100 Mins games

[Annihilate Now!]

Great, much better then the stop clock idea in my be opinion

 

[Nicolarra90]

Stop the clock and play 30 mins each way.

Job done.

Why 30?. Allow more subs if fitness is a issue.

 

[Rado_N]

Why 30?. Allow more subs if fitness is a issue.

Because it equates to around the amount of time the ball is usually expected to be in play.

 

[Nicolarra90]

Because it equates to around the amount of time the ball is usually expected to be in play.

The time expected is 90 mins.

 

[Alex99]

Why 30?. Allow more subs if fitness is a issue.

Seems the time the ball is actually in play averages around an hour, so two 30 minute halves with a stop-clock and no added time would make sense.

More subs just benefits the richer clubs. There have already been complaints about the move from 3 from 7 to 5 from 9.

 

[Rado_N]

The time expected is 90 mins.

Not in play it isn’t. That’s literally never happened.

 

[Daydreamer]

The time expected is 90 mins.

Eh?

 

[BaguetteBoy]

Why not just change the game 50/50 mins and allocate the time in there. Players are more athletic now that the 1900s anyways. More fun for us.

 

[Posh Red]

And Arteta, he coached his players to feign injury right after they had scored as it’s one of the times when the scoring teams are most vulnerable.

This wouldn’t really put an end to that, unfortunately.

 

[Trequarista10]

Stop the clock and play 30 mins each way.



Job done.

Only potential concern with this would be the game becoming very stop-start. Teams taking ages at every set piece to coordinate their formation, clear their minds, take a breather or whatever. There would still need to be incentive placed on teams to get the ball in play quickly otherwise it could end up having a tennis or American football flow, with 60 mins in play taking 2 - 2.5 hours to complete.

 

[Rado_N]

Only potential concern with this would be the game becoming very stop-start. Teams taking ages at every set piece to coordinate their formation, clear their minds, take a breather or whatever. There would still need to be incentive placed on teams to get the ball in play quickly otherwise it could end up having a tennis or American football flow, with 60 mins in play taking 2 - 2.5 hours to complete.

The NFL has a 40 second play clock.

 

[Alex99]

My fear with that is it would open the door to TV timeouts. The governing authorities and broadcasters are too greedy and wouldn't say no to another revenue stream.

Can't see that happening, to be honest. They could already push for that if they wanted.

Only potential concern with this would be the game becoming very stop-start. Teams taking ages at every set piece to coordinate their formation, clear their minds, take a breather or whatever. There would still need to be incentive placed on teams to get the ball in play quickly otherwise it could end up having a tennis or American football flow, with 60 mins in play taking 2 - 2.5 hours to complete.

Easily rectified by having a timer and/or still punishing players for time wasting.

If we're basing a change to 30 minute halves off the average time the ball is actually in play, there's no reason why they couldn't also calculate, for example, the average time it takes for a free kick to be taken and set a timer based on that.

 

[Red in STL]

The NFL has a 40 second play clock.

baseball has a clock now as well, and games are much quicker

Football should move to something akin to what rugby union does

 

[jadaba]

Great move. Seeing 9 minutes on the board after persistent time-wasting should have a psychological impact on the offending team.

I don't know the number of minutes the ball was in-play during other seasons but I wonder if it's falling as playing schedules get more manic and players are just generally more knackered? I'm still fully in favour of this move and hope it's properly enforced to inhibit tactical time-wasting, but would also be useful to get an idea of whether less in-play time is a result of tactics or fatigue.

 

[Rampant Red Rodriguez]

Don't want.

Is it fair to see 35 mins of wasted playing time per game?.

 

[Robbie Boy]

It's great until Liverpool or some other shite bags are 1 nil down against a midtable side. Then 10 minutes are added and they go on to win 2-1.

 

[Red in STL]

It's great until Liverpool or some other shite bags are 1 nil down against a midtable side. Then 10 minutes are added and they go on to win 2-1.

I prefer to think of it like Steve Bruce scoring 7 odd mins in against Wednesday and SAF and Kidd going potty

 

[Robbie Boy]

I prefer to think of it like Steve Bruce scoring 7 odd mins in against Wednesday and SAF and Kidd going potty

Seems to be a lot of oppo clubs getting injury time winners these days, though.

 

[Trequarista10]

If we're basing a change to 30 minute halves off the average time the ball is actually in play, there's no reason why they couldn't also calculate, for example, the average time it takes for a free kick to be taken and set a timer based on that.

Yeah it's possible, also they'd need to calculate the average number of stoppages to try and ensure the overall match time wouldn't go too long. It's workable but could still be abused and slow the game down, eg a FK near the opposition box may take say 60+ seconds to prepare as CBs go forwards, the players in the wall dick around trying to gain a yard or players jostling in the box, compared to a FK in the defensive half which should really take just a few seconds. But if teams have a maximum time break of 40 seconds or whatever they would be incentived to take the full time allowed to catch their breath or release pressure. Also need to allow for time for injuries or physios or a ref booking a player or talking to a player, and then do we need a stop clock for the stop clock, or differing stop clocks for differing stoppages. It seems easy at first thought but there's loads of complications so it'd never be as simple in practise.

 

[Alex99]

Yeah it's possible, also they'd need to calculate the average number of stoppages to try and ensure the overall match time wouldn't go too long. It's workable but could still be abused and slow the game down, eg a FK near the opposition box may take say 60+ seconds to prepare as CBs go forwards, the players in the wall dick around trying to gain a yard or players jostling in the box, compared to a FK in the defensive half which should really take just a few seconds. But if teams have a maximum time break of 40 seconds or whatever they would be incentived to take the full time allowed to catch their breath or release pressure. Also need to allow for time for injuries or physios or a ref booking a player or talking to a player, and then do we need a stop clock for the stop clock, or differing stop clocks for differing stoppages. It seems easy at first thought but there's loads of complications so it'd never be as simple in practise.

It'd take a bit of work but we know that your standard football match, whistle to whistle, is done in ~100 minutes, which seems a decent starting point.

 

[matherto]

Good. Worked great at the World Cup.

Exactly this. Once you got over it in the first game it became something that made complete sense.

 

[Gio]

Only potential concern with this would be the game becoming very stop-start. Teams taking ages at every set piece to coordinate their formation, clear their minds, take a breather or whatever. There would still need to be incentive placed on teams to get the ball in play quickly otherwise it could end up having a tennis or American football flow, with 60 mins in play taking 2 - 2.5 hours to complete.

Aye, that's the obvious unintended consequence of a stop clock - creates needless breaks, removes the incentive to move the game on quickly, and will no doubt be exploited as a commercial opportunity.

 

[Oranges038]

If that's the reason, this won't discourage that.

It won't, what they should really do is like rugby and play on while the player is on the floor, if they need treatment they get it, but they are no longer active, so they can't be playing anyone onside or offside.

On the 100 mins thing, it worked at the world cup. But maybe, they really just need to start booking players for time wasting, enforce the 6 second keeper rule and maybe put a timer on set pieces and kick outs etc. Say you have 20/30 seconds to get the ball moving, if you don't the play is reversed. Corners become goal kicks and goal kicks will become corners etc.

There's just so many moving parts to a game of football, that it would be almost impossible to set it to a counter timer where the clock gets stopped every time there's a pause in play.

 

[groovyalbert]

I prefer to think of it like Steve Bruce scoring 7 odd mins in against Wednesday and SAF and Kidd going potty

That was already happening last season. Now everyone else will have the chance to do the same.

 

[Pronewbie]

It ended up encouraging positive behaviour during the WC so I'm all for it this season.

Knowing the refs though the implementation may end up being incredibly inconsistent and infuriating.

 

[massey]

So going by last season Liverpool will get 110 minutes a game now.

 

[Top]

Will also result in more goals, cards etc. - basically all stats will get a bump when comparing with previous seasons.

 

[Nicolarra90]

Eh?

So when you see a football game you expect to see the ball in play for 60 mins? I expect to see the 90 mins of play I'm paying for.

 

[HILLSIDE]

I wonder what the rules will be for our European games.

 

[Daydreamer]

So when you see a football game you expect to see the ball in play for 60 mins? I expect to see the 90 mins of play I'm paying for.

Yep, I expect to see the ball in play for around 60 mins because that been roughly the time the balls been in play during matches since anyone started counting.

I’m intrigued, who exactly promised you 90 minutes of the ball in play?

 

[Nicolarra90]

I’m intrigued, who exactly promised you 90 minutes of the ball in play?

??? The rules of the game???

This is pointless. You think that because something has been done wrong since forever then you should adopt it to make it right. I don't think that way.

If it's 90 then play 90.

And it's not a fitness stuff for most players it's just cowardice from teams that look for a result in the wrong ways.

 

[Teja]

So we all get 8-10 minutes extra the same as Liverpool?
Seems fair.

Pool will get 15 mins instead

 

[tenpoless]

Thanks Newcastle. You can't even play football, I hope you go down next season.

 

[2 man midfield]

Eddie Howe in shambles

 

[Daydreamer]

??? The rules of the game???

This is pointless. You think that because something has been done wrong since forever then you should adopt it to make it right. I don't think that way.

If it's 90 then play 90.

And it's not a fitness stuff for most players it's just cowardice from teams that look for a result in the wrong ways.

Which rule?

I’m all for changing things things that are wrong. That’s a hell of an assumption.

But something isn’t necessarily wrong just because you personally don’t like it.

Anyway, all the best.

 

[dubplate warrior]

Newcastle are fecked.

 

[11101]

They need to stop the clock when the ball is out of play and reduce the time to 60 mins.

It's a nice idea but we're going to get random times added on. Liverpool to get 10 minutes extra any time they're losing.

 

[Gringo]

Yeah it's possible, also they'd need to calculate the average number of stoppages to try and ensure the overall match time wouldn't go too long. It's workable but could still be abused and slow the game down, eg a FK near the opposition box may take say 60+ seconds to prepare as CBs go forwards, the players in the wall dick around trying to gain a yard or players jostling in the box, compared to a FK in the defensive half which should really take just a few seconds. But if teams have a maximum time break of 40 seconds or whatever they would be incentived to take the full time allowed to catch their breath or release pressure. Also need to allow for time for injuries or physios or a ref booking a player or talking to a player, and then do we need a stop clock for the stop clock, or differing stop clocks for differing stoppages. It seems easy at first thought but there's loads of complications so it'd never be as simple in practise.

Aren't you over thinking this ? When the ball is dead, leave it to the referees discretion. That's what happens now.

 

[Daydreamer]

Aren't you over thinking this ? When the ball is dead, leave it to the referees discretion. That's what happens now.

I agree. I think the World Cup proved that once players realise there is the potential for serious time to be added on, they’ll stop time-wasting. By the end of the tournament, there was fewer games that had tons of stoppage time because the incentive had disappeared.

We don’t need new rules. The World Cup didn’t have new rules. It just enforced them sufficiently to be a deterrent.

 

[Dave Smith]

They really need to go with a stop clock as that is a lot fairer. We all know that the added time in this system is done in an arbitrary fashion.