football rules changes - 30 minute halfs?

[barcahibs]

Interesting article on the BBC website - from our own Pat Nevin - on some ideas being floated by IFAB (the body which controls the rules for professional football) about the future of the game.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40359262

Pat discusses only a few of the options there are more in the actual strategy document

http://www.play-fair.com/data/Strategy_Paper_EN_150dpi_Doppelseiten.pdf

What do folk think?

A few of the highlights -

cutting games to 60 minutes - but stopping the clock every time the ball goes out of play. A stadium clock would show the exact amount of time left. Apparently most games now only have around 60 minutes of playing time, with the rest being taken up by the ball being out of play - or time wasting.

Allowing players to run with the ball at free kicks. Rather than having to pass it, the payer taking the 'kick' can just continue play, running with ball and taking as many touches as he likes. (I like this one - I doubt it would actually be used that often, but it would speed things up for free kicks in the middle of the park.)

Additions to this one might also be removing the need for the ball to be stationary at goal kicks and making keepers take goal kicks from the same side the ball went out of play.

Penalty goals. The referee can just award a goal in situations where outfielders deliberately handle the ball on the goal line.

No rebounds at penalties Its either a goal or not a goal from a penalty kick, players can't follow up for rebounds (strangely this was a rule we played to down the park when I was wee? I knew we were forward thinkers)

Only the captain allowed to speak to the referee Yellow cards - or even team points deductions - for 'mobbing' the referee. (yes from me!)


I think it's a pretty interesting document. A lot of sense in it?

[Sir David Gray]

Why can't we just keep 45 minute halves and stop the clock every time the ball goes out of play?

[cabbageandribs1875]

the owners of Modern Football (the television companies) would be ecstatic at 3x 30 min games, eventually aiming for the same format as American football(yank rugby) :wink:...breaks every freakin 10 mins or whatever it is :rolleyes: what do breaks in play bring.......

http://sr.photos3.fotosearch.com/bthumb/FSA/FSA101/x12630085.jpg

[snooky]

How we gonna score at 90+2?.
FFS, this will really screw up our game plans. :brickwall

[Beefster]

Why can't we just keep 45 minute halves and stop the clock every time the ball goes out of play?

Because the current time in play is generally somewhere between 50 and 60 minutes. They're proposing to formalise the playing time, have generally the same total time for a game and stop the time wasting that pisses us all off.

Doing 90 mins and stopping the clock would see games take much longer to complete.

[ruthven_raiders]

Because the current time in play is generally somewhere between 50 and 60 minutes. They're proposing to formalise the playing time, have generally the same total time for a game and stop the time wasting that pisses us all off.

Doing 90 mins and stopping the clock would see games take much longer to complete.

Always thought this would be a great idea, but more I think about it I'm totally against it. Think teams once they score will be more concerned about keeping possession and eating up the clock. I would just make sure there is an independent official with a timer, stop the clock when goal is scored, restarting on the kick off. When sub is made stop clock as player walks off and start once sub is in place....currently refs way underestimate that time...will make games up to 10mins extra especially at the end of second half.

[Holmesdale Hibs]

Because the current time in play is generally somewhere between 50 and 60 minutes. They're proposing to formalise the playing time, have generally the same total time for a game and stop the time wasting that pisses us all off.

Doing 90 mins and stopping the clock would see games take much longer to complete.

I saw the headline and thought it was daft but when you put it like that it sounds like a good idea. Games would effectively be the same length but without time wasting. Yes please.

[BoomtownHibees]

the owners of Modern Football (the television companies) would be ecstatic at 3x 30 min games, eventually aiming for the same format as American football(yank rugby) :wink:...breaks every freakin 10 mins or whatever it is :rolleyes: what do breaks in play bring.......

http://sr.photos3.fotosearch.com/bthumb/FSA/FSA101/x12630085.jpg

It's 2 halfs of 30 mins instead of 45, not 3x30mins

[Sir David Gray]

Because the current time in play is generally somewhere between 50 and 60 minutes. They're proposing to formalise the playing time, have generally the same total time for a game and stop the time wasting that pisses us all off.

Doing 90 mins and stopping the clock would see games take much longer to complete.

I understand the logic, I just don't agree with it.

From a commercial point of view I think this would drive down the price. Would fans want to pay the same money for a 60 minute game?

If we have an average of 30 minutes where the ball is out of play during a 90 minute game and yet we generally only get about 3-4 minutes of additional time then the referees are needing to be given stronger powers to punish time wasting.

Bringing in a rule similar to the tennis "25 seconds between points" rule would be an idea. When the ball goes out of play, the team who has possession has 30 seconds to get the ball back into play (unless there's an obvious reason why that hasn't happened). We could look at overturning the possession to the opposition in cases of deliberate slow play.

I reckon that would soon cut it out without the need to cut the official playing time by half an hour.

[BoomtownHibees]

Interesting article on the BBC website - from our own Pat Nevin - on some ideas being floated by IFAB (the body which controls the rules for professional football) about the future of the game.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40359262

Pat discusses only a few of the options there are more in the actual strategy document

http://www.play-fair.com/data/Strategy_Paper_EN_150dpi_Doppelseiten.pdf

What do folk think?

A few of the highlights -

cutting games to 60 minutes - but stopping the clock every time the ball goes out of play. A stadium clock would show the exact amount of time left. Apparently most games now only have around 60 minutes of playing time, with the rest being taken up by the ball being out of play - or time wasting.

Allowing players to run with the ball at free kicks. Rather than having to pass it, the payer taking the 'kick' can just continue play, running with ball and taking as many touches as he likes. (I like this one - I doubt it would actually be used that often, but it would speed things up for free kicks in the middle of the park.)

Additions to this one might also be removing the need for the ball to be stationary at goal kicks and making keepers take goal kicks from the same side the ball went out of play.

Penalty goals. The referee can just award a goal in situations where outfielders deliberately handle the ball on the goal line.

No rebounds at penalties Its either a goal or not a goal from a penalty kick, players can't follow up for rebounds (strangely this was a rule we played to down the park when I was wee? I knew we were forward thinkers)

Only the captain allowed to speak to the referee Yellow cards - or even team points deductions - for 'mobbing' the referee. (yes from me!)


I think it's a pretty interesting document. A lot of sense in it?

The goalie can already take a goal kick from any side

[Bishop Hibee]

I like the one about running with the ball from a free kick. No reason why not.

[J-C]

It works fine in rugby which is 40 mins each half, I don't agree with 30 mins but a 40 mins compromise would be ok.

[ballengeich]

It's a classic example of legislators thinking they have to change things to justify their existence.

I'd issue instructions to referees to enforce the law on encroachment at penalties and leave the rest alone.

[Geo_1875]

Taking the game time away from the referee and having a stadium clock, as they do in American sports, would be a great idea.

Stopping the clock for injuries, restarts and substitutions would make a huge difference. It would also stop the standard 3 mins stoppage time when there has blatantly been more.

I imagine smaller clubs would struggle with the additional cost.

[Just Alf]

It works fine in rugby which is 40 mins each half, I don't agree with 30 mins but a 40 mins compromise would be ok.

That makes sense.... Back in the day, a rugby game starting at the same time as a footy would always br finished 1st. Nowadays, despite a rugby game technically being 10 minutes shorter they tend to end 10-15 minutes after the footy ends!

[J-C]

In rugby the clock only really stops when the referee checks anything with the 4th official, a substitution for a blood injury or when dishing out a yellow or red card, all other times the game is technically live.

For example in football if the ball goes out for a throw in/goal kick/ corner kick the game is still technically live, it's up to the ref to determine how much time is actually being wasted.

[Geo_1875]

In rugby the clock only really stops when the referee checks anything with the 4th official, a substitution for a blood injury or when dishing out a yellow or red card, all other times the game is technically live.

For example in football if the ball goes out for a throw in/goal kick/ corner kick the game is still technically live, it's up to the ref to determine how much time is actually being wasted.

As I said above, injuries, restarts and substitutions are where most time is wasted. Stop the clock for those and leave the referee to keep the game moving.

[pacorosssco]

I cant believe it but im for it. Will stops big teams getting extra 5 mins plus when need a equaliser or winner.

[J-C]

As I said above, injuries, restarts and substitutions are where most time is wasted. Stop the clock for those and leave the referee to keep the game moving.

:agree:

[Mikey09]

Watch a lot of Ice Hockey and they have three 20 min periods where the clock stops at infringements, time wasting, fights etc. It's brilliant. The rink is also divided into 3 zones where the puck must be played in the middle zone which stops players just whacking it from the first zone all the way up the ice. If you fancy watching a local team go and follow the Edinburgh Capitals. They play most Sunday nights. Fantastic entertainment.

[McSwanky]

Totally for the 2 x 30 minutes change. Time wasting is rife in football, and detracts from the spectacle. Would love to see people in charge of Scottish Football taking some of these ideas and trialing them, better to be seen as innovators than reactionary luddites as we have been for decades.

[Geo_1875]

Totally for the 2 x 30 minutes change. Time wasting is rife in football, and detracts from the spectacle. Would love to see people in charge of Scottish Football taking some of these ideas and trialing them, better to be seen as innovators than reactionary luddites as we have been for decades.

No. Football is a 90 minute game. The fact that cheating in various forms has meant that actual ball in play is down to around 60 minutes is the problem. When players and coaches realise that they won't get away with blatant time wasting they'll soon cut it out and we'll be back to 90 minutes of football. We've pandered to the games "elite" for too long and should take it back.

[McSwanky]

No. Football is a 90 minute game. The fact that cheating in various forms has meant that actual ball in play is down to around 60 minutes is the problem. When players and coaches realise that they won't get away with blatant time wasting they'll soon cut it out and we'll be back to 90 minutes of football. We've pandered to the games "elite" for too long and should take it back.

OK, make it 40 or 45 then. But why fart about with trying to enforce rules that will get bent as far as possible? It's human nature to try to gain an advantage in whatever way you can, which is why we are where we are with time wasting. Having an independent clock that stops when the ball goes out of play makes it a non-issue.

[Geo_1875]

OK, make it 40 or 45 then. But why fart about with trying to enforce rules that will get bent as far as possible? It's human nature to try to gain an advantage in whatever way you can, which is why we are where we are with time wasting. Having an independent clock that stops when the ball goes out of play makes it a non-issue.

I agree with a clock for treatment of injuries, restarts after a goal and substitutions. The rest is part of the game and under the referees control. He can easily book players for delaying goal kicks, free kicks and throw-ins. That would remove the benefit of cheating.

[KWJ]

I was against this originally but the more I've read the statistics and come to believe that we'd actually be getting more football than less then the more I'm in favour of it.

In the EPL Arsenal fans got the most football but it was less than 59 minutes and Palace fans had the least at under 53. If these numbers are similar in Scotland and across the world, which you'd think they will be, then it seems like a good move.

If I think about another of my favourite sports in Ice Hockey then the idea to make the periods last 30 or 40 minutes and not stop time seems preposterous.

I also think the idea to say that the game doesn't end until the ball is kicked out of play would add another level of excitement at the end of matches when both teams are going for the win. Particularly when used in conjunction with this rule.

Basically I seem to like the rugby rules when I get over the fact that it's ****** rugby.

[wookie70]

They shouldn't allow play to end until a stoppage like Rugby. That would allow other teams attacks to conclude like they do for Celtic and The Rangers currently.

I like the time one but would rather they just applied the current rules.

The no rebounds for pens is stupid. You could have been tripped in the back while taking a shot. Pen and booking. You miss the pen and get no rebound as you would have if the trip had not happened.

The dribble from a foul is a tap penalty in Rugby and the captain's speaking to ref is too.

Rugby has a far better attitude to rules than football. Everything is done to make it safer and quicker and more entertaining.They don't let thing lie when player work out how to cheat the system.

[kaimendhibs]

Reckon the 60 minute rule could work. Nowt more frustrating than blatant timewasting

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[McSwanky]

I agree with a clock for treatment of injuries, restarts after a goal and substitutions. The rest is part of the game and under the referees control. He can easily book players for delaying goal kicks, free kicks and throw-ins. That would remove the benefit of cheating.

Problem with this is that it becomes subjective. Allows refs to be swayed by player pressure, fans' intimidation etc. The more stuff that can be taken out of an 'impressionable' referee's hands, the better in my view. And time's an easy one, so it's a yes for me.

[where'stheslope]

I can see it now, with some teams playing 10 men behind the ball, going down as if shot when someone brushes into them!

A 3 o'clock kickoff would be finishing around 5:30 or later?

Why not just leave the player down and continue with the game, most of the time as soon as he's treated he jumps up and takes the free kick himself?

It's the same with head injuries, player goes to ground holding his head, play stops for treatment, video evidence shows no contact, referee should then be involving the compliance officer for a retrospective ban!!!

For these reasons, I would leave well alone as the new rules will only give more grey areas for the powers that be to help those of a Glasgow persuasion!!!

[Aalborg Hibs]

Jeezo, what a load of keech.

How about we just play "next goal's the winner"?

[GreenLake]

Interesting article on the BBC website - from our own Pat Nevin - on some ideas being floated by IFAB (the body which controls the rules for professional football) about the future of the game.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40359262

Pat discusses only a few of the options there are more in the actual strategy document

http://www.play-fair.com/data/Strategy_Paper_EN_150dpi_Doppelseiten.pdf

What do folk think?

A few of the highlights -

cutting games to 60 minutes - but stopping the clock every time the ball goes out of play. A stadium clock would show the exact amount of time left. Apparently most games now only have around 60 minutes of playing time, with the rest being taken up by the ball being out of play - or time wasting.

Allowing players to run with the ball at free kicks. Rather than having to pass it, the payer taking the 'kick' can just continue play, running with ball and taking as many touches as he likes. (I like this one - I doubt it would actually be used that often, but it would speed things up for free kicks in the middle of the park.)

Additions to this one might also be removing the need for the ball to be stationary at goal kicks and making keepers take goal kicks from the same side the ball went out of play.

Penalty goals. The referee can just award a goal in situations where outfielders deliberately handle the ball on the goal line.

No rebounds at penalties Its either a goal or not a goal from a penalty kick, players can't follow up for rebounds (strangely this was a rule we played to down the park when I was wee? I knew we were forward thinkers)

Only the captain allowed to speak to the referee Yellow cards - or even team points deductions - for 'mobbing' the referee. (yes from me!)


I think it's a pretty interesting document. A lot of sense in it?

There is a lot of interesting discussion possible here but what immediately springs to mind is how teams would have 4 or 5 players rushing to stand in front of the ball when there is a free kick and Messi is playing against them.