[Football] Should half time be extended to 30 minutes?

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

No need for such a drastic change, however I could see the arguement for 20 minutes to get more adverts in and more food/beer sold etc.

Have to admit I thought 20 minutes was already the case. Certainly seems like it.

 

[Acker79]

My halftime routine is to stretch my legs and wait for the second half to start. Most games I can't even check the other games on my phone because so many people are trying the same thing resulting in poor wifi connection.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

What’s wrong HT, bloody restart getting in the way of your fine dining in 1901?

In short yes, we were really up against it yesterday. The amount of food we had to get through yesterday was quite overwhelming; something surely has to give?

 

[The Large One]

I wish we could go back to 10 minutes: I much preferred that.

Quite. When it was extended from 10 to 15 minutes, that was purely at the request of the TV companies. The managers and players never wanted it; indeed some managers stated that they can say all they need to say in 10 minutes.

Anyone who wants anything longer than 15 minutes is only doing so for their own selfish needs, and not taking the players into account at all.

 

[raymondo]

On a similar subject I'd prefer to have say 30 minutes each half of real play: the clock stopped when the ball is dead. Benefit? No arguments or stress about time wasting and the crowd can see the remaining time up on the clock. Drawbacks?? Some I eхpect , over to you

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Anyone who wants anything longer than 15 minutes is only doing so for their own selfish needs, and not taking the players into account at all.

A bit harsh. 30 minutes might actually benefit the players? Do any of us really know?

 

[sydney]

In the modern game 15 doesn’t seem enough. Will 30 minutes ensure you can do your HT stuff and not miss the restart?

are you talking about spectators or players .....15 extra minutes is another pint so you'll end up needing another piss before the end , 30 minutes too long for players as they will cool down and run the risk of strains etc .......15 minute is enough imo.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Anyone who wants anything longer than 15 minutes is only doing so for their own selfish needs, and not taking the players into account at all.

To the contrary. I’ve just done some googling and if player-care is of primary concern there should be no break in football since the risk of injury has been shown to be greater just after half-time. If you must have a break then sufficient time should be set aside to warm-up again. The current 15 minutes typically involves 3-4 getting off and then back on the pitch, tactical discussion, tending to injury and equipment issues etc; no time is usually given over to preventing the body cooling down. 30 minutes could therefore benefit players.

 

[portlock seagull]

Hmmm, you can stuff your Americanisation of football says this dinosaur who also preferred cricket when teams wore whites and the supporters didn’t chant football songs

Very suprised you missed the suggestion to break the game into four quarters in your money quest.

Sorry Ice, you took the bait. I’d ban everything at half time except bovril and waggon wheels. And even then they’d need to be past sell buy date.

 

[METALMICKY]

Besides have a piss I never do anything at half time, 15 minutes is plenty for me.

And therein lies the issue! The number of people who don't wash their hands after taking a leak is pretty disgusting. If an acceptable number did follow basic hygiene there might acually be a good non football related reason to extend half time.

 

[blue-shifted]

OP. What a terrible idea

 

[melias shoes]

In the modern game 15 doesn’t seem enough. Will 30 minutes ensure you can do your HT stuff and not miss the restart?

Is this your way of saying you need more time to drink your champagne HT?

 

[portslade seagull]

Yes for the older fans who need a pee at half-time

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

I have never understood why so many people need to drink and eat at half time, as it's only 15 minutes, it makes the queues ridiculous and the service is often slow.
But I have been saying for years it should be 30 minutes.
Make the service much better, more people will buy stuff with enough time to do it, which means more money for the club.
It's always been a yes from me.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Is this your way of saying you need more time to drink your champagne HT?

Not at all. Just an observation of fellow supporters all rushing around at half time.

 

[melias shoes]

Not at all. Just an observation of fellow supporters all rushing around at half time.

If you say so.

 

[BN9 BHA]

We could have an hour for half time and some of the kiosks at the Amex still wouldn't cope with serving fans that just want a pint.

 

[The Large One]

A bit harsh. 30 minutes might actually benefit the players? Do any of us really know?

Yes we do. It is of no benefit to the players, and of some detriment.

As [MENTION=1365]Westdene Seagull[/MENTION] pointed out, the players need to retain a warmth, readiness and physical metabolism which 30 minutes' rest will only hinder.

 

[Stat Brother]

Why don't be have 2x7.5 minutes of football either side of a 90 minute halftime?

 

[Gwylan]

Why don't be have 2x7.5 minutes of football either side of a 90 minute halftime?

You're thinking of American football