Ninety minute match or a hour?

[BS44]

New idea being discussed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40993250

[Michael]

It would definitely be a positive change for the game. So many frustrating games at ER last season with teams wasting every second possible.

[neil7908]

At first I thought it sounded crazy but the stats on that article are pretty shocking.

I would still like to see a push by the football authorities to clamp down on time wasting first. A very public announcement that a zero tolerance approach is being introduced and yellow cards produced much more frequently than they are right now. Hopefully that'll send things in the right direction but failing that this looks like an idea worth exploring.

[ruthven_raiders]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It would definitely be a positive change for the game. So many frustrating games at ER last season with teams wasting every second possible.

Yeh the average time in play is 60mins or less as it stands, was all for it but wonder if coaches will find ways of just being more negative to run down the clock. Think there should be an independent monitor for time anyway so we can see clock stopping at subs,goals and injuries, referees don't ever add on enough time to cover those.

[Hibbyradge]

I remember the Sunday Post used to report on the time the ball was in play. Often it was in the 30s.

It's better than that these days due to new pass back rules and the outlawing of time wasting generally, but it's still lacking.

The BBC article states "no game has featured more than 61 minutes of play". That's poor and remember, those figures will include injury time in both halves.

It makes a joke of the referees adding 2 or 3 minutes on, when it should be 40!

This is a great idea, imo.

[Hibbyradge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yeh the average time in play is 60mins or less as it stands, was all for it but wonder if coaches will find ways of just being more negative to run down the clock. Think there should be an independent monitor for time anyway so we can see clock stopping at subs,goals and injuries, referees don't ever add on enough time to cover those.

If the ball is in play, teams are entitled to be negative. It's up to the opponents to get the ball back which they can't do, if someone is rolling around in pretend agony, wasting time.

[jgl07]

AnAmwrican football match can take over three hours to complete. It would play havoc when people have trains to catch.

A very bad idea. It would enable the TV companies to put in ad breaks.

All it needs is for referees to crack down on time wasting by issuing yellow cards and add the time on rather than the usual notional three or four minutes.

[wookie70]

I think it is a great idea. A guaranteed amount of football for your money. Imagine going to athletics and your favourite Long Jumper needs to miss a jump because the one before them was peeing around tying laces, knocking their spikes off a post and then taking a drink of water or the hurdles was reduced from 110 metres to 100 metres because the star runner bumped into another competitor and rolled about on the floor for 2 minutes before being magically revived with a wet sponge. Football is ruined by professionalism and cheating. Anything that makes it more difficult is a good thing. No issue with teams being negative when the ball is in play. ie taking it to the corners. That is game play and tactics and is up to the opposition to work out a way of getting the ball back within the rules.

[007]

2 x 30 mins, have been saying it for years. It won't stop all time wasting but it'd help.

[SuperAllyMcleod]

My only gripe is the 30 mins, I'd go for 2 x 40 mins.

Sticking to 30 mins admits defeat to the time wasting, with 40 mins we get closer to what we should be seeing.

[bob12345]

I'm all for it. I play futsal which runs with this type of clock and timewasting (with the ball out of play) doesn't exist. It frustrates the life out of me the random and tiny amounts of injury time given in football... and even then often half of that is spent with the ball out of play.

I also think I positive introduction would be for the final whistle to only blow when the ball is out of play. I.E. If you can keep the ball in play, you can keep pressing for a goal even if it runs minutes over. It's up to the team who want the final whistle to win it back and clear it.

[Hibbyradge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm all for it. I play futsal which runs with this type of clock and timewasting (with the ball out of play) doesn't exist. It frustrates the life out of me the random and tiny amounts of injury time given in football... and even then often half of that is spent with the ball out of play.

I also think I positive introduction would be for the final whistle to only blow when the ball is out of play. I.E. If you can keep the ball in play, you can keep pressing for a goal even if it runs minutes over. It's up to the team who want the final whistle to win it back and clear it.

I agree with that, but those in charge of the game won't go for it, because it's what happens in rugby.

[High-On-Hibs]

If you think the stats for British football are shocking. You should look at the stats for American football. Crazy.

[proud_and_green]

Reducing the time of the game is not the answer to increasing the amount of actual play as a proportion of the overall match time. They will just keep chasing the error until someone suggests 20 minute halves, then 15 etc until football is replaced by penalty shootouts.

I like a 90 minute game, it gives sufficient time for a game to ebb and flow. Everything is a part of the game including the stops and starts. It would be interesting to look at the stats and see them over a season with number of fouls, injuries etc and the name of the ref who officiated.

Refs have a great responsibility to ensure the game is played to the rules and in the spirit it was intended and I would suggest that this includes a responsibility to ensure the game flows and does not stop and start.

[Diclonius]

I'd be happy with this.

Managers who base their entire game on anti-football will howl with despair. We'll no longer see ****ty wee defensive teams turn up at ER and waste time every chance they get.

[MyJo]

Keep it at 90 minutes but allow the clock to be stopped for injuries and treatment, substitutions and video reviews. Throw-ins, goal kicks, corners free-kicks and penalties should all be part of the running time unless it coincides with one of the other situations, ie player is injured in a foul, clock is stopped for treatment with clock restarting when the resulting free kick is taken or the ball goes out for a throw in, clock is stopped while sub is made and restarted once the throw-in is taken.

I would also make the video reviews like tennis or the NFL where each team has only 3 challenges per match where they can have certain decisions reviewed (penalty claims, bookings & red card offences, goals scored by an offside player, confirmation that the ball crossed the goal-line & off the ball incidents) with the clock stopped, only the manager or team captain can raise the challenge with the referee or fourth official and once your challenges have been used up then thats it, the referee's decision is final.

[Lago]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My only gripe is the 30 mins, I'd go for 2 x 40 mins.

Sticking to 30 mins admits defeat to the time wasting, with 40 mins we get closer to what we should be seeing.

2 × 40 mins for me.

[Scouse Hibee]

Nah not for me, quite happy to spend my time watching the game as I have always done, not keen on tinkering with it at all.

[Sir David Gray]

Nope not for me.

If they're looking for ways to stamp out time wasting then that's great but why can we not still have a 90 minute game and have the clock stopped every time the ball goes out of play?

Football is supposed to be a 90 minute game at the professional level and I wouldn't want to see that changed, even if we are not actually seeing 90 minutes of action just now.

[Peevemor]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nope not for me.

If they're looking for ways to stamp out time wasting then that's great but why can we not still have a 90 minute game and have the clock stopped every time the ball goes out of play?

Football is supposed to be a 90 minute game at the professional level and I wouldn't want to see that changed, even if we are not actually seeing 90 minutes of action just now.

Because each half would take over an hour.

For me the 90 minutes is meant to include normal stoppages. Additional time is for exceptional stoppages (injuries & time wasting). If stopping the clock at each stoppage and having 60 minutes of the ball in play ends up more or less what we have now then I don't have a problem with it.

[Sir David Gray]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Because each half would take over an hour.

For me the 90 minutes is meant to include normal stoppages. Additional time is for exceptional stoppages (injuries & time wasting). If stopping the clock at each stoppage and having 60 minutes of the ball in play ends up more or less what we have now then I don't have a problem with it.

I don't see why that would happen if teams knew there would be no benefit to time wasting.

I can't see how there would be more than 15 minutes per half where the ball would be out of play for genuine stoppages.

[Peevemor]

In the 10 matches listed on the BBC article (original post) the ball was in play between 47 and 60 minutes. These are ordinary games. This would suggest that a fixed match length of 60 minutes play will probably result in more play than the existing set-up.