And with a 60 minute game they would do the same thing for the last 20 minutes. Time wasting is a strategic feature of the game.
With the clock demonstrably stopped by the ref?
Stopping play would be a strategic move for the more tired team to rest. Again, the game isnt broken.
They are already resting, while letting the clock run. It’s definitely a problem. Especially since refs are already supposed to be stopping the clock when it happens.
As for the game isn’t broken, was that your refrain when they made a win worth 3 points rather than 2? VAR? Because if the game isn’t broken why change the number of points? Why add VAR? Why change the backpass rule? After all the game isn’t broken.
I’m still not getting the objection.
For example: the ball goes over the end line for a goal kick. The goalie picks up the ball, looks at it from every angle, presses it to check for inflation, puts it carefully down at the corner of the 6-yard box, steps back, steps forward again to make sure it hasn’t shifted… you get the idea, everything but check his Instagram feed. All while the clock is still running.
Is the more tired team not resting when this is happening? If so, then what’s the difference, other than that while resting, the tired team is also taking time off the clock by the current rules?
I mean, this seems like a fine way to at least have a built-in penalization of time-wasting. The ref can still card for delaying the game if time-wasting for rest becomes egregious.
Can you try? I mean, just unpack it a bit?
I understand the religious devotion to the game. But even religions have their theologians who can put a framework around the belief. I s there something in particular that makes 45 minutes with a running clock one of the Five Pillars of Association Football, rather than a prohibition against riba that can be worked around via Islamic banking?
I’m not sure it can be done.
I’ve played football, I’ve watched football and suffered football and enjoyed football since I was 7 or so, and I feel that 30’ halves with time stoppage are definitively different than 45 minutes without stoppage.
You feel different, and that’s ok, but I really really really don’t.
Changing the number of points on a win, or relatively “ad-hoc” rules like the back passing one are one thing, changing the freaking time of play is another very different thing.
Don’t get me started on VAR, at first it sounded like a good idea, what I’ve seen of the implementation… I’d need a whole new thread.
You must just watch English football. In most other countries VAR is quick and generally well done.
You couldn’t be more wrong, I watch Argentinian Football, Copa Libertadores and the recent Copa America.
What I’ve seen is this:
- Constant interruptions of play (I guess this would go well with that ugly 30’ minutes and stoppage idea)
- Horrible uncertainty about goals, it’s come to the point when you can’t even celebrate until 10 minutes after the ball hits the net, because may be the father of the scorer passed a red light when driving his mom to the hospital thus invalidating the goal.
- horrribly lopsided use, not always but sometimes, somehow a team gets the VAR call everytime they score and the other one doesn’t.
All in all, I’d say replace VAR with some tech (perhaps in the ball itself? and the players?) so we can know for sure when the ball is out of bounds, inside a goal, or the receiving player is offside (this last one may be impossible) and leave the rest of it as it was.
Constant interruptions? How many times does VAR get used in Argentina? Most leagues use it at most 2-3 times a game. I’d rather be uncertain about goals than get things wrong (not to mention most players and fans still celebrate goals like crazy anyways). And every goal is evaluated by the VAR official, and it’s only when there seems like there may be a clear and obvious error does it go down to the center ref to check - I have never seen lopsided used.
In my experience, in watching MLS, Bundesliga, Serie A, it is a complete success. The only complaint is that sometimes the center ref gets it wrong because they don’t want to admit they were wrong on their original call, but that’s a ref issue not a VAR one.
I’ve seen it used 2 or 3 times in-game,not after a goal plus 2 times more after a goal, and this was in international Copa Libertadores matches.
And YM obviously Varies, I thought it was a good idea too, but I’ve reached the conclussion that VAR opponents were right, it changes the game for the worse.
If actual playing time averages around 60 minutes, then I fail to see the difference in codifying playing time at 60 minutes. Delaying tactics will simply be non-factors; it’s hard to stall when the other team has the ball in play and is advancing on your goal.
I don’t.
Can you make a prediction of what would change about the game if this rule were implemented?
To cite one example in this thread: when I heard about adding VAR to the game I was worried it would turn into (American) football, in which the minutia of what constitutes a “catch” or “fumble” (or not), or what counts as incidental contact or not for pass interference (and on which player) gets litigated to extremities.
It hasn’t been as bad as I thought - generally VAR’s interference with the flow of the game happens mostly in dead-ball situations, and a couple times a match when there’s a need to stop play because of something that could create a dead-ball situation. It does make for a two-tiered game between leagues depending on their technology budget to implement VAR, but I think it’s been a net positive to make the game better adhere to the rules.
You don’t agree with me on VAR - you had said you originally thought VAR would be good, but then switched. So if our mutual form bears out, you would end up liking 60-min. with stoppages but I would end up hating it. 
But can you make some kind of prediction of how it would change the game?
I think it’s pretty obvious, (30 instead of 45 minutes per half, stoppage instead of continuous time), but what you want to know is how will this big change affect the game, and that’s not really something we can know.
What we DO know is that the game will not be the same.
What would change if we doubled the number of players and the size of the field? we don’t know, what we DO know is that it would not be the same game.
You can’t change something so fundamental as the duration of the game, the number of players, the average size of the field and pretend is the same game as before.
The claim seems to be that the average football match, with 45-minute halves, actually has around 30 minutes of actual-ball-in-play time per half. If so, then how is this actually meaningfully changing the duration of the game?
Or to think about it another way, if a game of football was on TV, with the announcers muted, and no clock visible, would you be able, from watching intently, to tell whether this rule was in effect or not? How?
I think that’s the problem right there, averages are the sum of all results divided by the quantity.
So what you are saying is that since the average result of throwing 2 six sided dice is around , let’s say 7, I should’nt roll and just use 7 as a result.
Since we don’t know the purpose of the dice roll, your question seems ambiguous and irrelevant.
it’s not a question, throwing 2 dice and getting a result, that will, on time, average on 7 is very enfatically not the same than not throwing the dice and assuming a seven.
In the same way, playing for 45 minutes and no stoppage, wich on average will result on aproximatelly 30 minutes of play is very much not the same thing as playing 30 minutes with stoppage.
You are asking for a drastic change in order to combat time-wasting without first demonstating:
a) that time-wasting is a problem so big, so threatening to the game that requires drastic change to fix.
b) that there are not others, less drastic changes that can fix the same problem (like ordering referees to use their already existing powers to yellow-card time wasters)