no matter what the authorities do, end of..

DCWat · Post by **DCWat** » Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:49 pm

Feigning injury isn't just about wasting time, it's about breaking up momentum. This change wouldn't stop that and if it results in a very similar 'in play time' it's pretty pointless.