Shot clock in football. Have it been discussed?

[meamth]

Watching us against Leeds last night made wonder, what if football has Shot clock like in Basketball.

Let's say each team has 2 minutes shot clock, if it expires, goal kick to the opposition team.

Can it work? Will you accept this idea?

 

[Gasolin]

No because we don't play with timeouts in football. Basketball has a smaller court and the game is often hashed.
We can play football without scoring because the rules allow us to do that.

I don't think it would be a good idea. It's just not what the game is.

And you say 2mn, you are forgetting that a football court is way larger and wider than any other sports almost, you are going to kill the players with your rule. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Lord SInister]

Wouldn't be football at all.

 

[meamth]

No because we don't play with timeouts in football. Basketball has a smaller court and the game is often hashed.
We can play football without scoring because the rules allow us to do that.

I don't think it would be a good idea. It's just not what the game is.

And you say 2mn, you are forgetting that a football court is way larger and wider than any other sports almost, you are going to kill the players with your rule. It just doesn't make sense.

It does make sense, if you watch every time we're chasing a game at extra time, 1 minute is enough to get one attack or one attempt at goal. It would probably destroy possession based football, but for me, we can see more urgency and purpose when a team is on the ball.

 

[Baneofthegame]

Watching us against Leeds last night made wonder, what if football has Shot clock like in Basketball.

Let's say each team has 2 minutes shot clock, if it expires, goal kick to the opposition team.

Can it work? Will you accept this idea?

No and no.

 

[Lord SInister]

It does make sense, if you watch every time we're chasing a game at extra time, 1 minute is enough to get one attack or one attempt at goal. It would probably destroy possession based football, but for me, we can see more urgency and purpose when a team is on the ball.

No all we will see is hoofing the ball by both teams, with teams recruiting 6 feet plus players.

 

[Gasolin]

It does make sense, if you watch every time we're chasing a game at extra time, 1 minute is enough to get one attack or one attempt at goal. It would probably destroy possession based football, but for me, we can see more urgency and purpose when a team is on the ball.

The players are human beings, we cannot put 2mn. That's really all. We are already worrying about the health of the players due to the number of games to play.
With your rule, we would need an American football team to have a chance to compete (100 players?).
It is not what football is about and I don't think that should be explored at all.

Rugby is the closest thing in term of width and style of game and they don't do timeout at all.
It's an American view of the game and they are free to do it for their sports, but not football.

 

[Ibi Dreams]

Absolutely not, insane idea

Football is a strategic game. It can be slow at times, but that makes the good bits more special. A shot clock would turn it into an entirely different game

 

[meamth]

But here's the problem, when we see games that ended with 0-0, it's such a pain in the arse and wasted our time. We got mad because of it and maybe, this rule can change that...I don't know.

 

[Sweet Square]

Stop getting football WRONG!

 

[klayton88]

Stop getting football WRONG!

WELL THERE'S NO NEED FOR THAT. Just because he made a shit suggestion.

 

[Web of Bissaka]

What? no.
That sounds so dull and boring, good bye possession football and kill plenty of fun aspects in football then. Everything will be fast pace copy and past system of quick total all-out attacking and counter attacking for every teams when attacking, while defending team will be totally defensive because few mins and the possession will immediately be theirs. It's like basketball which I find boring and repetitive in terms of movements and area of playing by both teams. It's dull repetitive. Basketballs is fun when they make the skills, blocks, steals and shots, that's it, less on positioning and formation I feel which in football are far more important.

^ I think OP's good idea tbf is best suited for futsal/5v5 football or 7v7 football/turf, not sure what it's called.

Though this is about stopping clocks every delays so in the end we get a "real game of 90 mins" not this 60 mins playing but the rest are time wasted on delay throw-ins, waiting for the ball, set-pieces posing, fouls, VAR review, etc... which I would be in favor of. But then it'll make the game longer and may encourage some teams to time waste intentionally to get the extra time to recover fatigue or control tempo.

^ Instead we should use OP's "shot clock" idea during free kicks, penalty, throw ins and substitutions. Fouls or cards to be given if the players delay past certain time limits.
Eg. After whistle... 3 seconds time limits for set-pieces and throw ins. No more. Exceed it and possession given to the other teams. If any players took too long walking away, exceed 3 seconds, then that player will be given a yellow card. Etc.

 

[Leonzo1]

So you have 2 minutes to run the whole pitch for 90 minutes? Good luck with that.

 

[The Boy]

Sounds like fun game, but you'd have to call it something else as it just wouldn't be football.

 

[kouroux]

In a 5v5 pitch, it could be fun but no way is that applicable in real football.

 

[Lentwood]

You could maybe do this as a variation on “normal” football or as a training ground/pre-season exercise but i don’t think it would replace the established product, even if it might be more exciting, its just too radical

 

[meamth]

Stop getting football WRONG!

Oh come on, there are worse thread than this.

 

[Doracle]

The reason for a shot clock in basketball is because it’s so difficult to reacquire possession. The expectation is each side takes a turn to attack and so a shotclock to stop timewasting makes sense.

In football, possession changes hands (well feet) frequently. It’s the exception rather than the norm that a team goes from one end to the other and has a shot. A shot clock is therefore completely unnecessary and would simply make it easier for teams to defend.

 

[SuperiorXI]

Terrible idea

 

[Withnail]

Jesus Christ this is a shocker

You're completely neglecting to mention the reason this was brought in in basketball or how it would make football, which doesn't suffer from the same problem, better.

What's the average length of time a team is in possession of the ball before it changes hands (feet) in football anyway?

It's way harder to score a goal in football than it is to score in basketball so it makes no sense at all. You'd have to get rid of the goalie

Do we really want an increase in low percentage pot-shots? Every game will end 0-0

 

[stevoc]

I think it's a great idea could make the game more interesting. They could also make the pitch smaller, and it be wooden. Swap the nets for hoops and allow the players to use their hands.

 

[lex talionis]

I appreciate the spirit of the suggestion but it has to be a no for me. It would change the game too much and not necessarily for the better.

I’d much rather see a solution to the offside rule, which currently nullifies too many perfectly “fair” attacking plays. I don’t have a perfect solution to offer, but some kind of revision that allows a toe or even a foot to be beyond the defender but not a knee or the entire body.

We saw an insane offside decision yesterday that disallowed a perfectly good IMO goal by Maddison. Whatever needs to get done should get done to preclude that kind of application of the Laws.

That plus a few minor other tweaks such as allowing a fourth sub if a player suffers a head injury. But no shot clock.

 

[Sandikan]

Sounds like a horrible mix of Basketball and Rugby league.

 

[SAFMUTD]

Awful idea, the shot clock applies in basketball because to disposses the opposition is really hard, so a team could have the ball for ages and just run the clock out. Also a team scores about 50 times per game, while in football a team scores around 1.25 per game.

I think the rules should change in order to incentivise the spectacle, rules like this would only result in teams having a lower block because they know all they have to do is hold on for 2 minutes and they will get the ball back.

 

[WR10]

Football's elegance is in it's simplicity. Put a ball on the ground, a timer for 45x2 minutes, and go freely express. The more we feck with it, the less perfect it gets. If it's not broken, don't touch it.

 

[Chief123]

Watching us against Leeds last night made wonder, what if football has Shot clock like in Basketball.

Let's say each team has 2 minutes shot clock, if it expires, goal kick to the opposition team.

Can it work? Will you accept this idea?

Why would you want it though? The game is brilliant without it.

By having a shot clock it’s going to leave us with a terrible game because teams will just park the bus for 2 minutes in order to receive the ball back. No, just no.

 

[Gazza]

But here's the problem, when we see games that ended with 0-0, it's such a pain in the arse and wasted our time. We got mad because of it and maybe, this rule can change that...I don't know.

 

[Withnail]

But here's the problem, when we see games that ended with 0-0, it's such a pain in the arse and wasted our time. We got mad because of it and maybe, this rule can change that...I don't know.

It will have the complete opposite effect.

There will be more nil all's

 

[OnlyTwoDaSilvas]

Thanks, I hate it.

 

[Bobski]

The tension that makes football so enthralling comes from the difficulty of scoring. I don't understand why people always want to alter that dynamic, make it like US sports were defensive play has been totally neutered in pursuit of digestible highlights and the world god stats.

A shot clock is not necessary because the ball is always available to contest, this is not like Basketball, were using hands gives vastly more security of possession and breathing on someone is a foul.

High scoring games are not necessarily a better watch than a hard fought low scoring contest. Certainly not more fun to play in.

 

[Mike Phelan's Former Tash]

Poor idea. No offense.

 

[TheGame]

Just no.

 

[Mrs Smoker]

I need to see it in practice before I cast my vote at IFAB.

 

[duffer]

It's a no from me.

 

[Chipper]

Nah.

Must be reasonably rare for teams to have the ball for 2 minutes without the opponent touching it anyway if you don't include time for free kicks/throw ins to be taken etc. Like others have said it's easier to win the ball back in football.

I'm not sure it would even force teams to shoot more often and if it did it would probably just be bad shots. There's only about a 3.5% chance of your average shot from outside the box going in and teams have actually cut down on taking them in recent years as part of tactics evolving. In the 2009/10 Premier League there were 4880 shots from outside the box, in 2019/20 that was down to 3300. Goal tallies remain about the same as teams are more patient and wait for better openings.

 

[Gopher Brown]

If it’s more goals you want, why not get rid of goal kicks and corners and make the goal the full width of the pitch?

 

[meamth]

What a terrible thread. Where should I hide my account?

 

[Trequarista10]

Watching us against Leeds last night made wonder, what if football has Shot clock like in Basketball.

Let's say each team has 2 minutes shot clock, if it expires, goal kick to the opposition team.

Can it work? Will you accept this idea?

I don't get this at all.

The game against Leeds was fantastic entertainment, yet you watched it and thought "what if the game was changed to something entirely different"?

Like. What is even the purpose of this idea?

I guess it works in basketball because its a non contact sport and without it a player could basically stand still with the ball and run the clock down. Football has continuous turnovers and a fascinating balance between pressing, holding shape, attack, defence, possession and penetration, and it allows for a variety of strategies, tactics, formations, skill sets, conflict and drama.

Football is a beautiful sport, it doesn't need any gimmicks or Americanization to make it more consumable.

 

[distant_red]

While we're at it, lets also throw in the Netball rule where a player can only have possession of the ball for 3 seconds, or else it's turned over to the oppo.

 

[fck]

I also don't quite understand what problem you want to solve with this idea because in football teams can't (and don't) keep possession for several minutes (not even Barcelona in their prime). But in Basketball without a shot clock you could easily hog the ball for 48 minutes and only a foul would lead to a change of possession. That's the difference.