[60s 70s Spireite]

An idea debated on here before now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/40311889

[Spire-Heights]

I'm sure this would work out roughly about the same. I'd anticipate on average the ball is in play around 60mins in football games, therefore, I'd keep it the same and not change - worked ok for the last 150 years or so...

At least with the way it is, you know exactly the minutes remaining. If they changed, would the clock also stop and start on the big screen along with the refs watch. Could the refs watch be linked to the big screens...

I for one hope this change doesn't come in... however, up for changing my mind if others views posted have good reasons for think it would be better than what we do currently. Cannot see it tho, this season s a bit g tradition that needs to remain. In my opinion of course.

This post has been edited by Spire-Heights: 17 June 2017 - 03:46 PM

[calvin plummers socks]

Never going to happen / these sort of ideas are debated every couple of seasons and always thrown out

[Johnnyspireite7]

Fine, away you go and do it....however they must reduce the ticket prices by a third to mirror the loss of 'entertainment'.

[Spire-Heights]

Johnnyspireite7, on 17 June 2017 - 03:54 PM, said:

Fine, away you go and do it....however they must reduce the ticket prices by a third to mirror the loss of 'entertainment'.

There would be no difference. Explain what you mean, please. There would be no loss of entertainment, it would roughly be the same as pervious but the ref stops the watch every time the balls not in play, throws, corners etc.

This post has been edited by Spire-Heights: 17 June 2017 - 03:56 PM

[Toddhopper.]

If it works out the same, what's the point?

[Spire-Heights]

Toddhopper., on 17 June 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

If it works out the same, what's the point?

Agreed, and I'm sure it does.

[60s 70s Spireite]

Personally I'm for it. Apparently the average time the ball is in play is 60 minutes, probably less for the level of football we see. It's a way to discourage the weekly time wasting we have to endure, 'the lost' balls for throw ins and golf kicks, the substituted player on the wrong side of the pitch and goalies laying stricken on the ground after making a last ten minutes catch. Plus of course it puts an end to the subjectivity of 'added time '

[Spire-Heights]

60s 70s Spireite, on 17 June 2017 - 04:39 PM, said:

Personally I'm for it. Apparently the average time the ball is in play is 60 minutes, probably less for the level of football we see. It's a way to discourage the weekly time wasting we have to endure, 'the lost' balls for throw ins and golf kicks, the substituted player on the wrong side of the pitch and goalies laying stricken on the ground after making a last ten minutes catch. Plus of course it puts an end to the subjectivity of 'added time '

But it would work out the same i.e. The 60mins, therefore I do t see no reason to change. Keep tradition of a football match being 90mins and not 60mins.

[calvin plummers socks]

I remember back in the day attending a meeting by the FA and the then BSkyB who wanted 4 22.5 minute quarters

[dim view]

60s 70s Spireite, on 17 June 2017 - 04:39 PM, said:

Personally I'm for it. Apparently the average time the ball is in play is 60 minutes, probably less for the level of football we see. It's a way to discourage the weekly time wasting we have to endure, 'the lost' balls for throw ins and golf kicks, the substituted player on the wrong side of the pitch and goalies laying stricken on the ground after making a last ten minutes catch. Plus of course it puts an end to the subjectivity of 'added time '

So am I.
Don't forget the latest innovation: a goalscorer arriving back at the halfway line 5 minutes after the other players have lined up to get on with the game. Designed to give teammates plenty of time to re focus after the celebrations and to reduce the time the opponents have to reply.

This post has been edited by dim view: 17 June 2017 - 04:54 PM

[Spire-Heights]

calvin plummers socks, on 17 June 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

I remember back in the day attending a meeting by the FA and the then BSkyB who wanted 4 22.5 minute quarters

Even worse idea.

[jack bauer]

60s 70s Spireite, on 17 June 2017 - 04:39 PM, said:

Personally I'm for it. Apparently the average time the ball is in play is 60 minutes, probably less for the level of football we see. It's a way to discourage the weekly time wasting we have to endure, 'the lost' balls for throw ins and golf kicks, the substituted player on the wrong side of the pitch and goalies laying stricken on the ground after making a last ten minutes catch. Plus of course it puts an end to the subjectivity of 'added time '

they could easily solve the player being subbed thing by making them walk off on the far side, also an early yellow card for time wasting would be useful, how many times have we seen teams blatantly getting away with it and then finally on 85 mins the ref produces a card for time wasting, show it for offence one with a warning to the team captain.

[dtp]

60s 70s Spireite, on 17 June 2017 - 04:39 PM, said:

Personally I'm for it. Apparently the average time the ball is in play is 60 minutes, probably less for the level of football we see. It's a way to discourage the weekly time wasting we have to endure, 'the lost' balls for throw ins and golf kicks, the substituted player on the wrong side of the pitch and goalies laying stricken on the ground after making a last ten minutes catch. Plus of course it puts an end to the subjectivity of 'added time '

Am I being thick, but doesn't it create a bigger issue regarding "added time"?

If we are assuming 15 minutes are lost in every 45 then more pressure would be put on officials to account for every second "lost". Some officials, as now, will be keener than others.

Personally, I would leave it as it is but encourage officials to "wise up" so that teams do not get away with blatant time-wasting tactics. Possibly even think about adding 2 seconds for every second lost in such cases.

[Spire-Heights]

dtp, on 17 June 2017 - 05:04 PM, said:

Am I being thick, but doesn't it create a bigger issue regarding "added time"?

If we are assuming 15 minutes are lost in every 45 then more pressure would be put on officials to account for every second "lost". Some officials, as now, will be keener than others.

Personally, I would leave it as it is but encourage officials to "wise up" so that teams do not get away with blatant time-wasting tactics. Possibly even think about adding 2 seconds for every second lost in such cases.

There would be no added time...

[Johnnyspireite7]

Spire-Heights, on 17 June 2017 - 03:55 PM, said:

There would be no difference. Explain what you mean, please. There would be no loss of entertainment, it would roughly be the same as pervious but the ref stops the watch every time the balls not in play, throws, corners etc.

Currently we are paying for 90 minutes if they reduce each half to 30 minutes each half that would be only 60 minutes, and the same things would still happen and they are overestimating how long stoppages take anyway.

[Spire-Heights]

Johnnyspireite7, on 17 June 2017 - 05:17 PM, said:

Currently we are paying for 90 minutes if they reduce each half to 30 minutes each half that would be only 60 minutes, and the same things would still happen and they are overestimating how long stoppages take anyway.

Sorry, I'm scratching my head. We will leave it there.

[60s 70s Spireite]

jack bauer, on 17 June 2017 - 04:55 PM, said:

they could easily solve the player being subbed thing by making them walk off on the far side, also an early yellow card for time wasting would be useful, how many times have we seen teams blatantly getting away with it and then finally on 85 mins the ref produces a card for time wasting, show it for offence one with a warning to the team captain.

That's the problem though isn't it? The refs have had years to sort out time wasting tactics, but teams like Peterborough have no problems playing to their own tune.

[60s 70s Spireite]

dtp, on 17 June 2017 - 05:04 PM, said:

Am I being thick, but doesn't it create a bigger issue regarding "added time"?

If we are assuming 15 minutes are lost in every 45 then more pressure would be put on officials to account for every second "lost". Some officials, as now, will be keener than others.

Personally, I would leave it as it is but encourage officials to "wise up" so that teams do not get away with blatant time-wasting tactics. Possibly even think about adding 2 seconds for every second lost in such cases.

The fourth official would act as time keeper and stop the clock until the ball was in play. His match clock could be linked to the stadium clock so we all see how much time is left.

[Spire_78]

"Former English referee David Elleray is Ifab's technical director and has overseen the document."

The man should have been drowned at birth