General officiating/rules

[fightoffyour]

2 hours ago, Tomaszk said:

They can't cheat it then.

They can get two+ years of straight up cheating out of this so far.

Well that’s it isn’t it, only reason left not to have introduced it already.

More football played in less overall time, transparent and fair. What’s not to like? Oh it can’t be manipulated.

[villa4europe]

42 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

Disagree I think it would stop most of it. Not for momentum halting reasons but I don’t think that’s the reason for most time wasting.

I do, the other reason obviously being to try and play less football because you're trying to protect the score, I actually think more of it is tactical and trying to stop momentum, it's not necessarily to stop a game it's to slow it down, with then the 3rd reason being like I said injured players take 5 mins off the clock because the sub isn't ready

But either way I dont think the answer to the gamesmanship is to mess with the clock, the answer is to use the rules that they already have and get stricter on simulation, get stricter on players taking a minute to take a free kick, speed VAR up (or don't stop the game for checks do in game checks) change how they treat injuries on the pitch

If they want to stop all the bullshit then they can already, instead they'll overhaul the game and hope the problem goes away, it's head in the sand stuff, stopping the clock doesn't fix cheating it's the opposite, fix cheating and then the clock will sort itself out

To me it's like taking a throw in where the ball goes out, the refs are not interested in controlling it, they can, the rules are in place to let them but they don't care so it will never happen

Edited July 29, 2023 by villa4europe

[fightoffyour]

4 hours ago, villa4europe said:

I do, the other reason obviously being to try and play less football because you're trying to protect the score, I actually think more of it is tactical and trying to stop momentum, it's not necessarily to stop a game it's to slow it down, with then the 3rd reason being like I said injured players take 5 mins off the clock because the sub isn't ready

But either way I dont think the answer to the gamesmanship is to mess with the clock, the answer is to use the rules that they already have and get stricter on simulation, get stricter on players taking a minute to take a free kick, speed VAR up (or don't stop the game for checks do in game checks) change how they treat injuries on the pitch

If they want to stop all the bullshit then they can already, instead they'll overhaul the game and hope the problem goes away, it's head in the sand stuff, stopping the clock doesn't fix cheating it's the opposite, fix cheating and then the clock will sort itself out

To me it's like taking a throw in where the ball goes out, the refs are not interested in controlling it, they can, the rules are in place to let them but they don't care so it will never happen

But it’s far harder to say “let’s clamp down on this” than just stop the clock. It’s so simple.

[villa4europe]

30 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

But it’s far harder to say “let’s clamp down on this” than just stop the clock. It’s so simple.

So we'll change 150 years of football history because it's easier than telling a player who goes down holding his face after being flicked on his shoulder to get up and pack it in in the belief that if the clock stops he will stop doing it?

Just competently ref the game as it is already, its another rule change that skirts around refs being shit 

If you stop the clock martinez won't take a minute to take a goal kick - If the ref did he job he wouldn't either...and like I said I'm of the belief that he'll still take that minute because he's not just killing time he's slowing the game down, that will still exist no matter what they do with the clock

Edited July 29, 2023 by villa4europe

[bobzy]

7 hours ago, villa4europe said:

I do, the other reason obviously being to try and play less football because you're trying to protect the score, I actually think more of it is tactical and trying to stop momentum, it's not necessarily to stop a game it's to slow it down, with then the 3rd reason being like I said injured players take 5 mins off the clock because the sub isn't ready

But either way I dont think the answer to the gamesmanship is to mess with the clock, the answer is to use the rules that they already have and get stricter on simulation, get stricter on players taking a minute to take a free kick, speed VAR up (or don't stop the game for checks do in game checks) change how they treat injuries on the pitch

If they want to stop all the bullshit then they can already, instead they'll overhaul the game and hope the problem goes away, it's head in the sand stuff, stopping the clock doesn't fix cheating it's the opposite, fix cheating and then the clock will sort itself out

To me it's like taking a throw in where the ball goes out, the refs are not interested in controlling it, they can, the rules are in place to let them but they don't care so it will never happen

Gamesmanship is a part of the game.  That shouldn't be cut out.  If a side wants to kill momentum whilst they cling on to a famous 1-0 win at Old Trafford, let them...

 

...but just stop the clock when the ball isn't in play and make a game 60 minutes long.  It's so **** easy to implement.

[villa4europe]

9 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Gamesmanship is a part of the game.  That shouldn't be cut out.  If a side wants to kill momentum whilst they cling on to a famous 1-0 win at Old Trafford, let them...

...but just stop the clock when the ball isn't in play and make a game 60 minutes long.  It's so **** easy to implement.

Or under the current rules that are in place book a player who takes too long to put the ball back in to play

Even easier

What do people expect to change with a 60 minute clock? Because for me it's VAR MkII it will achieve nothing while the blindingly obvious answer of just get better refs stares us all in the face

[bobzy]

3 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Or under the current rules that are in place book a player who takes too long to put the ball back in to play

Even easier

What do people expect to change with a 60 minute clock? Because for me it's VAR MkII it will achieve nothing while the blindingly obvious answer of just get better refs stares us all in the face

Ridiculous variances of added on time, which has no meaning in any case.  A goal celebration takes 33 seconds?  Fine, the clock is stopped.  A player goes down injured?  Fine, the clock is stopped.

"Better refs" won't be robots.  Take away the ridiculously menial task of adding up stoppage time, make every game 60 minutes long and let the referees actually referee the game.

[villa4europe]

3 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Ridiculous variances of added on time, which has no meaning in any case.  A goal celebration takes 33 seconds?  Fine, the clock is stopped.  A player goes down injured?  Fine, the clock is stopped.

"Better refs" won't be robots.  Take away the ridiculously menial task of adding up stoppage time, make every game 60 minutes long and let the referees actually referee the game.

Or let the assistant ref manage the clock, or any appointed ref that they could use

You want a huge change to football because of discrepancies that PGMOL or any ref governing body could eliminate by just being better at their jobs

[bobzy]

1 minute ago, villa4europe said:

Or let the assistant ref manage the clock, or any appointed ref that they could use

You want a huge change to football because of discrepancies that PGMOL or any ref governing body could eliminate by just being better at their jobs

a]  How is it a huge change?  It's an accurate representation of the amount of time that a game should be played.  The ball is apparently in play for an average of 55 minutes in a Premier League game.  You're basically extending a game by 7 minutes or something.

b]  They can be better at their jobs all they want; they won't monitor such a simple thing as time (or basically any incident, necessarily) in the same manner - and subjectivity is great to an extent... but you don't need that for time.  Time is time.

[villa4europe]

3 minutes ago, bobzy said:

a]  How is it a huge change?  It's an accurate representation of the amount of time that a game should be played.  The ball is apparently in play for an average of 55 minutes in a Premier League game.  You're basically extending a game by 7 minutes or something.

b]  They can be better at their jobs all they want; they won't monitor such a simple thing as time (or basically any incident, necessarily) in the same manner - and subjectivity is great to an extent... but you don't need that for time.  Time is time.

You don't see it as a significant change?!

I see it as big as scrapping the back pass, it's a monumental change

You would have professional football as 60 minutes long with a clock stopped every time the ball went out of play (and adverts would be coming make no doubt about that) whilst all amateur levels of football carried on playing 90 minutes like they have done since 1866 or would you have them all stop when big dave puts the ball in the canal?

All due to a refs inability to be consistent?

Madness

[bobzy]

Just now, villa4europe said:

You don't see it as a significant change?!

I see it as big as scrapping the back pass, it's a monumental change

You would have professional football as 60 minutes long with a clock stopped every time the ball went out of play (and adverts would be coming make no doubt about that) whilst all amateur levels of football carried on playing 90 minutes like they have done since 1866 or would you have them all stop when big dave puts the ball in the canal?

All due to a refs inability to be consistent?

Madness

No, it's not a significant change.  Why does it matter whether the game clock shows 56:50 or 86:50?  It has no bearing on the game itself at all, it just means that time is tracked properly.  It's a ludicrously simple resolution to adhoc amounts of time being added currently.  If you looked at a game clock now and it said 88:50, you've got no idea how long is actually left.  That's madness .  58:50?  We've got 1 minute and 10 seconds of game time left - that's how much time we have to impact the game.

You're right though.  We shouldn't make the game any better at the professional level because Dave kicks the ball in the canal on a Sunday and, really, everything needs to be the same.  In fact, scrap having VAR or referees in peak physical condition or groundstaff to work meticulously - the amateur game doesn't have it, so we're all ****.  Someone call Geoff at The Red Lion - he's still free to blow the whistle a bit at 3pm on Saturdays and he'll put half price bitters on after the match.

 

Seriously, what's the downside?  You don't get irate managers screaming at the fourth official about incorrect time (hi Klopp), it's just a 60 minute game.  You don't get variances in how long is played, it's just a 60 minute game.  You don't have refs being too worried about pressing their stopwatch, it's just a 60 minute game.  Is it just because it's different?

[villa4europe]

Like I said VAR mkII

An overly clever solution that doesn't actually fix any of footballs main problems

Better refs makes this problem go away along with diving, feigning injuries, taking too long to put the ball back in to play, consistency of decisions, consistency of the rules

Scrap PGMOL, bring in better refs, it's a sad state when FIFA and their teams from around the world piss all over our refs

60 minute games will result in more stoppages, drinks breaks and adverts, the money men will love it

But at least you wouldn't have one ref adding 15 seconds on per sub and another adding on 30

[VillaChris]

10 hours ago, villa4europe said:

I do, the other reason obviously being to try and play less football because you're trying to protect the score, I actually think more of it is tactical and trying to stop momentum, it's not necessarily to stop a game it's to slow it down, with then the 3rd reason being like I said injured players take 5 mins off the clock because the sub isn't ready

But either way I dont think the answer to the gamesmanship is to mess with the clock, the answer is to use the rules that they already have and get stricter on simulation, get stricter on players taking a minute to take a free kick, speed VAR up (or don't stop the game for checks do in game checks) change how they treat injuries on the pitch

If they want to stop all the bullshit then they can already, instead they'll overhaul the game and hope the problem goes away, it's head in the sand stuff, stopping the clock doesn't fix cheating it's the opposite, fix cheating and then the clock will sort itself out

To me it's like taking a throw in where the ball goes out, the refs are not interested in controlling it, they can, the rules are in place to let them but they don't care so it will never happen

As I keep on saying if someone like Emi got booked after 20 minutes for taking a slow GK in an away game we're winning e.g. Anfield at back end of last season then that's a clear deterrent not to be slowing down the game later on.

Too many refs just let keepers like him and Nick Pope endlessly waste time acting like they don't know which side to take a goal kick from and then book them in the 93rd minute.

I remember the Brighton game Emi just threw the ball out late on and I burst out laughing as everyone could see he wasn't injured. In the end 8 minutes were added on so given that was before the World cup it was actually a case of ref adding on clear time wasting for once.

The ones that annoy me though are halves where there's no goals, a few subs here and there and no significant stoppages yet 5-6 minutes is still added on if a Liverpool or Man. United are losing/drawing at home as it's "drama" so that won't change and that's often where inconsistency happens (given we got just 3 at Wolves in the run in).

[bobzy]

8 hours ago, villa4europe said:

Like I said VAR mkII

An overly clever solution that doesn't actually fix any of footballs main problems

Better refs makes this problem go away along with diving, feigning injuries, taking too long to put the ball back in to play, consistency of decisions, consistency of the rules

Scrap PGMOL, bring in better refs, it's a sad state when FIFA and their teams from around the world piss all over our refs

60 minute games will result in more stoppages, drinks breaks and adverts, the money men will love it

But at least you wouldn't have one ref adding 15 seconds on per sub and another adding on 30

Nothing changes apart from a clock stopping.  That's literally it.  I don't understand how there's a link to bringing in adverts, but maybe you're seeing something I don't.

How can a better ref deal with a feigned injury?  They're not a physio or doctor.  They have to take the players' word, even if they suspect it's time wasting.  How do you judge what's too long to put a ball back into play?  Arbitrary time amount (10 seconds), or does it get judged on each decision?  What if the ball "accidentally" slips out of a players' hand taking a throw-in or a goalkeeper has a case of "cramp" kick in just as they go to take the kick?  Punish them immediately for going over arbitrary time amount or have some degree of sympathy?  These sort of things will be judged differently every single time.

Either you like subjectivity in football or you don't.  A factual amount of time in a game removes it and the game literally doesn't change at all.  You can still book for time wasting or deal with all the issues you've got above; diving, feigning injures, whatever - the only change is that the correct amount of time is played.  Factually correct time.

[Spoony]

One thing that really has to be looked into is the fact a player seemingly need to go down to win a free kick or penalty. I think the Women’s World Cup has shone a light on this. To their credit (but actually to their detriment), there have been so many instances where a player has been clipped or kicked and they haven’t gone down as they are just driven to keep going after the ball.

It should never be the case that a player has to go down to win the free kick or pen but that’s just the way it is and so IMO you can’t fault the players who “go down too easy” because if they’ve been clipped then it’s a foul, and you don’t win the foul unless you go down. It’s on the referees I think. Look for the contact. If there is contact then give the free kick/pen irrespective of what the player’s reaction is. 

[Chicken Field]

48 minutes ago, Spoony said:

One thing that really has to be looked into is the fact a player seemingly need to go down to win a free kick or penalty. I think the Women’s World Cup has shone a light on this. To their credit (but actually to their detriment), there have been so many instances where a player has been clipped or kicked and they haven’t gone down as they are just driven to keep going after the ball.

It should never be the case that a player has to go down to win the free kick or pen but that’s just the way it is and so IMO you can’t fault the players who “go down too easy” because if they’ve been clipped then it’s a foul, and you don’t win the foul unless you go down. It’s on the referees I think. Look for the contact. If there is contact then give the free kick/pen irrespective of what the player’s reaction is. 

I agree a lot to this! 

A free kick (and bookings) should not be determined by how hurt someone is or how hard the player falls, it should solely be judged by the "attackers" actions. 

I get really frustrated when players are punished for staying on their feet, or when bookings ar given because the other player rolls around/screams really loudly. 

[bannedfromHandV]

On 29/07/2023 at 21:50, bobzy said:

Gamesmanship is a part of the game.  That shouldn't be cut out.  If a side wants to kill momentum whilst they cling on to a famous 1-0 win at Old Trafford, let them...

 

...but just stop the clock when the ball isn't in play and make a game 60 minutes long.  It's so **** easy to implement.

does anyone actually want a 60 minute match? I dont 

[bobzy]

19 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

does anyone actually want a 60 minute match? I dont 

You currently watch an average of 55 minutes of football per match - the only difference is that a clock continually ticks up to <some amount of time>.  Unless you just don't want to view "60:00" or something.

Edited August 2, 2023 by bobzy

[bannedfromHandV]

4 hours ago, bobzy said:

You currently watch an average of 55 minutes of football per match - the only difference is that a clock continually ticks up to <some amount of time>.  Unless you just don't want to view "60:00" or something.

I understand that but footballs been pulled apart enough as it is, don’t need the basic fabric being changed.

[TomC]

On 30/07/2023 at 02:14, bobzy said:

Nothing changes apart from a clock stopping.  That's literally it.  I don't understand how there's a link to bringing in adverts, but maybe you're seeing something I don't.

American experience. Everyone over here knows what a "TV timeout is."

The broadcasters basically tell the leagues, we want to run commercials x times per half/quarter/period, and the leagues say, "yes sir, thank you for paying us millions." I can't remember which sport it is (ice hockey? basketball?) where it's every 4 minutes of clock time. Clock runs down from 20 minutes...the first stoppage after the 16 minute mark, play isn't restarted for a minute and they run commercials. First stoppage after the 12 minute mark, 8 minute mark, 4 minute mark, same thing.

Granted, in football, IFAB controls the laws and is a bit more insulated from TV broadcaster pressure because they don't get the millions from the TV contracts. That doesn't mean they won't feel the pressure. Grant an opening and the pressure will come.