FIFA new rules experiment.

TW1Bee

Active member
Joined
28 Mar 2005
Messages
6,177
Reaction score
354
Location
Strawberry Hill, Twickenham

I was looking at the "Refereeing World" web site and came across this article about new rules that are going to be trialled with a view to implementing them if worthy in the future. I think some have been trialled before. There are other articles about referees if you're interested in reading.
 

wanderer paul

https://brentfordfcmemorabilia.wordpress.com/
Joined
28 Oct 2002
Messages
51,616
Reaction score
3,178
Location
Brentford
All rubbish!!

The clock should be stopped for all interruptions anyway!

Anytime there’s a goal, anytime subs are made, anytime physio enters play and anytime VAR interrupts the match.

So you get a good 45 minutes! Not 30!!

Will we get 33.33% of our money back?!
 

jbee

Active member
Joined
22 Oct 2003
Messages
4,519
Reaction score
1,384
Location
Ealing
I don't see why we can't have a running clock everyone can see which stops when play stops as in other sports like basketball. If that means 30 minute halves then so be it, so long as the actual amount of football played is the same. Would cut out a lot of timewasting in one fell swoop.
 

'Ayes B

Active member
Joined
29 Dec 2000
Messages
6,425
Reaction score
298
Location
Hayes, MIDDLESEX
All rubbish!!

The clock should be stopped for all interruptions anyway!

Anytime there’s a goal, anytime subs are made, anytime physio enters play and anytime VAR interrupts the match.

So you get a good 45 minutes! Not 30!!

Will we get 33.33% of our money back?!
But when we played Reading a couple of seasons back the ball was only in play for twenty minutes each half.

I suggested this move on the GPG within a 'changes you would make thread'.

Would stop time wasting at goal kicks, throw ins, corners, free kicks and substitutions. Wouldn't be surprised if we actually saw more actual football.

Another advantage is that the clock wouldn't stop at 90 as it would include the current injury time and continue to countdown until 00:00
 

BlueJayBee

Hoka hey!
Joined
7 Jul 2014
Messages
4,573
Reaction score
339
Location
Weetabixville, Northamptonshire
I support the clock idea. As others have said, currently, the ball is only in play for probably about 30 minutes each half, anyway, often less. If we did have 45 minutes, per half, with the clock being stopped for any interruption, games would last 2 and a half to 3 hours, maybe even longer with some of the opposition we've had over the last few years.
 

Westlad

Active member
Joined
15 Sep 2005
Messages
6,244
Reaction score
19
I support the clock idea. As others have said, currently, the ball is only in play for probably about 30 minutes each half, anyway, often less. If we did have 45 minutes, per half, with the clock being stopped for any interruption, games would last 2 and a half to 3 hours, maybe even longer with some of the opposition we've had over the last few years.
True but "time wasting" also disrupts the flow of the game and the opposition team's momentum, if the clock is stopped every time the ball goes out of play it just legitimises this.
 

BlueJayBee

Hoka hey!
Joined
7 Jul 2014
Messages
4,573
Reaction score
339
Location
Weetabixville, Northamptonshire
True but "time wasting" also disrupts the flow of the game and the opposition team's momentum, if the clock is stopped every time the ball goes out of play it just legitimises this.
But if you stop the clock, the time isn't "wasted". I agree it disrupts the flow of the game, but you will still have to play out exactly the amount of time that remains.
 

Invipai

Active member
Joined
29 Jul 2011
Messages
7,555
Reaction score
1,062
Location
Ealing, London
It's an idea I've seen circle for ages, I mean I remember Richard Lee said he wanted it back in 2011 or so. It would mean a fair amount of time is added on, but as stated above, teams would still time waste as doing so still disrupts the oppositions momentum etc even if you still have to play the same amount of time left.

I think it's argued that we'd actually get more football this way, rather than less, given the average time the ball is in play.

I'm starting to come around to sin bins as well....for those 'orange card' offences, or stopping a break etc.
 

birdy67

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2008
Messages
200
Reaction score
88
Location
Caterham
I hate Rugby but the one thing I'd definitely take from them is physio's treating players whilst the game continues around them. People complain that they'd get in the way but arguably Rugby uses more of the pitch in a play than football does and if the ball were to hit a physio or payer on the floor the ref could easily do a drop ball just as they do if they're hit by the ball currently and it disrupts the attacking teams play. This would guarantee that players time wasting wouldn't bother if they weren't genuinely injured.
 

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
76,503
Reaction score
7,719
Location
London
I hate Rugby but the one thing I'd definitely take from them is physio's treating players whilst the game continues around them. People complain that they'd get in the way but arguably Rugby uses more of the pitch in a play than football does and if the ball were to hit a physio or payer on the floor the ref could easily do a drop ball just as they do if they're hit by the ball currently and it disrupts the attacking teams play. This would guarantee that players time wasting wouldn't bother if they weren't genuinely injured.
If it hits an injured player then it's not a dropped-ball, should be the same for physio too.
 

Isleworth_Bee

Well-known member
Joined
18 Jan 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
2,178
Location
Basingstoke
30 minute halves with a stopping clock isn’t rubbish.

Why not play the full 45 with a stopping clock? Just an idea.

Isnt it a 90min game? I dont think it was set at 90 to incorporate all the time the ball is out of play.
 

HaylingBee74

Active member
Joined
8 Aug 2020
Messages
2,341
Reaction score
1,139
Location
Hayling Island
Why not play the full 45 with a stopping clock? Just an idea.

Isnt it a 90min game? I dont think it was set at 90 to incorporate all the time the ball is out of play.
Because with Opta saying this in 2018:-
“When it comes to how long the ball is in play, matches do not last remotely 90 minutes – and there is an extraordinary difference in the real length of matches. This season in the Premier League, the average amount of ball in play in each match is 59 minutes and 23 seconds, according to Opta.”

Matches would need to be played over 3 x 30 minute periods with two 15 minutes half-time intervals. So two 30 minute halves with the clock stopping would reflect how much game we currently see
 

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
76,503
Reaction score
7,719
Location
London
2 x 30 minute halves does not solve the problem.

We dont want the same amount of inplay time as we have currently, we want more.
It's a fair point. I wonder how the amount of in-play time has changed over recent decades?
 

wibs

Well-known member
Joined
6 Jun 2001
Messages
30,051
Reaction score
2,200
Location
I AM a location

I was looking at the "Refereeing World" web site and came across this article about new rules that are going to be trialled with a view to implementing them if worthy in the future. I think some have been trialled before. There are other articles about referees if you're interested in reading.

*adds TW1Bee to blocked list immediately
 

Isleworth_Bee

Well-known member
Joined
18 Jan 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
2,178
Location
Basingstoke
Because with Opta saying this in 2018:-
“When it comes to how long the ball is in play, matches do not last remotely 90 minutes – and there is an extraordinary difference in the real length of matches. This season in the Premier League, the average amount of ball in play in each match is 59 minutes and 23 seconds, according to Opta.”

Matches would need to be played over 3 x 30 minute periods with two 15 minutes half-time intervals. So two 30 minute halves with the clock stopping would reflect how much game we currently see

But matches are meant to last 90minutes. two 30min periods achieves nothing. There is still less game play. We want to see 90mins of football.
 

HaylingBee74

Active member
Joined
8 Aug 2020
Messages
2,341
Reaction score
1,139
Location
Hayling Island
But matches are meant to last 90minutes. two 30min periods achieves nothing. There is still less game play. We want to see 90mins of football.
I nearly typed that, to get 90 minutes of play, you would need 135 minutes currently. More than having extra time every match. Would the current halftime be enough for the players? I doubt it, but say it is. 3pm kick offs will finish at 5.30. 8pm kick offs finish at 10.30pm. Adding an extra 15 minutes would make it worse
 

Beenut

Active member
Joined
13 Dec 2002
Messages
2,004
Reaction score
47
Location
Market Harborough
I hate Rugby but the one thing I'd definitely take from them is physio's treating players whilst the game continues around them. People complain that they'd get in the way but arguably Rugby uses more of the pitch in a play than football does and if the ball were to hit a physio or payer on the floor the ref could easily do a drop ball just as they do if they're hit by the ball currently and it disrupts the attacking teams play. This would guarantee that players time wasting wouldn't bother if they weren't genuinely injured.
I like the rugby rule where the game ends next time the ball goes out of play once full time is reached.
 

Isleworth_Bee

Well-known member
Joined
18 Jan 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
2,178
Location
Basingstoke
I nearly typed that, to get 90 minutes of play, you would need 135 minutes currently. More than having extra time every match. Would the current halftime be enough for the players? I doubt it, but say it is. 3pm kick offs will finish at 5.30. 8pm kick offs finish at 10.30pm. Adding an extra 15 minutes would make it worse

Fair. Maybe it can be modified to run the clock for throws and goal kicks which the ref can manage. And stop it for injuries and subs?
 

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
76,503
Reaction score
7,719
Location
London
I like the rugby rule where the game ends next time the ball goes out of play once full time is reached.
Whereas football is the opposite, it must be in-play for the whistle to blow (or it is accepted practice)
 

'Ayes B

Active member
Joined
29 Dec 2000
Messages
6,425
Reaction score
298
Location
Hayes, MIDDLESEX
Why not play the full 45 with a stopping clock? Just an idea.

Isnt it a 90min game? I dont think it was set at 90 to incorporate all the time the ball is out of play.
An interesting thought.

If we played the full 90 now with a stopping clock games would probably last for two and a half hours!!!, however this does not take into account that the only effect of time wasting is that it will slow the game down and not reduce the in-play time. Therefore games might last for 100 minutes as they do now.

With more 'in-play time' teams would have to be fitter / have more stamina and there could be 33 percent rise in the number of goals scored due to the extra time the ball is in play.

Maybe the deciding factor will be the requirements of transport and TV, fans will need to get home and 2 and half hour games may not appeal to TV audiences
 
Top Bottom