RandomGuy. Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 ABBA penalty shoot out in action between Leicester and WBA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herman Hessian Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 8 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said: ABBA penalty shoot out in action between Leicester and WBA presumably that was a "winner takes it all" scenario.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gannonball Posted August 22, 2017 Share Posted August 22, 2017 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40993250 A premier league game where open play was little over 45 mins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northboy Posted August 22, 2017 Share Posted August 22, 2017 1 hour ago, gannonball said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40993250 A premier league game where open play was little over 45 mins. This issue of the time the ball is (or isn't) in play seems to be flavour of the moment. It's always been like that, play generally stops and starts pretty quickly so not a problem for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Is it actually being suggested a "stop-start" clock will make any difference, anyway? Surely it just alters the form of measurement... with them guestimating that 60mins play equates to 90mins play + stoppages... and more accurately reflects added-time. Why would it lead to faster play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 1 hour ago, HibeeJibee said: Is it actually being suggested a "stop-start" clock will make any difference, anyway? Surely it just alters the form of measurement... with them guestimating that 60mins play equates to 90mins play + stoppages... and more accurately reflects added-time. Why would it lead to faster play? I assume the benefits are no time-wasting and no arguments about how much injury-time there should or shouldn't be. I've always found it strange that, barring someone losing a leg or a full-scale riot, refs never add on more than 2 minutes in the first half. Also this common sequence always really annoys me: "The fourth official has indicated there will be a minimum of 5 minutes of added time." Team A, who are 1-0 up, spend those 5 minutes pretending to have cramp and take ages over throw-ins and free-kicks. Ref blows whistle bang on 95 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry94 Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 It does really piss me off how referees are often so happy to ignore play stoppages in injury time. There was a game last season where I timed the game had stopped for two minutes out of four added on and there was nothing else added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dee_62 Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 So, we've currently got games scheduled for 90 minutes, we know, with a degree of certainty, when they will finish and, when the final whistle has blown, we've seen approx 60 mins of game time. (sometimes less but sometimes more) Proposal is to change to ensure we see 60 mins of game time and not know for certain when the matches will end. Lot of hanging about if you're waiting to pick someone up after the game potentially. Don't think it's worth the effort tbh. Not a fan of the penalty kick change either. Ball should still be live if the keeper fumbles the save. Different in a shoot out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 I have never, ever come away from a game thinking 'That was crap as the ball was only in play for 68 minutes' It's never even crossed my mind how long the ball is deemed in play and how long it isn't. Probably the only times I think about something along these lines is when keepers are deliberately faffing around at goal kicks to obviously waste time. If I'm waiting for a free kick to be lined up I rarely think 'That's another 78 seconds the ball isn't active'. I'm involved in the tension of anticipation the free kick brings and wondering if it's going to end up in the wall or over the bar as most do. This whole thing sounds like nonsense from a footballing sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmc Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 So, we've currently got games scheduled for 90 minutes, we know, with a degree of certainty, when they will finish and, when the final whistle has blown, we've seen approx 60 mins of game time. (sometimes less but sometimes more) Proposal is to change to ensure we see 60 mins of game time and not know for certain when the matches will end. Lot of hanging about if you're waiting to pick someone up after the game potentially. Don't think it's worth the effort tbh. Not a fan of the penalty kick change either. Ball should still be live if the keeper fumbles the save. Different in a shoot out. Would be the case initially but think it would settle itself out. Rugby games rarely overrun (best counter example is the france wales 6n game which went way way over the 80 min). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 There seems to be a drive on just now to shake up all aspects of the Laws... kick-offs, "triple whammy", penalties, penalty shoot-outs, video replays, sin-bins, 5 subs, rolling subs and now even the duration and form of timekeeping. Traditionally even minor tinkering was seen as a big exercise in fear of making a bad move - in the entire second half of the twentieth century the only really notable changes were the invention of penalty shoot-outs, abolition of pass-backs and (disastrous) introduction of the "Golden Goal". Now it seems almost anything is up for grabs and will be rushed in soon after being proposed. Some - like 4th subs in extratime - make sense but a lot of the rest seems unnecessary tampering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistle_do_nicely Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 Thought I'd bump the thread when I saw this just there: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45110282 I'm guessing we'll eventually see proposals to make heading the ball an offence similar to handball to discourage heading from the game and reduce the risk of long-term health complications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 On 8/23/2017 at 17:21, HibeeJibee said: Some - like 4th subs in extratime - make sense You can now make 4 subs during the 90 minutes in the Swiss Challenge League(Second division). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 I like the 4 subs rule. I reckon it should be extended that you can make a 4th sub during the game if you've made all 3 and something happens to the keeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 I'd like unlimited subs tbh. It'd get abused of course but I like the idea of managers being able to chop and change when they like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accies1874 Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 1 hour ago, Thistle_do_nicely said: Thought I'd bump the thread when I saw this just there: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45110282 I'm guessing we'll eventually see proposals to make heading the ball an offence similar to handball to discourage heading from the game and reduce the risk of long-term health complications. Meanwhile, at the Hall of Das... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Ferguson's Hat Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 One of football's greatest joys is the hatchet-man CB having to don a numberless goalkeepers jersey because all the subs have been used and the GK has just taken a karate kick to the ribs. Substitutions should be cut to two a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 1 hour ago, Mayor Wilkins III said: I'd like unlimited subs tbh. It'd get abused of course but I like the idea of managers being able to chop and change when they like. As you say it would just be abused in an attempt to waste time. 1-0 in the 88th minute and you’ve got 9 subs warming up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernLights Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 2 hours ago, Thistle_do_nicely said: Thought I'd bump the thread when I saw this just there: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45110282 I'm guessing we'll eventually see proposals to make heading the ball an offence similar to handball to discourage heading from the game and reduce the risk of long-term health complications. How shite are corners going to be if they did ban heading altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salvo Montalbano Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 I'd like unlimited subs tbh. It'd get abused of course but I like the idea of managers being able to chop and change when they like.All that would do would encourage the bigger clubs to stockpile even more players. I'm not even a big fan of 7 subs. 5 is fine - keeper, defender, midfielder, winger, striker. Easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.