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/Strate...ppelseiten.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?
Results 1 to 30 of 31
-
21-06-2017 11:19 PM #1
football rules changes - 30 minute halfs?
-
21-06-2017 11:23 PM #2
Why can't we just keep 45 minute halves and stop the clock every time the ball goes out of play?
-
21-06-2017 11:52 PM #3
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) ...breaks every freakin 10 mins or whatever it is what do breaks in play bring.......
-
-
22-06-2017 04:16 AM #5This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Doing 90 mins and stopping the clock would see games take much longer to complete.
-
22-06-2017 05:16 AM #6This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
22-06-2017 06:49 AM #7This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
22-06-2017 07:14 AM #8
- Join Date
- Jun 2014
- Posts
- 6,678
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
22-06-2017 07:14 AM #9This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
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.
-
22-06-2017 07:14 AM #10
- Join Date
- Jun 2014
- Posts
- 6,678
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
22-06-2017 07:16 AM #11
I like the one about running with the ball from a free kick. No reason why not.
"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.' - Paulo Freire
-
22-06-2017 07:31 AM #12
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.
-
22-06-2017 07:55 AM #13
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 2,675
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.
-
22-06-2017 08:27 AM #14
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.
-
22-06-2017 08:30 AM #15This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
22-06-2017 10:00 AM #16
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.
-
22-06-2017 10:15 AM #17This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
22-06-2017 10:16 AM #18
I cant believe it but im for it. Will stops big teams getting extra 5 mins plus when need a equaliser or winner.
-
-
22-06-2017 11:30 AM #20
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.
-
22-06-2017 12:38 PM #21
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.
-
22-06-2017 12:49 PM #22This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
22-06-2017 12:54 PM #23This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
22-06-2017 12:58 PM #24This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
22-06-2017 12:59 PM #25
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.
-
22-06-2017 01:08 PM #26
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Posts
- 10,644
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.
-
22-06-2017 01:42 PM #27
Reckon the 60 minute rule could work. Nowt more frustrating than blatant timewasting
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
-
22-06-2017 03:26 PM #28This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
22-06-2017 03:52 PM #29
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
- Location
- Livingston
- Posts
- 2,200
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!!!
-
22-06-2017 06:15 PM #30
- Join Date
- Jul 2016
- Posts
- 43
Jeezo, what a load of keech.
How about we just play "next goal's the winner"?
Log in to remove the advert |
Bookmarks