Scrapping 45-minute halfs, thoughts?

[burnsjed]

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40311889

Surprised that there isn't a thread already on this.

I guess the biggest two changes would be the introduction of 30 minute half's, with the referee stopping his watch every time there is a stoppage in play, and the scrapping of follow ups after penalties are missed?

Good idea, or don't fix what's not broken!

I like the idea of stopping the wasting of time, this is infuriating, especially the time keepers take over goal kicks etc, so I can see the benefits of that.
Not sure how I feel on the follow ups with penalties, the keepers will be happy!

 

[SuperGoon]

Sounds like cutting the time is just a way for more revenue. More matches to broadcast, more ads, more money for BT and Sky.


Personally, as a tv viewer, I wouldn't mind. As a regular stadium visitor/season-ticket holder I'd be livid.

 

[Tosker]

I'm damned if I'm going to set out on a 12 hour round trip, and pay a fortune, to see 60 minutes of football - not every match has a half hour of time wasting

though of course the clubs would no doubt reduce ticket prices by a third

 

[Wilshere1010]

Sh*t idea.

 

[Trilly]

I'm damned if I'm going to set out on a 12 hour round trip, and pay a fortune, to see 60 minutes of football - not every match has a half hour of time wasting

though of course the clubs would no doubt reduce ticket prices by a third

Well apparently there's only 25 minutes of effective playing time in each half, with this new rule you would get to view a guaranteed 30 minutes per half.

 

[burnsjed]

As Trilly mentioned, you will actually be getting more football not less.
So it doesn't appear to be a way to cram in more games for revenue etc.

 

[Trilly]

As Trilly mentioned, you will actually be getting more football not less.
So it doesn't appear to be a way to cram in more games for revenue etc.

Difficult to wrap my head around the idea that there's only 25 minutes of effective football in the average half of football. That's crazy, didn't know the stoppages had such a big impact.

 

[burnsjed]

Difficult to wrap my head around the idea that there's only 25 minutes of effective football in the average half of football. That's crazy, didn't know the stoppages had such a big impact.

Agreed, almost seems impossible!

 

[redanddread]

Complete BS really.

 

[bingobob]

Sounds like cutting the time is just a way for more revenue. More matches to broadcast, more ads, more money for BT and Sky.


Personally, as a tv viewer, I wouldn't mind. As a regular stadium visitor/season-ticket holder I'd be livid.

Actually think for Sky etc it'll be a disaster. 90 minute match is easily slotted into a time slot and you know it'll end roughly no more than ten minutes after the alloted time. If they stop the clock games can literally last hours. It'll make their scheduling teams work a lot harder and they can't more or less guarantee when adverts will be played. Throw in fans who rely on public transport they will face uncertainty as they'll not know when a game will actually end.

As a rule though I think it's great. Will work in our advantage as so many teams waste time against us. And Mourinho will hate it. It'll remove one of his tactics. I remember a few years ago a Liverpool player said he was told on the pitch by a Chelsea player that Mourinho told his guys to randomly tie laces to slow the game down. Cuts that bollocks out straight away.

 

[AVENTUS]

Won't happen..

Terrible idea all of us paying Sky or Virgin £1100 per year to slash all our games by 30mins we won't even have time to get drunk and get in the mood.

Why not just bring at a rule where a player can't hold the ball longer then 5 seconds that will speed it up and stop time wasting for certain.

How will this discourage time wasting cutting game by 30 minuets teams will still score and pass the ball around defence regardless how many minutes are cut from the 90.

5 second rule obvious choice

 

[bingobob]

Won't happen..

Terrible idea all of us paying Sky or Virgin £1100 per year to slash all our games by 30mins we won't even have time to get drunk and get in the mood.

Why not just bring at a rule where a player can't hold the ball longer then 5 seconds that will speed it up and stop time wasting for certain.

How will this discourage time wasting cutting game by 30 minuets teams will still score and pass the ball around defence regardless how many minutes are cut from the 90.

5 second rule obvious choice

Stats show the ball is only in play for an average of 60 minutes per game. Look at that Germany game. Five minutes of added time but the ball was only in play for two. Cuts out pointless time wasting like subs and Can holding the ball between his legs. Absolutely the right idea to bring it in but TV companies won't like it as it will mess with their scheduling.

 

[LacazetteAFC]

Absolutely horrible idea

1. Firsly I don't buy the ball is only in play for 25 minutes per half
2. It penalises possession teams who can keep it in play.
3. Imagine freekicks/corners - "alright Mertesacker don't jog, take your time walking up mate, all the time in the world"
4. "Lad we're under pressure and tired, the ball is out of play and our goalkick, let's just take our time to get a breath so we can defend better" - ok that happens anyway but if you remove time wasting rules it'll happen more

 

[Brown Gooner]

Although I think something has to be done to curb out the time that is wasted. I still think getting rid of 45 minute halves is too radical a step to take. I hope the authorities and officials can find a solution to this problem.

 

[tap-in]

Completely against reducing the time. Lasting the whole 90 mins is a vital strength to have, we are good at it and often score late as the other team tires. I'm against anything that takes away something from us.

Nothing wrong with penalty follow ups either, the keeper should do better the first time

Stoppages is an issue that needs looking at but not by reducing the length of the game.

 

[Sniper Mik]

This is a much better initiative

 

[Giroud]

Absolutely horrible idea

1. Firsly I don't buy the ball is only in play for 25 minutes per half
2. It penalises possession teams who can keep it in play.
3. Imagine freekicks/corners - "alright Mertesacker don't jog, take your time walking up mate, all the time in the world"
4. "Lad we're under pressure and tired, the ball is out of play and our goalkick, let's just take our time to get a breath so we can defend better" - ok that happens anyway but if you remove time wasting rules it'll happen more

You might not buy it but the fact is most games have just 50-60 minutes of ball in play.

(Premier League 2010-11)

 

[Mark Tobias]

Actually think for Sky etc it'll be a disaster. 90 minute match is easily slotted into a time slot and you know it'll end roughly no more than ten minutes after the alloted time. If they stop the clock games can literally last hours. It'll make their scheduling teams work a lot harder and they can't more or less guarantee when adverts will be played. Throw in fans who rely on public transport they will face uncertainty as they'll not know when a game will actually end.

As a rule though I think it's great. Will work in our advantage as so many teams waste time against us. And Mourinho will hate it. It'll remove one of his tactics. I remember a few years ago a Liverpool player said he was told on the pitch by a Chelsea player that Mourinho told his guys to randomly tie laces to slow the game down. Cuts that bollocks out straight away.

Rugby does this, why can't football. The super cup rugby here in South Africa is the most popular of all our sports.

 

[Trilly]

I think people are thinking of this the long way. This rule won't eliminate the stoppages, it will simply stop them from occurring while the clock is running.

The actual game of football will still last for the same amount of time..