Should 45 minute halves be scrapped

[londonblue]

Im sure one of our ref posters will correct me if Im wrong, but my understanding is there is no 6 second rule.

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules...es/laws/football-11-11/law-16---the-goal-kick

I've had this argument about a 100 times over the last few years. Firstly, the six second law does still exist, and secondly, I didn't make that up, I got it from the news article: FIFA are looking to enforce the law. I would imagine they would only try to enforce laws that exist!

 

[Jam_Man]

I've had this argument about a 100 times over the last few years. Firstly, the six second law does still exist, and secondly, I didn't make that up, I got it from the new article: FIFA are looking to enforce the law. I would imagine they would only try to enforce laws that exist!

I did correct myself later on...

 

[londonblue]

According to this its still there so looks like I was mistaken

https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

Ahh, I didn't see you'd corrected yourself. It's also on page 83 of the laws of the game:

Laws of the Game

 

[londonblue]

I did correct myself later on...

So I see. See above!

 

[kaymac]

Looks to me they are trying to package the game (rather like is done with US Sports) solely for the benefit of television
viewing which is where the really big money is now coming into the game, notably from the Far East. No-one cares a toss about the supporters who actually attend games, least of all the FA / Prem League / EFL, else ticket prices could be cut right across the board to acknowledge the fans rather than keep treating them as cash-cows.

 

[Beefy]

How does increasing the amount of on-field action benefit anyone other than the supporters who are there?

 

[AndyT]

I'm sure it can't be just me that gets irritated by this, but I'd like to see the option for picking ends dropped from the coin toss - make it just about who kicks off first. Probably selfish, but I like to see my team kicking towards me in the second half...

I actually like the idea of that.

On the flip side, though, teams often turn it round at kick-off, due to other factors like wind direction and, particularly at Roots Hall, the effect of the low sun into the North Bank end in the first half during winter games.

It might be seen as an advantage to us to be defending the North Bank goal in the second half. Still, sounds alright by me! :winking:

 

[kaymac]

How does increasing the amount of on-field action benefit anyone other than the supporters who are there?

Erm, how do you know for sure there will actually be an increase in the on-field action? The so-called 60 minutes of actual play as claimed is purely (rough) estimation.

 

[AndyT]

I think the PL recently did some stats and it was around 62-65 minutes per match, so 60 minutes is reasonably accurate, I think.

 

[londonblue]

Erm, how do you know for sure there will actually be an increase in the on-field action? The so-called 60 minutes of actual play as claimed is purely (rough) estimation.

By all accounts it's not a "rough estimation", it's based on a lot of analysis of a lot of football matches. (Personally I can't think of anything more boring than watching a football match and stopping the watch every time there is a stop in play, but people have done it, and been paid to do it!)

The theory here is that, at present in a 90 minute match the ball is in play about 56 minutes (IIRC), so changing the match to 2 halves of 60 minutes, with the clock stopped when the ball is out of play will increase the playing time, and not take any longer than the 90 minutes the match currently lasts.

You could, however argue whether or not such a drastic change to the philosophy of football is really worth it for the sake of around 4 minutes. The alternative suggestions put forward might make up the four minutes or so difference without such a drastic change to the laws.

 

[kaymac]

By all accounts it's not a "rough estimation", it's based on a lot of analysis of a lot of football matches. (Personally I can't think of anything more boring than watching a football match and stopping the watch every time there is a stop in play, but people have done it, and been paid to do it!)

The theory here is that, at present in a 90 minute match the ball is in play about 56 minutes (IIRC), so changing the match to 2 halves of 60 minutes, with the clock stopped when the ball is out of play will increase the playing time, and not take any longer than the 90 minutes the match currently lasts.

You could, however argue whether or not such a drastic change to the philosophy of football is really worth it for the sake of around 4 minutes. The alternative suggestions put forward might make up the four minutes or so difference without such a drastic change to the laws.[/QUOTE

As you say, it's a time based on theory (at present). Some of the proposals seem very sensible in attempting to tidying-up the game and keep it flowing but personally am not so thrilled about the '60 minutes of game time' idea and can see flaws in that. Just my own opinions based upon several decades of watching the great game....

 

[South Bank Hank]

Curious about these two...

Another way to stop time-wasting; the team that concedes a goal can kick off as soon as possible, irrespective of opposition being in their half. That'll shorten goal celebrations.

Why on earth would you want to shorten goal celebrations? We can punish purposeful delay tactics of course, but would we really want a basketball style approach where the players just do a quick high-five and crack on with game. For me, that just rips the heart out of it..

The idea of being able to pass to yourself at free kicks is just laughable.

Laughable why? If a player in full flow is cut down, why so laughable that he'd get to restart in the same way? From an entertainment perspective, it adds far more than it takes away. More excitement, more challenges to face at free kicks, undoubtedly more goals. Works in Rugby. Could work in football.

 

[londonblue]

Curious about these two...



Why on earth would you want to shorten goal celebrations? We can punish purposeful delay tactics of course, but would we really want a basketball style approach where the players just do a quick high-five and crack on with game. For me, that just rips the heart out of it..



Laughable why? If a player in full flow is cut down, why so laughable that he'd get to restart in the same way? From an entertainment perspective, it adds far more than it takes away. More excitement, more challenges to face at free kicks, undoubtedly more goals. Works in Rugby. Could work in football.

Agree with both points. For the 2nd, that rule exists in hockey, and it seems to work quite well.

 

[londonblue]

As you say, it's a time based on theory (at present). Some of the proposals seem very sensible in attempting to tidying-up the game and keep it flowing but personally am not so thrilled about the '60 minutes of game time' idea and can see flaws in that. Just my own opinions based upon several decades of watching the great game....

Yep, my concern is that by making a game last 60 minutes absolute time then you aren't able to increase the time any further without another change to the laws. By eliminating time wasting of various types, and asking referees to be more vigilant, you may be able to increase the playing time to greater than 60 minutes. You won't ever do that if you make 60 minutes the cut off time.

 

[rigsby]

Curious about these two...



Why on earth would you want to shorten goal celebrations? We can punish purposeful delay tactics of course, but would we really want a basketball style approach where the players just do a quick high-five and crack on with game. For me, that just rips the heart out of it..



Laughable why? If a player in full flow is cut down, why so laughable that he'd get to restart in the same way? From an entertainment perspective, it adds far more than it takes away. More excitement, more challenges to face at free kicks, undoubtedly more goals. Works in Rugby. Could work in football.

One of the most annoying things in football is the 'take one for the team' tackle. You know your team are on a break and someone is tripped from behind. You are really denied a goal scoring opportunity as it was possible 3-on -3 situation etc. Southend were definitely well behind over a season when it comes to fouls committed like this over fouls against us.

It could of course be a straight red as there is no attempt to play the ball but I would like to see the team fouled gain more advantage. Why can't a team mate following up just carry with the break. Collecting a moving ball even if it is 10 yards further forward and pass to himself if necessary to continue the break.

At the moment us supports are denied one of the great moments in a match a player bursting through the middle of the park and driving at the oppo's back 4. Because a yellow card is certainly no deterrent and your team have ample time to regroup and face up.

 

[Jam_Man]

One of the most annoying things in football is the 'take one for the team' tackle. You know your team are on a break and someone is tripped from behind. You are really denied a goal scoring opportunity as it was possible 3-on -3 situation etc. Southend were definitely well behind over a season when it comes to fouls committed like this over fouls against us.

It could of course be a straight red as there is no attempt to play the ball but I would like to see the team fouled gain more advantage. Why can't a team mate following up just carry with the break. Collecting a moving ball even if it is 10 yards further forward and pass to himself if necessary to continue the break.

At the moment us supports are denied one of the great moments in a match a player bursting through the middle of the park and driving at the oppo's back 4. Because a yellow card is certainly no deterrent and your team have ample time to regroup and face up.

I think that is home bias playing out.

Fans always complain about the other team time wasting etc but are always far more short sighted when their own side does it.

 

[rigsby]

I think that is home bias playing out.

Fans always complain about the other team time wasting etc but are always far more short sighted when their own side does it.

Not at all some teams use this tactic a lot even at home. I did go to about 16 away last season. We did not get many yellow cards for tripping opponents from behind. Say what you like about PB but his players are a lot more honest than many other teams.

Graham Westley signals for certain players to go down if the opposition have a good 5 minutes and then makes sure he holds the game up for at least 3 or 4 minutes.

I have a good view of the benches for most games If the team are winning or even drawing then often you will see a manger give a sub the nod to get stripped and then signal the player coming off, who then falls to the ground and we have a total charade that the long winded substation was because of injury. I have never seen PB do this as and I am watching closely as I like to guess the subs.

 

[Pubey]

I think that is home bias playing out.

Fans always complain about the other team time wasting etc but are always far more short sighted when their own side does it.

it's because Leonard is fast enough to win the ball back fairly

 

[Beefy]

As you say, it's a time based on theory (at present).

It's really not - it's based on years worth of stats showing the average time the ball is in play.

I think overall I come down against the proposal - '90 minutes' is so ingrained in football culture and history and I'd not want to lose that. I'd be open though to there being a minimum amount of time that the ball has to be in play (30 minutes) in a half so you've still got your 90 minute matches and time wasting is still rendered pointless.

I'd couple that with another suggested rule change which is the game only being able to end when the ball goes out of play.

 

[Pubey]

It's really not - it's based on years worth of stats showing the average time the ball is in play.

I think overall I come down against the proposal - '90 minutes' is so ingrained in football culture and history and I'd not want to lose that. I'd be open though to there being a minimum amount of time that the ball has to be in play (30 minutes) in a half so you've still got your 90 minute matches and time wasting is still rendered pointless.

I'd couple that with another suggested rule change which is the game only being able to end when the ball goes out of play.

I like that idea, so the 'additional time' is calculated precisely.