Deuce Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Sideline officials in the PL are only part-time, correct? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Has the referee not going a stop watch to help him decide how many minutes to add on? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 It seems to me that referees only account for the timewasting at their own discretion. Some refs will do it, others will just stick to what's on the board regardless of what happens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppe Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 There were probably less time wasting cunts back in the days, hence the current format being OK. I'd support this change I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Whilst I agree with some of the points in the article, I don't quite get why we need to change to 30 minutes a half. If the solution is stop the timer every time the ball goes out of play (which I thought refs do anyway), then why can't we do the same thing in a 45 minutes half? If the issue is referee's incompetence or inability to stop watches (pretty simple really) and focus on refereeing 22 players at the same time (which sounds quite exaggerated to me anyway), then get someone else who has no other responsibility to do it. Then at the end game, that person can just inform the linesman on how many minutes to flash or just do it himself. There are a few other ways to go about it, I'm just not sure why we need to change to 30 minutes per half. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shak Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Whilst I agree with some of the points in the article, I don't quite get why we need to change to 30 minutes a half. If the solution is stop the timer every time the ball goes out of play (which I thought refs do anyway), then why can't we do the same thing in a 45 minutes half? If the issue is referee's incompetence or inability to stop watches (pretty simple really) and focus on refereeing 22 players at the same time (which sounds quite exaggerated to me anyway), then get someone else who has no other responsibility to do it. Then at the end game, that person can just inform the linesman on how many minutes to flash or just do it himself. There are a few other ways to go about it, I'm just not sure why we need to change to 30 minutes per half. Because in a regular game the ball is only actually in play for around 30 minutes a half. Under "real time" rules the clock would be stopped every time a free kick is awarded or the ball goes out for a goal kick/corner, which isn't the case now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shak Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Very good idea btw and there's not a single good reason not to implement from what I've seen. There are other, much more obvious changes, that should have been made ages ago though so I wouldn't hold my breath on this one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 The proposal in the OP is fine I suppose, but I really don't think there is really a need to change football in that way. I've never really had too much of an issue with the way time is kept in the sport. If teams are time-wasting, the referee shouldn't hesitate in booking them or giving the other team a free-kick. Frankly, the running clock and the spontaneity of the referee's whistle are some of the things I enjoy about football. I'd miss players walking the long way off the pitch when being substituted and taking an age over free kicks in stoppage time just as I'd miss players sprinting to get balls that have gone out of play, handbags over getting the ball back after a late equaliser and ball boys quickly retrieving the ball by any means necessary. It is just a small part of a sport that I enjoy. I am familiar with it and I like it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shak Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I still can't believe they don't allow the physios on the field to treat an injury without stopping play. It would immediately get rid of this bullshit where players feign injury to stop a counter attack. Must happen a couple of times a game on average and has been doing so for years and yet still nothing is done about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliMag Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I think it is a terrible idea. Opens the doors to Time Outs - because essentially that is what you would have everytime the ball went out of play. The Manager could just pull a player aside with a clipboard and headset as soon as the ball was out of play. It would be American Football mk II. I doubt carding the players would help. The ball boys could be given instruction (like at the Brittania with hand towels) to waste time to give the manager more face time with the players. I see all sorts of abuse with this type of system that would essentially add an endless amount of time to the game and kill the very nature of football. Players can be easily booked if they're clearly wasting time. The clock is stopped for various reasons in Rugby and it works just fine there. It will quickly become apparent if there are issues with ball boys, and it could be dealt with very easily (in the same way they dealt with Stoke giving their ball boys team-specific instructions). The "opening doors to x" argument is nonsense and holds back the game. Theoretically players can be booked for dissent (as mentioned), but do they? No. Refs have limited power as it is. Rugby isn't football - differnet ruling bodies, enforcement culture, etc. The only real action I have seen against SToke (like pitch size) were made by UEFA and FIFA with the FA rolling over like the subserviant bitch that it is. If there are to be real changes I would start with enforcing the rules that already exist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyP Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 s*** like this makes me angry. Real talk. http://thehistoryofwwe.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Lay-Cool-Reacts-On-Iterview-Of-WWE-NXT-PRO.jpg Screw you if you dont get it... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Nah, keep it as it is, just lets have a more accurate assessment of how long play has been stopped for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bealios Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Probably on balance a good idea, but a few points against it: 1. Stupid crowd countdowns. 2. The anticipation of the final whistle going, knowing it is close but that there is still a chance there is enough time left for the other team to score does add something to the matchday experience, and the sense of relief once the whistle goes. If you know there is 10 seconds left, you lose that a bit. 3. If you don't put the time on a scoreboard to avoid points 1 and 2, then you might have absolutely no idea how long is left, given that the ball is in play these days for 50 - 60 minutes. Don't understand why they don't trial it though. Also, can see Fergie's point. The reason why he seems to moan about it more than most is that Man Utd probably have to deal with a team coming to Old Trafford and playacting/timewasting and going for the draw from the start than others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I think it is a terrible idea. Opens the doors to Time Outs - because essentially that is what you would have everytime the ball went out of play. The Manager could just pull a player aside with a clipboard and headset as soon as the ball was out of play. It would be American Football mk II. I doubt carding the players would help. The ball boys could be given instruction (like at the Brittania with hand towels) to waste time to give the manager more face time with the players. I see all sorts of abuse with this type of system that would essentially add an endless amount of time to the game and kill the very nature of football. Players can be easily booked if they're clearly wasting time. The clock is stopped for various reasons in Rugby and it works just fine there. It will quickly become apparent if there are issues with ball boys, and it could be dealt with very easily (in the same way they dealt with Stoke giving their ball boys team-specific instructions). The "opening doors to x" argument is nonsense and holds back the game. Theoretically players can be booked for dissent (as mentioned), but do they? No. Refs have limited power as it is. Rugby isn't football - differnet ruling bodies, enforcement culture, etc. The only real action I have seen against SToke (like pitch size) were made by UEFA and FIFA with the FA rolling over like the subserviant bitch that it is. If there are to be real changes I would start with enforcing the rules that already exist. I completely agree. Nothing will ever change until we have people in charge that can control a game properly. Whether that's because of their lack of power/incompetence is irrelevant really. But as a overall theory, I think it would be good to have a more representative clock. It'd also be nice if they made a change like this before there was an incident/big team losing out. But obviously that's never going to happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishmael Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 14:28 GMT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 BST... no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishmael Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Aye. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginola Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 There's no good reason why this shouldn't be implemented Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now