Qatar 2022

[EastUpperDK82]

Not the article I read but this is from FIFA website about an interview with Pierluigi Collina

“Pierluigi Collina, Chairman of FIFA’s Referee’s Committee, said that the referees had been told to protect the players and football’s values. He said that simulation was a lack of respect towards opponents and said referees would also be on the lookout for players who provoked contact to try and win a penalty. He added that there would be no room for dissent and that any kind of stoppage during play – whether it be for injuries, time-wasting or goal celebrations – would be compensated in stoppage time. “

If that's the case... then fine by me. It would be a good thing. No doubt... I just don't trust FIFA ?? ... or some of the dodgy referees we see at World Cups.

 

[EastUpperDK82]

24 minutes!!! Bloody hell.

Exactly my point ?? .. the treatment of the Iranian keeper was a farce... he should have been taken off quicker. Their medical staff was a joke. And the referee did nothing.

 

[kr1978]

If that's the case... then fine by me. It would be a good thing. No doubt... I just don't trust FIFA ?? ... or some of the dodgy referees we see at World Cups.

Agree on both points, we’ve been on the wrong end of a lot of time wasting this season so be nice to see it more accurately reflected in the stoppage time but also wouldn’t be surprised to see some dodgy ones in this World Cup if the result isn’t to FIFAs liking at 90 minutes.

 

[13VanDerBale13]

Personally i’m happy with this, far too much time is wasted then people realise, when the ball is not in play like in ?

 

[BorjeSpurs]

There was 24 minutes of injury time in the England game and at least 15 of those minutes were for the keeper's and Maguire's potential concussions, plus there were a full glut of subs and a late VAR penalty. So the time was totally justified.

Agree that more added time is justified in football in general. However, what FIFA is saying with this is that football have forever underestimated extra time with about 50%.

There’s no transparency how they used to count extra time before and what’s changed now. This is also a FIFA thing, so after 64 WC games we will go back to the European leagues and go back to what is was like at the start of the season.

The US-Wales game had 10,5 added minutes, would have been about 5-6 minutes in the PL a week ago.

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

So if Kane got booked pre-game, then a second during the match, is that fair on him as an individual to get sent off and miss the next match? The ease of our group has nothing to do with it.
So you’re saying we should do it because we’ve got an easy group. If we had Germany & Serbia you’d suggest not doing it??
This is on FIFA, no one else.

Agree spot on

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

I completely understand your sentiment but think that is a slight oversimplification.

I just mean that every situation is different.

By that I mean that this is a World Cup and not a friendly match or nations league match etc. It’s the most important most recognised football tournament in the world.

On one hand that does provide the opportunity to reach a wider audience so anything that can be done to stand up against bad values and morals etc should be done but at the same time on a sporting level this is the most important football tournament so the players and FA etc aren’t willing to wear the armband if it means yellow cards and sporting punishments.

Say they went ahead and did it as a ‘statement’ Kane gets a yellow card then picks another few up, misses the quarter final and we lose a tight game 1-0 where Kane could’ve made all the difference then you’ve potentially undone your chance to win a World Cup as a result of the actions which FIFA said would be punished and so you’re letting down the hopes of a nation as well as all of the other players who’ve worked their lives to be part of that squad.

Fifa is the issue here not England or the FA for not following through with wearing the armband. The World Cup should never have been held in a country with such unfair and immoral values, Qatar are also the issue for their values.

So as I said I agree with your sentiment I just meant it’s not as simple as saying all sports stars and teams should always stand up or against certain social or political or cultural injustices and bad/immoral values etc. It’s great if they can do all they can but at certain times their hands are tied.

I just think not many situations are black and white and a lot of the time decisions that can be made depend on all of the circumstances at hand that is all.

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

Yes it is, once team is potentially risking their lives and doing it anyway, the other risking a yellow card and abandoning it.

The sickening thing is the fact that the very first time their has been push back with the threat of very minor repercussions and they drop nuts, meaning their was only solidarity with the cause as long as their was no inconvenience.

It also makes a mockery of them taking the knee, showing it is nothing but virtue signalling.

Also, its not the entire team risking a yellow card even, just the person wearing it, the captain a player who had a total of 2 yellow cards in 75 England games playing Iran in the 1st group game. Not exactly high risk.

But who are you saying it is ‘sickening’ from? Kane? Southgate? The fa? The whole England team?

They’ve weighed up all the facts and stipulations at the current time and have made a decision. What is sickening is how Qatar themselves as a country treat certain people with certain values, their human rights etc, i don’t believe ‘sickening’ is the right word for a sports governing body making a certain decision to or not to wear an armband or not for a statement against what is happening in Qatar and what they stand for etc when they have run a number of campaigns to support social and other injustice in the past.

Disappointing sure, sickening not imo.

 

[Timberwolf]

Agree that more added time is justified in football in general. However, what FIFA is saying with this is that football have forever underestimated extra time with about 50%.

There’s no transparency how they used to count extra time before and what’s changed now. This is also a FIFA thing, so after 64 WC games we will go back to the European leagues and go back to what is was like at the start of the season.

The US-Wales game had 10,5 added minutes, would have been about 5-6 minutes in the PL a week ago.

Yeah it really feels like they're going from one extreme to the other.

Even if you discount timewasting, European football as a whole is hugely inconsistent when it comes to injury time. Sometimes you get 4 goals in the second half, a VAR check and 3 sets of subs (including one after the 90) and you still only get the ref blowing up at 90+4 on the dot. There was one Spurs game recently where the ref even blew up before the allotted time, despite there being timewasting and additional subs during injury time. Equally refs almost always don't add enough injury time in the first half, with games regularly having next to no time added on despite some goals, stoppages, etc.

Seems like for the World Cup, they are not only strictly timing every single injury and wasted moment from VAR, but also being really rigid about subs, goals, etc.

I can see what they're trying to do here, but I think by going so extreme on it so fast, it all feels a bit absurd. Maybe as the tournament goes on teams will realise they can't time waste and it will balance out, but I think they could've gone hard on timewasting and VAR without suddenly becoming extremely anal about subs and goals too.

Like 6 or 7 mins for Wales USA would've felt about right. Once we're getting into 9 or 10 minutes almost every half it feels a bit silly and surely isn't great for the players.

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

Yeah it really feels like they're going from one extreme to the other.

Even if you discount timewasting, European football as a whole is hugely inconsistent when it comes to injury time. Sometimes you get 4 goals in the second half, a VAR check and 3 sets of subs (including one after the 90) and you still only get the ref blowing up at 90+4 on the dot. There was one Spurs game recently where the ref even blew up before the allotted time, despite there being timewasting and additional subs during injury time. At the other extreme refs almost always don't add enough injury time in the first half, with games regularly having next to no time added on despite some goals, stoppages, etc.

Seems like for the World Cup, they are not only strictly timing every single injury and wasted moment from VAR, but also being really rigid about subs, goals, etc.

I can see what they're trying to do here, but I think by going so extreme on it so fast, it all feels a bit absurd. Maybe as the tournament goes on teams will realise they can't time waste and it will balance out, but I think they could've gone hard on timewasting and VAR without suddenly becoming extremely anal about subs and goals too.

Like 6 or 7 mins for Wales USA would've felt about right. Once we're getting into 9 or 10 almost every half it's just silly.

Yep you’re spot on mate they’re taking it to an extreme here so far.

Although based on Nick Pope and Ben Fosters time wasting antics against Spurs in the past we’d be getting a good 20 mins of extra time each half ?

 

[spurs9]

But who are you saying it is ‘sickening’ from? Kane? Southgate? The fa? The whole England team?

They’ve weighed up all the facts and stipulations at the current time and have made a decision. What is sickening is how Qatar themselves as a country treat certain people with certain values, their human rights etc, i don’t believe ‘sickening’ is the right word for a sports governing body making a certain decision to or not to wear an armband or not for a statement against what is happening in Qatar and what they stand for etc.

Disappointing sure, sickening not imo.

Everyone who had a choice to stand up for something they have been virtue signalling about for the last few months/years who dropped nuts at the threat of a yellow card.

 

[Finchyid]

Yep you’re spot on mate they’re taking it to an extreme here so far.

Although based on Nick Pope and Ben Fosters time wasting antics against Spurs in the past we’d be getting a good 20 mins of extra time each half ?

Scott Carson was bad too. It was always West Brom!

 

[BorjeSpurs]

Yeah it really feels like they're going from one extreme to the other.

Even if you discount timewasting, European football as a whole is hugely inconsistent when it comes to injury time. Sometimes you get 4 goals in the second half, a VAR check and 3 sets of subs (including one after the 90) and you still only get the ref blowing up at 90+4 on the dot. There was one Spurs game recently where the ref even blew up before the allotted time, despite there being timewasting and additional subs during injury time. Equally refs almost always don't add enough injury time in the first half, with games regularly having next to no time added on despite some goals, stoppages, etc.

Seems like for the World Cup, they are not only strictly timing every single injury and wasted moment from VAR, but also being really rigid about subs, goals, etc.

I can see what they're trying to do here, but I think by going so extreme on it so fast, it all feels a bit absurd. Maybe as the tournament goes on teams will realise they can't time waste and it will balance out, but I think they could've gone hard on timewasting and VAR without suddenly becoming extremely anal about subs and goals too.

Like 6 or 7 mins for Wales USA would've felt about right. Once we're getting into 9 or 10 minutes almost every half it feels a bit silly and surely isn't great for the players.

It’s also something that football can be transparent about if they want to. A handball law or the law for a red card can never be 100% defined into words. There is always going to be some level of variability and understanding of the game that we can’t fully account for in advance.

Extra time however can be fully defined. We can use a stopwatch for all injuries if that is desired. We can decide how long time a team should celebrate a goal, e.g. 30 seconds is allowed and if there is any extra time from this we can add it to the end. We can decide how much time should be allocated for substitutions, now I don’t really know whether a triple substitution adds the same amount of time as a three subs made at three intervals.

Maybe the refs have definitions for all of this, but then it either has purposely ignored most of the extra time historically, or they have completely changed the laws without notifying the outside football world.

 

[Houdini]

England played 29 minutes of TAO!
15 in the first half and 14 in the second.
I agree with it, because it nulls the time wasting that is blatantly going on.

 

[Dazzazzad]

I also love the added time. I hope it catches on. But would be better if it was transparent. You don't need to "add" time if there is a game clock that is stopped when the game is stopped.

 

[worcestersauce]

I hope it doesn't catch on in the premier league I'll miss my train.

 

[hughy]

Personally i’m happy with this, far too much time is wasted then people realise, when the ball is not in play like in ?

Basketball. Just say basketball.

 

[IfiHadTheWings]

Not the article I read but this is from FIFA website about an interview with Pierluigi Collina

“Pierluigi Collina, Chairman of FIFA’s Referee’s Committee, said that the referees had been told to protect the players and football’s values. He said that simulation was a lack of respect towards opponents and said referees would also be on the lookout for players who provoked contact to try and win a penalty. He added that there would be no room for dissent and that any kind of stoppage during play – whether it be for injuries, time-wasting or goal celebrations – would be compensated in stoppage time. “

Greatest ref of all time and it shows in his values of the game.

 

[RuskyM]

Curious if the added time continues into the knockouts, because when there’s real jeopardy things could get very helter skelter.

 

[Wig]

I also love the added time. I hope it catches on. But would be better if it was transparent. You don't need to "add" time if there is a game clock that is stopped when the game is stopped.

Rugby seems to have this part nailed.