Thoughts on the increased stoppage time?

[Shai-Hulud]

I like it. Footballers get away with too much shite like timewasting.

 

[Jippy]

They don't feel unnecessarily long or epic to me. I'm actually much preferring the experience of watching matches, safe in the knowledge that the proper and legislated amount of time is being played. It feels right. Games like the Newcastle one (using that as it's the most commonly referenced at the moment) are hard to enjoy when you know only 55-60 minutes of actual football has been played.

As others have said, where you normally get 3 mins, but want 5-6, we're getting 9-10 and it feels a bit much.
It's not helped by the fact besides the first match, the others are all on very late at night in Asia.

 

[R'hllor]

Not against it at all, players started taking a piss with whole thing, even thou i would rather have a rule in play that if the game stops due injury either real or fake one, that player cant re-enter the game at least 5 min in regular game time, so maybe if players know that by faking it they will leave rest of the team fighting with man down.

 

[hobbers]

Just highlights even more what everyone with half a brain has said for yonks.

Stop the clock for VAR. Stop the clock for injuries. Stop the clock for free kicks. Easy.

 

[Uniquim]

Not against it at all, players started taking a piss with whole thing, even thou i would rather have a rule in play that if the game stops due injury either real or fake one, that player cant re-enter the game at least 5 min in regular game time, so maybe if players know that by faking it they will leave rest of the team fighting with man down.

I wouldn't mind it if they tested this tbh. If any player have to stay down on the field for more than 20~30 seconds they'll have to leave the field for a more thorough medical check-up, and are not to return to the field faster than x minutes.

Any thing to stop the nonsense with players going down to stall the time when they're leading. Smaller leagues that have less of that are much more fun to watch at times.

 

[SirReginald]

Don’t want it in the PL. imagine the amount of gold Liverpool would score after 90..

 

[redcucumber]

As others have said, where you normally get 3 mins, but want 5-6, we're getting 9-10 and it feels a bit much.
It's not helped by the fact besides the first match, the others are all on very late at night in Asia.

I disagree but fair enough.

 

[Oranges038]

Gone a bit too much the other way.

But it should make teams rethink their time wasting antics. Which can only be a good thing.

 

[Shark]

I think the possibility of grabbing a late goal in stoppage time is part of the magic of the game and wouldn't be for stopping the clock and ending on bang on 90 minutes, but either is better than the way it current is.

 

[V.O.]

The only downside to the stopclock idea is that the bastards would start having ad breaks every time the clock was stopped.

I'd almost rather watch Atletico Madrid players roll around for the full game than have as many ads as there are on live American football.

 

[Gavinb33]

Just highlights even more what everyone with half a brain has said for yonks.

Stop the clock for VAR. Stop the clock for injuries. Stop the clock for free kicks. Easy.

Add goal kicks into this and this is the perfect solution

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

Some teams will need it like Argentina did today. They just gotta make those minutes count.

 

[Adam-Utd]

Absolutely love it - but would rather just stop the clock then restart when balls in play.

 

[RoadTrip]

I like that they’re trying to do something about time wasting. I dislike what they’ve done. Let’s be honest, a more practical and effective solution is a clock which can be stopped and match time adjusted accordingly. Hardly any sports now where the clock doesn’t stop.

 

[Gavinb33]

The only downside to the stopclock idea is that the bastards would start having ad breaks every time the clock was stopped.

I'd almost rather watch Atletico Madrid players roll around for the full game than have as many ads as there are on live American football.

They can add breaks as they know a timeout is x seconds long, the same for all the breaks in play.

For football you can put the ball down and take an FK in 10 seconds or 40 seconds it's not standardised therefore it wouldn't be able to be same

 

[phelans shorts]

It’s crap

 

[Bertie Wooster]

My views on it are a bit similar to VAR. I've never slated VAR, I think it mostly achieves what it should - but at a cost that I'm torn as to whether it's worth paying and I've always been on the fence about it.

And I have similar mixed views about the idea of lengthy stoppage time at most games, the introduction of stop clocks, etc. I hate time wasting - and think some teams, especially certain managers, make a tactic out of it that needs to be addressed in some ways. But I'm not sure whether asking players to play 110-120 minutes each match, or changing the format of games to introduce stop clocks, etc, are ideal solutions either.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

They can add breaks as they know a timeout is x seconds long, the same for all the breaks in play.

For football you can put the ball down and take an FK in 10 seconds or 40 seconds it's not standardised therefore it wouldn't be able to be same

Correct. And there are already sports that has the stop clock method without ads being crowbarred in. Rugby the most obvious. Makes absolutely no sense for football not to take the same approach.

 

[V.O.]

They can add breaks as they know a timeout is x seconds long, the same for all the breaks in play.

For football you can put the ball down and take an FK in 10 seconds or 40 seconds it's not standardised therefore it wouldn't be able to be same

They'll just have the ref hold up play until the TV people give him the go ahead, as in American football. It's not just the timeouts etc that have ads.

 

[Scandi Red]

One of the advatanges with football is that you for the most part can predict when the game will end before kick-off. You'll rarely be off by more than 5 minutes. The new system kind of ruins this. This isn't a big loss, though.

But if the purpose is to punish time-wasting then we might as well go for 30 minute halves and stop the clock every time the ball is out of play. That makes more sense to me.

 

[phelans shorts]

One of the advatanges with football is that you for the most part can predict when the game will end before kick-off. You'll rarely be off by more than 5 minutes. The new system kind of ruins this. This isn't a big loss, though.

But if the purpose is to punish time-wasting then we might as well go for 30 minute halves and stop the clock every time the ball is out of play. That makes more sense to me.

To match going fans it’s absolutely massive. Sorting out travel home is often a tight timing and that’s before adding an extra ten minutes into the game

 

[UpWithRivers]

The kind of had to with the new concussion protocol. Players could go down for every head touch and waste 15-30 mins easy. It's much better this way

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

As others have said, where you normally get 3 mins, but want 5-6, we're getting 9-10 and it feels a bit much.
It's not helped by the fact besides the first match, the others are all on very late at night in Asia.

Totally disagree, if 10 minutes has been wasted, I want 10 minutes, not 6.

 

[Smacky The Frog]

It's great. The fact that it has felt excessive is a good thing because it should (hopefully) make it clear to the players and coaches that there's absolutely no point in time wasting. You'll just have to play 12 minutes more. Picture this being applied to an elite shithouse team like Atletico Madrid (or, going by the posts in this thread, apparently Newcastle) holding on to a 1-0 lead at home - they make it to 90 mins by the skin of their teeth with multiple stoppages and "injuries", the fourth official puts up his board and we're told there will be 20 ADDITIONAL MINUTES of stoppage time. Imagine the scenes at these stadiums and how cathartic and hilarious that would be for any neutral the first time it happens.

They're basically trying to train the cynical teams like children. You do this bad thing, we will punish you. Don't do this bad thing and you won't be punished. Teams will adapt. The only thing required is consistency and I feel like they've done a good job with that so far.

 

[RyRy11]

I’m for it, the missus hates it

 

[elmo]

Stoppage time has always been too short. We've seen from the studies that the ball is only in play for 50 odd minutes and they don't add on 30+

I agree though that the real solution is to stop the clock when the ball is out of play and end it dead on 90 mins.

Although that in itself could create issues. Players are conditioned to play about 60 minutes per match. Making them play a full 90 would cause major fatigue and injury problems.

Get fitter or make use of the subs.

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

To match going fans it’s absolutely massive. Sorting out travel home is often a tight timing and that’s before adding an extra ten minutes into the game

I get your point but its not that difficult to plan in an extra 10-15 minutes every game. If you cant make that just leave before the end. Seems an easy fix really.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Italy aren't here, can imagine it becoming a cricket test match with them

 

[LouieVanGallsRedArmeh]

Once i discovered that it is indeed intentional, as the Chairman of the FIFA referees committee , Collina said. I love it, makes the time wasting absolutely non issue, since it's counter productive because of this. Love it.

 

[IrishRedDevil]

Perfect.
More football to watch.
Take as long as you want doing goalkicks and throw ins, you numpty, thanks for 15 extra minutes.

 

[Red Star One]

It did feel excessive at few games already, but there's plenty of logic in what Smacky writes here

They're basically trying to train the cynical teams like children. You do this bad thing, we will punish you. Don't do this bad thing and you won't be punished. Teams will adapt. The only thing required is consistency and I feel like they've done a good job with that so far.

If there is consistency it might have a positive effect. I can't see football adopting the hockey-like approach of stopping the clock whenever the ball is out of play, so who know, maybe if the time wasters are handed the 15-20 min stoppage time they anyhow reconsider their game.

 

[Berbasbullet]

It's great. The fact that it has felt excessive is a good thing because it should (hopefully) make it clear to the players and coaches that there's absolutely no point in time wasting. You'll just have to play 12 minutes more. Picture this being applied to an elite shithouse team like Atletico Madrid (or, going by the posts in this thread, apparently Newcastle) holding on to a 1-0 lead at home - they make it to 90 mins by the skin of their teeth with multiple stoppages and "injuries", the fourth official puts up his board and we're told there will be 20 ADDITIONAL MINUTES of stoppage time. Imagine the scenes at these stadiums and how cathartic and hilarious that would be for any neutral the first time it happens.

They're basically trying to train the cynical teams like children. You do this bad thing, we will punish you. Don't do this bad thing and you won't be punished. Teams will adapt. The only thing required is consistency and I feel like they've done a good job with that so far.

Spot on! Atletico at OT was barely even a football match.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

It's a good thing because it's reflecting the actual amount of time that was stopped. It negates any advantage teams get of trying to waste time. Definitely a good thing.

 

[Reynoldo]

Team losing 1 nil and there is an extra 11 minutes to equalise - YAY
Team winning 1 nil and there is an extra 11 minutes to concede - NAY (my poor heart)

 

[Jippy]

Totally disagree, if 10 minutes has been wasted, I want 10 minutes, not 6.

I understand that, but if we're now going to add 10-15 mins to every game it takes some of the excitement and tension out of the closing stages of the game, knowing you've got another chunk of time coming.
It seems a bit shambolic if we have to add so much time to each game and we never know how much additional time will be played.
it can make some games fecking boring, let's be honest.

 

[redshaw]

I like it but it seems they're more likely to drop on the floor during those 8-10 mins added on like they've played 300 mins, ref then adds on that which is good to see. You can still break the flow of the game so I don't think we'll see it stop. Perhaps though players can lessen the antics if refs keep adding time on, it has got crazy with the timewasting. I do worry about players mentally and physically getting drained and it can play havoc with TV schedules, interviews and replays of goals after the game.

 

[Sandikan]

Getting a bit daft when we just had 8mins in that incident free Denmark game, and a total of 25mins in the England game!

 

[Apokalips]

It's better than before, but hopefully they will soon realise this is a bit of madness as well and they need to switch to 2x30' with time stoppages.

The only real argument against this is people simply being opposed to change. It's ridiculous that matches are not all technically the exact same length and time added on is all referee discretion. This would also end any debates about refs adding on or not adding on enough time due to biases and other such excuses people use.

 

[Gio]

If IFAB stick to their guns on this, then we should see a reset where teams no longer waste time to the same extent and, in turn, we end up with around 3-6 minutes of injury time on average.

 

[mctrials23]

Big fan but I would prefer it if they just stopped the clock and took it out of the refs hands as it were. I assume that in rugby the ref does the clock stopping but its nice to see how long is left and its so fecking frustrating playing the smaller teams in the league and watching their keeper waste time from the first minute to the last. Its embarrassing.