This long throw in tactic.

[Parky]

It's clear teams are using it now to waste time and run down the clock. Also it is a strange way of keeping possession off the pitch. Pompey used it against us to slow the game during our good spells etc...I read somewhere Stoke are wasting 12 min a game with this lark.

 

Simple ans would be to allow a maximum 5 secs for a throw in and repeated abuse would see the throw in go to the other side.

[ED209]

the nearest player to the throw should have to take the throw, problem solved.

[madras]

i've said for a while time keeping should be done by an off the field official who stops the clock as soon as the ball goes dead.

[Mowen]

i've said for a while time keeping should be done by an off the field official who stops the clock as soon as the ball goes dead.

 

Match would last hours on end.

[Cajun]

5 seconds is a bit quick but I agree with the idea.

[Guest Stephen927]

Beye's was fairly quick yesterday, he dried the ball on his shirt while jogging to where he was going to take it. Delap just takes the piss basically.

[madras]

i've said for a while time keeping should be done by an off the field official who stops the clock as soon as the ball goes dead.

 

Match would last hours on end.

no it wouldn't and it would make any time wasting pointless.

[ED209]

i've said for a while time keeping should be done by an off the field official who stops the clock as soon as the ball goes dead.

 

Match would last hours on end.

no it wouldn't and it would make any time wasting pointless.

 

it would, go to an ice hockey match, a 20min period lasts a long long time

[madras]

i've said for a while time keeping should be done by an off the field official who stops the clock as soon as the ball goes dead.

 

Match would last hours on end.

no it wouldn't and it would make any time wasting pointless.

 

it would, go to an ice hockey match, a 20min period lasts a long long time

sky used to do a stat of how long the ball was actually in play and it was usually about an hour then if you take out the actual time wasting.

 

the problem at ice hocky (yes i've been) is that it takes so long to restart.

[Dave]

the nearest player to the throw should have to take the throw, problem solved.

 

 

Fucks me off when players run from the other side of the pitch just to take a fucking throw-in.

[clintdempsey]

i've said for a while time keeping should be done by an off the field official who stops the clock as soon as the ball goes dead.

 

Match would last hours on end.

no it wouldn't and it would make any time wasting pointless.

 

it would, go to an ice hockey match, a 20min period lasts a long long time

sky used to do a stat of how long the ball was actually in play and it was usually about an hour then if you take out the actual time wasting.

 

the problem at ice hocky (yes i've been) is that it takes so long to restart.

A normal ice hockey game takes somewhere around 2 hours 10-15 mins. That's including 3x20 mins periods and two 17 mins breaks. So not to bad actually. At least here in Sweden where we actually get to watch some good games.

[mozy]

the nearest player to the throw should have to take the throw, problem solved.

 

 

Fucks me off when players run from the other side of the pitch just to take a fucking throw-in.

 

Well on that theory the nearest player should take every corner, free kick or penalty. A throw in is another set piece, just like a free kick or corner and teams should be allowed to work it to their advantage.

[Dave]

It might be the same in terms of the rules, but I see a throw-in as much less important. To me it's just a way of quickly restarting play, and should be treated as such. Anyone can take a throw-in, not everyone can take a corner (amazingly).

[BlueStar]

i've said for a while time keeping should be done by an off the field official who stops the clock as soon as the ball goes dead.

 

Match would last hours on end.

no it wouldn't and it would make any time wasting pointless.

 

Would also make hurrying up and taking set pieces quickly when there's not long left in the half and you're chasing the game pointless.  Might as well choose the best player to take and receive the throw in, move them rigth across the pitch into position, get all your strikers etc in the right position first.  If the ball's in play less than 60 minutes of a 90 minute game then to get a full 90 minutes of in-play football the games are going to have to finish a good 2 and a half hours after kick off.  Not to mention the fact it would make the length of games unpredictable which would be a nightmare for things like early saturday kick offs where they'd have to move it early enough that they know it definitely won't still be going on when the 3pm kick offs come around. Would also discourage terrestrial channels from showing football and throwing their schedules into chaos.

[Adam]

From picking up the ball players have 10 seconds to throw it in. Same with corners player taking it should get there asap and once it is placed has 10 seconds to take it.

[madras]

i've said for a while time keeping should be done by an off the field official who stops the clock as soon as the ball goes dead.

 

Match would last hours on end.

no it wouldn't and it would make any time wasting pointless.

 

Would also make hurrying up and taking set pieces quickly when there's not long left in the half and you're chasing the game pointless.  Might as well choose the best player to take and receive the throw in, move them rigth across the pitch into position, get all your strikers etc in the right position first.  If the ball's in play less than 60 minutes of a 90 minute game then to get a full 90 minutes of in-play football the games are going to have to finish a good 2 and a half hours after kick off.  Not to mention the fact it would make the length of games unpredictable which would be a nightmare for things like early saturday kick offs where they'd have to move it early enough that they know it definitely won't still be going on when the 3pm kick offs come around. Would also discourage terrestrial channels from showing football and throwing their schedules into chaos.

mix and match then. clock stops when the ball goes dead and 10 secs to restart play.

[mozy]

of course every

It might be the same in terms of the rules, but I see a throw-in as much less important. To me it's just a way of quickly restarting play, and should be treated as such. Anyone can take a throw-in, not everyone can take a corner (amazingly).

 

Of course everyone can take a corner, like everyone can take a throw in, just some will be bad and some will be good at both. Rory Delap is world class at set pieces, just as David Beckham is.

 

You can't say throw ins are less important either considering the amount of goals Stoke have got using them to their advantage. It is an importnant tactic in some styles of football. Call them negative if you wish but how much would you love to be in Stokes position.

[TaylorJ_01]

I say nearest player takes it, however it would be hard to implement seeing people have different opinions on how useful they are...

[Dave]

of course every

It might be the same in terms of the rules, but I see a throw-in as much less important. To me it's just a way of quickly restarting play, and should be treated as such. Anyone can take a throw-in, not everyone can take a corner (amazingly).

 

Of course everyone can take a corner, like everyone can take a throw in, just some will be bad and some will be good at both. Rory Delap is world class at set pieces, just as David Beckham is.

 

You can't say throw ins are less important either considering the amount of goals Stoke have got using them to their advantage. It is an importnant tactic in some styles of football. Call them negative if you wish but how much would you love to be in Stokes position.

 

Football. The clue's in the name.

 

Just my opinion.

[Parky]

of course every

It might be the same in terms of the rules, but I see a throw-in as much less important. To me it's just a way of quickly restarting play, and should be treated as such. Anyone can take a throw-in, not everyone can take a corner (amazingly).

 

Of course everyone can take a corner, like everyone can take a throw in, just some will be bad and some will be good at both. Rory Delap is world class at set pieces, just as David Beckham is.

 

You can't say throw ins are less important either considering the amount of goals Stoke have got using them to their advantage. It is an importnant tactic in some styles of football. Call them negative if you wish but how much would you love to be in Stokes position.

 

It's innovative, but it's shit much like Vista.

[Guest Geordiecunny]

Stoke would definitely get relegated if this happened too, wouldn't have time to get their back four up top.

[Parky]

Stoke would definitely get relegated if this happened too, wouldn't have time to get their back four up top.

 

Bottom llne is it's anti-football.

[Guest Geordiecunny]

Stoke would definitely get relegated if this happened too, wouldn't have time to get their back four up top.

 

Bottom llne is it's anti-football.

So they deserve to, I was implying so.

[Optimistic Nut]

Histon are currently doing it in their Play-Off match with Torquay. I know they're behind, but they're taking an age for one particular player to keep running over to take it, getting a towel off a ballboy then taking it. Torquay manager trying to get the referee to stop them being able to use the towels.

[Parky]

Histon are currently doing it in their Play-Off match with Torquay. I know they're behind, but they're taking an age for one particular player to keep running over to take it, getting a towel off a ballboy then taking it. Torquay manager trying to get the referee to stop them being able to use the towels.

 

It's a bloody sickness. Need to get players standing in front or subs running around near the thrower etc...