American Football is a completely different game from soccer. American footballers aren’t running about for 45 minutes non stop.
I also mentioned the NBA. Plus, NHL hockey has two officially 15 minute breaks, but they last longer due to commercials, coming out on the ice, etc., and they survive somehow.
Soccer players aren’t running around non-stop. Give me a break.
The action stops in NBA all the time, and NHL teams are constantly rotating their lineups
I don’t believe the injury concerns are somehow fundamental to the length of the break. As pointed out, other sports have longer half-times with similar amounts of physical effort.
The concern, as I understand it, is that soccer players are very attuned to a specific length of break. They have literally played with that schedule their entire lives. So it’s entirely possible that their bodies will react differently to a longer break. I’m sure the physios have plans in place to keep their muscles warm and loose.
I wouldn’t be shocked if this is yet another trial run of longer stoppages (like the quarter “hydration” breaks) as a way to sneak more ads in. That’s what has the fans up in arms more than any perceived risk of injury.
Yes, I agree with this.
It stops all the time in soccer, too – players writhing on the ground and getting attended to by medics, corners, goal kicks, throw-ins, and depending on where the ball is, some players just standing there. Plus, a 15 minute break is plenty of time to completely cool down, and adding five or ten minutes to that won’t change the risk of injury.
Be against the halftime show because it’s more commercials, drags out the game, whatever, but this injury thing is just an excuse.
Top flight football players run, on average, 6-8 miles during a game. Compare that the NFL (1.25 miles), hockey (1.2-3.1 miles, on skates), Basketball (2.5-3.5). Football is relentless.
But one of the reasons that football is so popular is because it is fast-paced, and doesn’t have drawn out breaks. Stopping for protracted periods of time changes the momentum, and we just don’t like it. I have groaned at every ‘hydration break’ because it breaks the flow of the game.
NFL and NHL players also have to deal with much more in the way of physical contact.
ETA: There are also a number of NHL players who average over 8.5 miles of skating, per 60 minutes of ice time.
Agree! That’s why the halftime show is wrong.
Do they? They seem to spend a lot less time writhing on the ground. 
I would respectfully suggest that you don’t open this thread until you’ve watched the replay!
When I hear people complain about VAR, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
I’m relatively young for this forum, so my examples are relatively recent, but one of the Cups I remember best was the 2010 South Africa cup, and what I rememebr is so many horrendous, clearly incorrect calls that were obviously mistakes as soon as the first replay was shown.
There were handballs that led to goals (France should’ve been eliminated by Ireland in qualifiers), England’s famous ball that bounced out of the goal (and IMHO England could have won that game without that shit call; not to mention, this seems to have most directly led to the changes that would eventually include VAR, since we got Goal Line Technology in response to the outcry over this goal), and Argentina’s goal from a clearly offside player against Mexico.
Things got so bad that replays, instead of happening right after a goal during the natural break in the action while players reset, were being played 10-15 minutes later, so we wouldn’t as easily notice incredibly shitty calls.
The game is unfathomably better for VAR.
Here is (hopefully) a gift link from The Athletic. It’s a relatively long article, but it goes fairly deeply into the rivalry between England and Argentina.
Please let me know if you cannot access the link, and I’ll try again.
Ouch, this probably was the worst call I ever witnessed in a football game. Although Germany profited from it and IMHO we deservedly won the game, it was a bitter sweet victory because that scene felt so wrong.
ETA: of course there was a lot of talk in the German media that this finally was our revenge for the Wembley Goal.
We agree on this, but not everyone does. I’ll be honest, in a league season where presumably things level out, I could maybe do without out it; in knockout tournaments, no way…too much hangs on an bad call.
I think it was France’s winning goal that was the dodgy one. They may still have gone through but they certainly had help with that!
Nah, we stank the place out at that tournament…Germany would’ve probably still won that game comfortably I reckon.
Couldn’t disagree more. Goal line tech (which would’ve given England the goal)? Absolutely. The sh*t show we currently have for VAR? It’s just not working and the fan experience, especially at the ground, is terrible.
Why does it not surprise me thay German has a specific word for “the friend who you call when using the ‘Phone a Friend’ option on a game show”?
And of course we stole an English word for it.
So we’re all agreed that whoever wins today gets the Falklands, right?
That was the position young me took 16 years ago, but my uncle who I was watching the game with explained to me the importance of momentum, and having watched a whole lot of football games in the years since, I’ve come to agree.
If England had gone into the second half having just scored two goals in as many minutes (remember, it was 2-0 until the goal at 37’ and the disallowed goal came at 38’) that would have knocked the wind out of Germany’s sails. Germany is a strong team and more than capable of recovering, but they’d have been in a far less dominant position. England was visibly demoralized after the disallowed goal.
They could fix a lot of the crappy officiating and avoid the need for VAR in many cases if they had two field refs instead of one. That way, the refs could be closer to the action.
I’m sure there’s some reason that would change soccer forever and could never be contemplated.
Well at least you guys got your revenge and now we can call it even and check VAR