[Football] Trials to shorten football matches to 60 minutes with ball-in-play time keeping

[pasty]

I know this has topic has been previously discussed on here. Trials maybe set to take place in Portuguese under 23's cup matches.

Tiny steps but who knows where it could lead....

The i paper reporting....

Trials to shorten football matches to 60 minutes could take place as early as this month, i can reveal.

The Portuguese Football Federation (FPF) wants to test the format at the Under 23 Revelation Cup, reducing matches to two 30-minute halves but only running the clock when the ball is live in play.

Trials to shorten football matches to 60 minutes could start this month with clock stopping when ball goes out

 

[WATFORD zero]

Seeing this from the article



It would address the time wasting issue

 

[Frankie]

We certainly don't waste any time after scoring.

 

[Swansman]

It is probably the future. Bit sad to lose the whole 90 min tradition but when timewasting is everywhere, throw ins and goal kicks take 30 seconds and free kicks over a minute, then it is pretty much the only sensible way to go.

 

[Justice]

Time wasting keepers grind on me, if refs had the balls to give second yellows it would end..

 

[Brok]

We certainly don't waste any time after scoring.

Don't we? I can't remember.

 

[Insel affe]

It is probably the future. Bit sad to lose the whole 90 min tradition but when timewasting is everywhere, throw ins and goal kicks take 30 seconds and free kicks over a minute, then it is pretty much the only sensible way to go.

Not if refs actually started booking people for time wasting, from throw in, goal kicks etc, or moving a free kick forward 5 yards if the opposition tried to delay it. Far to often they do not take any action, which is basically encouraging them to waste time, as they know they won't get booked.

Why shorten the game time to 60 minutes, I have never seen 15 minutes added to game for time wasting, sure it seems like hours when the opposition goal keeper is scratching his butt, or sock boy is rolling around on the floor screaming, but it is not that long if you add them up, normally 3-5 is the average probably.

I am sure some kind person on this board would bring up stats from a few Premier League games to find out the actual ball in play time against time added on and see the total minutes etc.
"He said without looking at the post above" Doh

Players get paid an extortionate amount already and now they are shortening their working hours

 

[dazzer6666]

We certainly don't waste any time after scoring.

Wasted about 6 weeks haven’t we ?

 

[The Albion Roar]

Time wasting keepers grind on me, if refs had the balls to give second yellows it would end..

If a given team is playing well and has the momentum with them, then with a stop-start clock, there is no obligation nor desire for the opposition keeper to put the ball back into play within any timeframe except his own.

See also 'fake/tactical injuries'.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

It is probably the future. Bit sad to lose the whole 90 min tradition but when timewasting is everywhere, throw ins and goal kicks take 30 seconds and free kicks over a minute, then it is pretty much the only sensible way to go.

Or maybe The 4th Official could be granted additional discretionary powers to clamp down on all that shit and add as much time as they feel is warranted

 

[zefarelly]

I'd probably have time for a game on Saturday when I go down to a 3 day week. although I'm not sure I could afford pies and beer for an 8 hour session @ Amex rates.

 

[rippleman]

The sanctions already exist to penalise players for time-wasting. The question that needs answering is why our referees don't impose those penalties to their fullest extent.

Start booking, and then sending off, players who timewaste and the penny won't take long to drop.

The fake head injuries would stop if there was a compulsory off field HIA check (akin to the egg chasing regime) and I would wager that avenue of cheating would stop pretty smartish too.

I think the time-keeping should be done independently of the referee who records when time is being wasted and for genuine and faked injuries and that official (not a bloody referee on a day off) determines the "added time".

No need to lose a third of the game if there are a couple of tweaks to the existing rules.

 

[Stat Brother]

Surprised Wolves aren't a long way bottom of that list.

 

[portslade seagull]

No no no, we need the matches extended by another 60mins to give us a chance of scoring or more time to shout SHOOT

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

The sanctions already exist to penalise players for time-wasting. The question that needs answering is why our referees don't impose those penalties to their fullest extent.

Start booking, and then sending off, players who timewaste and the penny won't take long to drop.

The fake head injuries would stop if there was a compulsory off field HIA check (akin to the egg chasing regime) and I would wager that avenue of cheating would stop pretty smartish too.

I think the time-keeping should be done independently of the referee who records when time is being wasted and for genuine and faked injuries and that official (not a bloody referee on a day off) determines the "added time".

No need to lose a third of the game if there are a couple of tweaks to the existing rules.

I think you'd be shocked by the time it takes for a goal kick to take place after the initial effort.

By the time the keeper gets the ball, the players set up into position and the ball is struck it is a suprisingly long amount of time without feeling that any timewasting is going on.

I've thought for years that football should be on an in-play clock. 1 to rid the temptation to time waste (as it would be pointless) and 2 to provide absolute clarity to everyone in the stadium of how long is left.

We all know the refs don't blow the final whistle on the exact second they should. They ALWAYS wait for a neutral moment to do it. The common one being a goal kick.

If we can all see the timer has hit 0 then there are no arguments.

I watched the last 10 mins of the Chelsea/Real game. Understandably so, Real used EVERY opportunity for players to go down and waste time. The ref made a point of showing he is adding time but there's not way its accurate and the last 10 mins are completely ruined as a spectacle.

 

[Swansman]

Not if refs actually started booking people for time wasting, from throw in, goal kicks etc, or moving a free kick forward 5 yards if the opposition tried to delay it. Far to often they do not take any action, which is basically encouraging them to waste time, as they know they won't get booked.

Why shorten the game time to 60 minutes, I have never seen 15 minutes added to game for time wasting, sure it seems like hours when the opposition goal keeper is scratching his butt, or sock boy is rolling around on the floor screaming, but it is not that long if you add them up, normally 3-5 is the average probably.

I am sure some kind person on this board would bring up stats from a few Premier League games to find out the actual ball in play time against time added on and see the total minutes etc.
"He said without looking at the post above" Doh

Players get paid an extortionate amount already and now they are shortening their working hours

60 minutes effective game time is not shortening the game. The ball is in play for 55 minutes on average.

Or maybe The 4th Official could be granted additional discretionary powers to clamp down on all that shit and add as much time as they feel is warranted

If you add 10 minutes of injury time rather than 5... how much of that will be wasted? Not like time wasting decreases the longer a game goes on. Injury time is often a psychological trigger to make players think "we're almost there... lets waste even more time". And if you dont add any specific number of minutes at all, refs could/could be accused of just keeping it going until the big team gets that equaliser or winning goal.

 

[Perkino]

Could work a treat

 

[Titanic]

Next stop: 15 minute quarters, coaches timeouts and additional advertising breaks. No thanks. Just apply the rules.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

I think this would be a huge improvement. It would remove one of the most annoying aspects of the game at a stroke. Maybe the 60 mins could be debated - maybe 70 would be better.

 

[Insel affe]

60 minutes effective game time is not shortening the game. The ball is in play for 55 minutes on average.



If you add 10 minutes of injury time rather than 5... how much of that will be wasted? Not like time wasting decreases the longer a game goes on. Injury time is often a psychological trigger to make players think "we're almost there... lets waste even more time". And if you dont add any specific number of minutes at all, refs could/could be accused of just keeping it going until the big team gets that equaliser or winning goal.

hmmm....

I think I am coming round, the only issue is my probably misconceived idea "our" game is being eroded.
However if i think about it, the game has been constantly evolving and has done ever since it's conception and most for the better. So I think I am sold actually, just one more question, how would extra time work ?