What's the most "Tin Pot" thing you've seen in the SPFL

[lubo_blaha]

With those specific Aberdeen fans, yes. In the 18/19 season, a late-ish James Wilson winner for Aberdeen at Livingston saw a small bunch of their fans pitch invade. I was fine with that. It was likely spontaneous given it'd been a tight and exciting match. Yet those same Aberdeen fans have pitch invaded each season since upon Aberdeen goals, even in the first half. It's the same folk each time as they do it from the same part of the away section. What annoys me (and this is only a minor annoyance, not a big deal at all, I must make clear) is how they only do it to us diddies, Livingston and County. They get it right up the diddy clubs yet politely shite themselves when at Ibrox, Parkhead, Tynecastle and the rest. No pitch invasions from them at those grounds. 

Have you seen our away form? I can assure you that nothing our team has done at these grounds recently would warrant a pitch invasion.

[stu92]

25 minutes ago, strichener said:

Probably because the games would last about 3 hours.  I agree with the suggestion though as it also removes any doubt about where the "extra time" came from and also prevents refs from indicating a minimum of 2 minutes and then playing 6.

Pretty sure that we could reduce games to an hour, if we only run the clock down when the ball was in play and it would actually be an increase in the game time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61342349

Wouldn’t be the worst idea imo. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, lubo_blaha said:

 

Have you seen our away form? I can assure you that nothing our team has done at these grounds recently would warrant a pitch invasion.

 

Ha! Away form, you say? 5-0 trouncing last time out for us, as you'll know!

[Monkey Tennis]

7 minutes ago, stu92 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61342349

Wouldn’t be the worst idea imo. 

It's interesting, isn't it?

All else being equal, that suggests that an hour's play would, like now, take a little more than 90 minutes to play (so long as Stoke don't feature).  Would all else be equal though?  Would it slow everything down, meaning stoppages carry no pressure and therefore get extended?  

On balance, I like the idea.  Even at lowly levels, very limited technology would allow officials to manage it.  If it meant, however, that matches started taking well over two hours from beginning to end, I'm not sure if I could be arsed with it.

[Jacky1990]

I watched the highlights and absolutely loved seeing all the Aberdeen fans just lose their shit when it went 0-1.

That raw emotion and connection to the game and the result is why football is the best sport on the planet by fucking miles.

A packed stand (home or away end) going mental and spilling over to celebrate with the players is class. As long as no one is injured, objects arent thrown, etc etc.

Even funnier watching the highlights knowing it ended up 1-1 and their celebrations were for f**k all 

[Jacky1990]

27 minutes ago, stu92 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61342349

Wouldn’t be the worst idea imo. 

Im very intrigued by this idea and would love to see how it works in practice.

In theory it is a good idea, but think there will be some amount of push back and opportunities for it to become problematic

[Leith Green]

2 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

Got to be honest, as I approach 40 I do now find it immensely annoying when people do not sit in their marked seat. It just makes things awkward and annoying for everyone.

Same applies when reservations on trains are not respected.

I have no problem with people enjoying the fitba and being enthusiastic etc, but this modern craze for pitch invasions is all part of the risible 'limbs' culture and feels very performative.

I don't like young people.

Ah, you are approaching the age when the GN forum will become much more appealing than this shite - not just "another bit of P&B" but probably the area where you find youself nodding and smiling (esp at the PTTGOYN).

Just dont venture on the Coronavirus or Politics bit - there be dragons..........................

[Clown Job]

1 hour ago, stu92 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61342349

Wouldn’t be the worst idea imo. 

I really dislike this idea to be honest 

 

[Empty It]

Agree with the general consensus here, the shitty pitch invasions and "limbs" moments of people diving on top of each other is artificial attention seeking, arseholes are more interested with how they look on social media than the actual game.

[Dons_1988]

Starting to see why hibs and hearts have no away support 

[CoF]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

If it meant, however, that matches started taking well over two hours from beginning to end, I'm not sure if I could be arsed with it.

There was a Motherwell Hibs game at the start of the year, midweek, under the floodlights, looking forward to it all day. 

Finished nil nil and the ball was apparently in play for something like 32 minutes. Absolutely eye-gougingly bad. The 90 minutes were plenty thanks.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, CoF said:

There was a Motherwell Hibs game at the start of the year, midweek, under the floodlights, looking forward to it all day. 

Finished nil nil and the ball was apparently in play for something like 32 minutes. Absolutely eye-gougingly bad. The 90 minutes were plenty thanks.

Yes, that's the worry.  

Imagine enduring all that and being barely half way through.

 

 

Some sort of extended pilot study somewhere would be interesting though.  So long as that somewhere is elsewhere, of course.

[VincentGuerin]

The current time-keeping arrangement is fine. If anything, I'd like to go back to the old days when you knew there'd be a maximum of 2-3 minutes of injury time.

I've got trains to catch, pubs to get back to etc.

[strichener]

10 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

The current time-keeping arrangement is fine. If anything, I'd like to go back to the old days when you knew there'd be a maximum of 2-3 minutes of injury time.

I've got trains to catch, pubs to get back to etc.

There are plenty of things that can delay games though.  Last season we had a game delayed for about 20 minutes to find a linesman as the ref injured himself in the warmup.  It's the time wasted element of the games that annoys me, nothing to do with duration.

[eez-eh]

I think you’re far too uptight if you think time wasting seriously merits such a big change to the game. Most of us enjoy a bit of shithousery. Seeing a wee team absolutely riling up a big team because they aren’t rushing to restart play is part of the game.

The continued sanitising and removing every single imperfection from the game needs to piss off. Changes like that inevitably benefit the bigger teams.

[strichener]

11 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

I think you’re far too uptight if you think time wasting seriously merits such a big change to the game. Most of us enjoy a bit of shithousery. Seeing a wee team absolutely riling up a big team because they aren’t rushing to restart play is part of the game.

The continued sanitising and removing every single imperfection from the game needs to piss off. Changes like that inevitably benefit the bigger teams.

I know, looking to get more actual play is such a big change and believe me the shorter the time the ball is in play this year the better for all Peterhead supporters but the modern day game has changed substantially and there is no reason why the rules can't adapt.  In field hockey, which is far more physically exerting than football they made changes to no offside, rolling subs and changed from 35 minute Halfs to 3 20 minute periods to ensure that the game didn't lose its intensity.  Changing the timing in football is minor in comparison.

[Monkey Tennis]

18 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

I think you’re far too uptight if you think time wasting seriously merits such a big change to the game. Most of us enjoy a bit of shithousery. Seeing a wee team absolutely riling up a big team because they aren’t rushing to restart play is part of the game.

The continued sanitising and removing every single imperfection from the game needs to piss off. Changes like that inevitably benefit the bigger teams.

Maybe.  Never thought of it that way.  If it favoured the already stronger clubs I'd fight to the death in resisting it.

However, couldn't you equally argue that the teams who win more often, are those who are in a position to run down the clock more frequently? 

We need a pilot damnit.  

[Monkey Tennis]

Just now, strichener said:

In field hockey, which is far more physically exerting than football they made changes to no offside, rolling subs and changed from 35 minute Halfs to 3 20 minute periods to ensure that the game didn't lose its intensity.  Changing the timing in football is minor in comparison.

Yes, but football matters.

[Mark Connolly]

19 minutes ago, strichener said:

In field hockey, which is far more physically exerting than football they made changes to no offside, rolling subs and changed from 35 minute Halfs to 3 20 minute periods to ensure that the game didn't lose its intensity.  Changing the timing in football is minor in comparison.

It's 4x15 min periods, and only really at the elite level. The majority of hockey is still 2x35 min halves.

[Nowhereman]

Maybe.  Never thought of it that way.  If it favoured the already stronger clubs I'd fight to the death in resisting it.
However, couldn't you equally argue that the teams who win more often, are those who are in a position to run down the clock more frequently? 
We need a pilot damnit.  

https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/football-matches-shorten-60-minutes-trials-start-clock-stop-ball-goes-out-1561828