Jump to content

View from the outside


Derbados

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Srg said:

 

Purely for the fact that games would be going on for about 2 and a half hours if it wasn't reduced! Would be like NFL games.

 

8 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I'm a but of a skeptic about rule changes like this, but the time wasting is epidemic. I wouldn't reduce time to compensate.

 

8 minutes ago, KCG said:

No, it bloody wouldn't. NFL is all about time-outs for ads etc... It doesn't happen in rugby!

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

Burnley v West Brom managed 47 minutes and 40 seconds of football early last season. To put things into perspective.

 

Here's a list of averages from Talksport for the same season:

https://talksport.com/football/315919/average-ball-play-time-each-premier-league-side-201718-season-171127263506/

 

60 minutes with a stopped clock would be about right, based on those (Chelsea had the ball in the play the most, mustering 58 and a half minutes).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 893
  • Created
  • Last Reply
6 minutes ago, KCG said:

No, it bloody wouldn't. NFL is all about time-outs for ads etc... It doesn't happen in rugby!

There's only a couple of TV time outs in NFL games, the main reason they're so long is because it's on a play by play basis, and the clock stops on every incomplete pass - then you do have coaches time outs. Usually works out that the better/closer the game is, the longer it takes.

So maybe it wasn't a direct comparison, but I think my point was there's an average I read somewhere that the ball is only in play about 30 odd minutes a game in football, so that was my thinking.

Edit: looks like 30 odd minutes was over egging on the evidence above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Srg said:

There's only a couple of TV time outs in NFL games, the main reason they're so long is because it's on a play by play basis, and the clock stops on every incomplete pass - then you do have coaches time outs. Usually works out that the better/closer the game is, the longer it takes.

So maybe it wasn't a direct comparison, but I think my point was there's an average I read somewhere that the ball is only in play about 30 odd minutes a game in football, so that was my thinking.

Edit: looks like 30 odd minutes was over egging on the evidence above.

I don't think 2 and a half hours is an overestimate by much if the clock stopped and we had 45 minute halves. But it would have the huge problem of making it unclear when a game is going to finish. We only have that nowadays with very rare stoppages.

 

45 + 45 + 15 = 105; then add the 35 that an average (current) game has the ball out of play and you have 140, so 2 hours and 20 minutes on average (that figure obviously includes some degree of timewasting in the current game so could well reduce if the clock stopped)

 

As I say though, you'd go to a game being even more unsure of when you'll be home than you already are ? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just worry about losing the non-stop nature of the game, and if there's clock stopped bits, the nature will take its course and there'll be milking it for a breather, tactics discussion, and a further dilution of the inception of the sport. I'd rather have wrong decisions than VAR stoppages, but I'm onto a loser on that one, I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RadioactiveWaste said:

I just worry about losing the non-stop nature of the game, and if there's clock stopped bits, the nature will take its course and there'll be milking it for a breather, tactics discussion, and a further dilution of the inception of the sport. I'd rather have wrong decisions than VAR stoppages, but I'm onto a loser on that one, I know.

Think the clock being stopped will be based on the refs whistle, so he could force a game to restart. And if a team talks tactics when the ref wants them to take a throw-in etc. he could still book them for timewasting. Still wasting everyone's time even if it's not actually taking seconds off the clock.

Not that I'm in favour. Just playing devil's advocate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I just worry about losing the non-stop nature of the game

Have you been recently? Most games are stop start these days. I like the idea of a ball in-play timer and to stop the time wasters you have a very tight limit on how long you have to take the kick,throw etc or the ball goes to other team. Scare the pants off the keeper if he faces an indirect kick on his 6 yard line. It'll never happen but can but hope.

I am very concerned over VAR. It was supposed to be to help if the Ref had made a clear and obvious error but it seems every goal has a review now and given how long it takes to make a decision it is not clear or obvious. Waste of time! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said it doesn't happen in rugby, but then again they don't mess about; argue with the ref and kick is moved forward. There's far too much silly nonsense in football games, which could easily be cut out.

Just as well we had a ref on Monday who added the time on, but if players knew their tactics wouldn't ever work we would never have had to endure QPR's non-football. In fact, they should be fined for bringing the game into disrepute, but I'm being silly now, when would the EFL get tough with QPR ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KCG said:

As I said it doesn't happen in rugby, but then again they don't mess about; argue with the ref and kick is moved forward. There's far too much silly nonsense in football games, which could easily be cut out.

Just as well we had a ref on Monday who added the time on, but if players knew their tactics wouldn't ever work we would never have had to endure QPR's non-football. In fact, they should be fined for bringing the game into disrepute, but I'm being silly now, when would the EFL get tough with QPR ?

We had the move the ball forward rule in a few seasons ago but they did not stick with it or apply it strongly enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SaintRam said:

I don't think 2 and a half hours is an overestimate by much if the clock stopped and we had 45 minute halves. But it would have the huge problem of making it unclear when a game is going to finish. We only have that nowadays with very rare stoppages.

 

45 + 45 + 15 = 105; then add the 35 that an average (current) game has the ball out of play and you have 140, so 2 hours and 20 minutes on average (that figure obviously includes some degree of timewasting in the current game so could well reduce if the clock stopped)

 

As I say though, you'd go to a game being even more unsure of when you'll be home than you already are ? 

 

... And all those that leave on 80 mins would still be late home!   

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bizarrely, the amount of time the ref added on, nearly worked against us. 

Any normal ref would have added the usual 4 or 5 mins, plenty of time for our first goal and we wouldn't have had to suffer the remaining few minutes. Incidentally, the ref stuck to his guns and added a further 2 or 3 minutes on top of the 9 mins, to allow for the time lost on the penalty, hardly favouring Derby. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ram59 said:

Bizarrely, the amount of time the ref added on, nearly worked against us. 

Any normal ref would have added the usual 4 or 5 mins, plenty of time for our first goal and we wouldn't have had to suffer the remaining few minutes. Incidentally, the ref stuck to his guns and added a further 2 or 3 minutes on top of the 9 mins, to allow for the time lost on the penalty, hardly favouring Derby. 

And celebration, of course!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ram59 said:

Bizarrely, the amount of time the ref added on, nearly worked against us. 

Any normal ref would have added the usual 4 or 5 mins, plenty of time for our first goal and we wouldn't have had to suffer the remaining few minutes. Incidentally, the ref stuck to his guns and added a further 2 or 3 minutes on top of the 9 mins, to allow for the time lost on the penalty, hardly favouring Derby. 

I almost feel like the rule needs changing.

Waste time and get to 90 minutes level or in front, add on the full amount.

The team you've wasted time against score, blow for full time immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BurtonRam7 said:

Both sides do it at various points in the match so it would be impossible to regulate. Plus, if the referees add on the correct amount of added time then there’s no reward.

I don't agree. He added on 9 minutes, of which 7 must've been added for timewasting exclusively by QPR.

Why should they have benefitted from those extra minutes above and beyond our 1st goal when they caused the delay in the 1st place?

Goalmouth scramble in our box afterwards, I'd have been steaming if they'd equalised during time that was only added on due to their timewasting.

How would that be fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...