Rule Changes Discussion

Lighty64

Glory Glory
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
5,983
#21
Never used to be as bad, but I can't imagine the ball was ever in play for more than 65-70 minutes tops in an average game. There's a lot of natural stoppages for set pieces, celebrations, substitutions, injuries without any time-wasting at all. Extending the games would be a huge change to the sport.
still a lot more than it is today, no so much play acting, and with so much less money involved a goal was celebrated but not as bad as todays game because the ££££££'s for that goal wasn't as big if it even existed in those days
 

Lighty64

Glory Glory
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
5,983
#22
60 mins would be 60 mins of play exactly. It would take about the same time as a current game, and there'd be the same amount of actual play. The only difference would be there is no time-wasting because it wouldn't make any difference how long you took to walk off/take a throw it/take a goal kick etc. There is literally zero downside to stopping the clock as long as you make it 60 mins not 90.
think we will have to agree to disagree with the length. I honestly believe the minute they bring in a timer time wasting would disappear in the sense of taking set pieces and the rolling around pretending to be injured. I just think for the prices they charge and for the prices these players get 1 hour is not very good value and feel that more and more matches will land up taking around 70 mins to complete

edit apart from games at Wet Spam because it will always take longer to retrieve the ball. would help if they could do the multi ball that happens in the CL too
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
2,931
#23
think we will have to agree to disagree with the length. I honestly believe the minute they brought in a timer time wasting would disappear in the sense of taking set pieces and the rolling around pretending to be injured. I just think for the prices they charge and for the prices these players get 1 hour is not very good value and feel that more and more matches will land up taking around 70 mins to complete
You're still not getting it mate, sorry. The paying fans would still be getting the exact same bang for their buck as they do now. The only thing that would be missing would be the time wasting. Even if the match only took e.g. 70 mins to get through, the 20 mins that you would've "lost" would just have been 20 mins of time wasting. People are only getting 60 mins worth of entertainment for their money at the moment so limiting the game to 60 mins but stopping the clock would just preserve that, not lessen it.
 

Lighty64

Glory Glory
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
5,983
#24
You're still not getting it mate, sorry. The paying fans would still be getting the exact same bang for their buck as they do now. The only thing that would be missing would be the time wasting. Even if the match only took e.g. 70 mins to get through, the 20 mins that you would've "lost" would just have been 20 mins of time wasting. People are only getting 60 mins worth of entertainment for their money at the moment so limiting the game to 60 mins but stopping the clock would just preserve that, not lessen it.
but we should be getting more. the game was designed originally for 40mins EW I think
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
2,931
#25
but we should be getting more. the game was designed originally for 40mins EW I think
If the players/clubs/fans are already complaining that there are too many games and the players are getting too tired/injured, then making each game even longer on top of that is only going to make that problem worse.
 

Lighty64

Glory Glory
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
5,983
#26
If the players/clubs/fans are already complaining that there are too many games and the players are getting too tired/injured, then making each game even longer on top of that is only going to make that problem worse.
I doubt they waste time to conserve energy, teams near the bottom do it to try and gain a point or if leading 3pts, teams at the top only really stretch to it v the bigger teams when leading.

I bet if they introduced a timer that meant the ball has to be in play for 60 mins 90% of the time that game will be finished before 4:25 the other 10% would be due to injuries that do take time to treat.

time wasted is because a team/player knows they can get away with it. the minute they know it won't matter it will stop because there is no advantage. so make it 80-90 mins and most games will be still be finished by 5. players won't be kicking the ball to the back of the stands or taking 20 seconds to throw or kick the ball back in, they won't roll around injured unless really injured
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
2,931
#27
I doubt they waste time to conserve energy, teams near the bottom do it to try and gain a point or if leading 3pts, teams at the top only really stretch to it v the bigger teams when leading.

I bet if they introduced a timer that meant the ball has to be in play for 60 mins 90% of the time that game will be finished before 4:25 the other 10% would be due to injuries that do take time to treat.

time wasted is because a team/player knows they can get away with it. the minute they know it won't matter it will stop because there is no advantage. so make it 80-90 mins and most games will be still be finished by 5. players won't be kicking the ball to the back of the stands or taking 20 seconds to throw or kick the ball back in, they won't roll around injured unless really injured
I'm not saying anyone wastes time to conserve energy :confused: I'm not really sure where you've got that from to be honest. My point was that with the current system, where players only are actually playing for about 60mins, they're already complaining there are too many games etc. so if you suddenly make them play for a full 90 mins by stopping the clock but not reducing the overall game time, it's the equivalent of them playing 50% more games by the end of the season.
 

Lighty64

Glory Glory
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
5,983
#28
I'm not saying anyone wastes time to conserve energy :confused: I'm not really sure where you've got that from to be honest. My point was that with the current system, where players only are actually playing for about 60mins, they're already complaining there are too many games etc. so if you suddenly make them play for a full 90 mins by stopping the clock but not reducing the overall game time, it's the equivalent of them playing 50% more games by the end of the season.

I know you never mentioned it, I'm just pointing out what time is wasted on and I doubt that is one of the reasons, and around 15 of the 30 average wasted is done on purpose, but whats ridiculous is that the average time the ball is in play is only around 60 minutes.

what I am saying though is if they started using a timer most games would be finished nearer the 60 minute mark (16:15) than the 90 minute and I believe that paying £30 to £90 is too much money (think it's expensive for 90 minutes with a lot of time wasting)
 

Tucker

Devious Lefty
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
4,206
#29
You’re missing the point. A game will take exactly the same amount of time as it does now. It’s just that none of the stoppages will count towards the clock.
 

Lighty64

Glory Glory
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
5,983
#30
You’re missing the point. A game will take exactly the same amount of time as it does now. It’s just that none of the stoppages will count towards the clock.
no I'm not missing the point, a game should last for 90 minutes. because 1 game might last 44 mins (think it was Cardiff v Burnley) with the ball in play, and another might go 64 the match ends after 90 mins + added time.

if they bring in something that guarantees that 60 mins will be played ie……. 30mins E/W but the clock is stopped the minute the ball goes over the line, I bet you won't see time wasting going on in taking set pieces because there won't be any point in doing it, or as much rolling around pretending to be injured.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
2,931
#31
no I'm not missing the point, a game should last for 90 minutes. because 1 game might last 44 mins (think it was Cardiff v Burnley) with the ball in play, and another might go 64 the match ends after 90 mins + added time.

if they bring in something that guarantees that 60 mins will be played ie……. 30mins E/W but the clock is stopped the minute the ball goes over the line, I bet you won't see time wasting going on in taking set pieces because there won't be any point in doing it, or as much rolling around pretending to be injured.
THat's the point we're trying to make mate. There would be a guaranteed 60 mins of play, it's just the other stuff that would be missing
 

Lighty64

Glory Glory
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
5,983
#32
THat's the point we're trying to make mate. There would be a guaranteed 60 mins of play, it's just the other stuff that would be missing
and I'm saying they should do something that cuts out time wasting so they play more. and the cost what is paid deserves more
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
2,931
#33
and I'm saying they should do something that cuts out time wasting so they play more. and the cost what is paid deserves more
We're going round in circles here. The entire point in stopping the clock is to cut out time wasting. By stopping the clock and reducing the clock to 60mins total, you are preserving the exact same situation as now but without any time wasting. You would get the same amount of game time/time in the stadium as you do now, except that the entirety of that time would be actual play rather than time wasting. I'm not sure how many different way I can keep saying the same thing mate
 

Lighty64

Glory Glory
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
5,983
#34
We're going round in circles here. The entire point in stopping the clock is to cut out time wasting. By stopping the clock and reducing the clock to 60mins total, you are preserving the exact same situation as now but without any time wasting. You would get the same amount of game time/time in the stadium as you do now, except that the entirety of that time would be actual play rather than time wasting. I'm not sure how many different way I can keep saying the same thing mate
as you say no point as we are going round in circles, you see it your way I see it differently. if they bring it in enjoy the full-time results service being read out at 16:30 on a Saturday because players wouldn't waste time, and the ball doesn't get kicked out of play for a total of 30 mins.

keepers will take goal kicks quicker,
players will get the ball in quicker on throw-ins
players will get off quicker if being subbed
goal celebrations will be less time consuming
players will roll around less when not injured

because they can't get away with it
 

NinjaTuna

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2017
Messages
974
#35
The trouble is I think if you kept it at 90 mins you'd either just end up with more players getting injured, or the games being really tedious because on top of taking ages to get through, the pace of the game would be really slow because players would be having to pace themselves to make it through an extra half hour of play every game. Like I say, it would be the equivalent of making every match go to extra time. Over the course of a 40-50 game season that would really take it's toll.
Yeah but think about all the goals Harry Kane would get 😍😍😍
 

Lighty64

Glory Glory
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
5,983
#37
Also it used to be six steps max. Seems both have disappeared now.
way too many changes to football, and the only 2 I can honestly agree with is the back pass, and goal line technology

the worst 1's UEFA changing all comps, Sky and the Premier intro. without those 3 there wouldn't be as much greed in the game, and very much doubt Chelsea and City would of ever dominated anything (downside is Liverpool might of carried on a bit longer)
 

Houdini

No better cure for the blues than some good pussy.
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
45,892
#38
We should make the game 100 minutes long then break it into quarters and give each player a stick and a set of darts and when a player has the ball he has to repeat kabaddi kabaddi over and over until he passes the ball or scores a goal.
Any time wasting and the opposition throw their darts at the offending player.
This is such a good idea!
 

aliyid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
3,291
#39
We should make the game 100 minutes long then break it into quarters and give each player a stick and a set of darts and when a player has the ball he has to repeat kabaddi kabaddi over and over until he passes the ball or scores a goal.
Any time wasting and the opposition throw their darts at the offending player.
This is such a good idea!
Do we add time for the Haka though
 

Lighty64

Glory Glory
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
5,983
#40
We should make the game 100 minutes long then break it into quarters and give each player a stick and a set of darts and when a player has the ball he has to repeat comeonyouspurs comeonyouspurs over and over until he passes the ball or scores a goal.
Any time wasting and the opposition throw their darts at the offending player.
This is such a good idea!
fyp wouldn't it be better imagine the faces of the oppo fans when there players are singing for us. we could rule the world though Levy would fuck up somewhere:whistle:
 
Top