Always having 60 minutes of playing time instead of sometimes 55 and sometimes 65 doesn’t sound very threatening to me at all.
Mileages vary, it sounds like a profound change to me, to fix something that I don’t consider a problem.
Sounds like exactly the thing for a trial run at a youth tournament to see what the result is!
Let’s not and say we did.
It seems there is a fundamental difference in how it would change the game. Which is exactly what a trial run in a youth tournament which has no real stakes would help to answer some questions. To deny just seems like being petulant for no real reason. Oh no, this youth tournament that is happening just this year will be devalued…
Oh, no, I’m not worried about youth tournaments, all kind of harebrained ideas are tested in them, I worry that sometimes the ideas tested are then used in the real thing.
“We don’t know what kind of effects this change might bring.”
“No, we don’t want to experiment and find out, either.”
When something works, don’t change it, unless you expect the change to fix something poportionally as big as the change you propose.
Because you might be found out wrong that it really doesn’t alter the game much at all aside from partially ridding it of time wasting?
but it does change the game, no experiment is needed to demonstrate that 30 minutes <> 45 minutes, it’s an objective fact.
Which is subjective is how much the “feel” of the game would change, but that, being subjective is not subject to experimentation.
So, again, you want to introduce a big change to fix something that doesn’t really need fixing.
Has anybody ever disliked football because of time wasting? I personally feel that in moderation those kind of tricks are part of the game, and if they go out of hand the referee already has in his pockets the means to combat them.
So why go and change the very nature of time management in the game, it may not feel like such a big change to you, but it does to me, and I’m not alone.
This has been constantly explained to you, but you don’t seem to get it. No one is arguing there is absolutely no change, but that it may end up being a slightly better change. 30 minutes of average active game time is similar (I understand that some games have more or less than 30 mins of play time) regardless of counting continuously or pausing the official clock. However, the paused game may have far less time wasting.
I don’t understand why this is so hard to understand.
Absolutely! It’s one of the biggest complaints I hear about the game. Time wasting and diving.
You know that having a trial may indeed indicate it’s not a big change. Why are you so afraid of that? If it turns out to be a massive change, you’ll be able to see it. And if not, then maybe the game gets better as a result.
I mean what if someone said that changing wins to 3 points from 2 is a massive change to the game for something that didn’t need fixing or the backpass rule and refused to even entertain a trial to see if it was.
Never head of it, but ok, let’s press the referees to use their already existing power to card players for time wasting more, no need to change fundamental constants like the duration of the game.
Again, not afraid of the trial, afraid of some FIFA big fish attempting to use the idea in the proffessional game so he can sell more commercials.
Again that is not a change in the game, the game is the same, the way the results are scored changed but the game stayed the same way.
Again,not a major change.
Other thread was closed, but wanted to comment on the USWNT loss. The USWNT has some clause in their contract that makes it difficult to phase out older players. By all accounts they were physically dominated against Sweden. Probably related?
It was also clear from the last WC that Europe was rapidly catching up with or surpassing the US in technical ability. I think the US is going to be just another strong team in the near future rather than overwhelming favorites, so they’ll need to bounce back from this to win all the hardware while they can.
I would like to add something so we can agree to disagree, I understand where you are coming from, but I feel is a solution in search of a problem and a possible backhanded attempt to put more comercials in the game transmission and make it more like American Football.
You don’t feel the same and may be you are right, but we’ll never convince the other, wich is ok.
I find it shocking to the point of implausibility that you’ve never heard a complaint about time wasting. I’ve seen that discussed all the time IRL, on every message board I’ve ever seen soccer discussed on, and on television in multiple leagues and languages.
What league do you watch? Argentine domestic league?
It completely changed the way defense was played so I think it was indeed a major change. How about introducing substitutions?
Seems to me that major changes that may improve the game should be tested in lower competitions to see how it’d fair. Which is something IFAB & FIFA does quite a bit and then uses the ones that work.
Yes, may be not major but you are right that it changed things enough not to be considered “minor”.
But I’m not against all changes, I’m against this particular change for the reasons already exposed.
Mia Hamm, Hope Solo, Abby Wambach, Megan Rapinoe, Alex Morgan - all players with significant Q Scores. U.S. coaches - not so much. So when US Soccer - trying to grow the sport’s popularity - has to choose between players and coaches, the coaches get the short end of the stick, until the team’s form dips, the federation acts and a new coach comes in with a mandate to clean house. Then new cliques start forming and after a while it repeats.
I’d have to agree, Snarky_Kong. Women’s soccer in the U.S. had a twenty year head start because of Title IX, but Europe’s technical advantages have them closing the gap. The U.S. will probably remain a strong team simply due to wealth, population and (on the women’s side) tradition, but I don’t think we’re going to see the level of dominance going forward that the previous decades have shown.
OK, I can understand objecting to adding commercials to change the flow of the match. I don’t see that anyone other than the persons selling such commercials would want that.
What I don’t see is how a stopping clock - by itself - allows this. American football has regular timeouts for end of quarters/halves and two minute warning. Add those for scores and changes of possession, called timeouts and (sometimes) injuries.
Many or most of these stoppages are predictable in both duration and frequency, and are abundant during a typical game. Along with the extended play clock, they make American football a game of multiple sprints rather than extended jogs, as soccer is.
What’s more, most of these stoppages are either post-climactic and signify a transition between phases of the game - teams transitioning from offense to defense and vice versa - or allow for a temporary break in a steadily ratcheting tension. Or, to make another analogy, American football’s second hand ticks from one second to another, stopping to rest and then suddenly moving violently to the next, while soccer’s sweeps continuously across tick marks as it moves towards the game’s end.
But soccer’s play stoppages don’t do well in comparison with American football:
- Halves instead of quarters means fewer commercial breaks;
- Fewer scores mean fewer commercial breaks;
- No timeouts at all;
- Offense/defense transitions occur during the run of play, no stopping for platoon switching;
- Set pieces are commonly restarted in less time than a commercial would take to run.
Let me put it this way, Frodo: I don’t think that the changes needed to implement a stopping clock would change anything in terms of making commercial breaks possible. But if changes were made that make them possible, that would severely change the game in extraordinarily negative ways, and I would be firmly in your corner in opposing such changes. A stopping clock might be necessary to implement more common commercial breaks, but it would not be sufficient, and I would rather oppose such changes when (or more likely if) they come down the pike. I don’t think a stopping clock creates quite the slippery slope that you see it doing.
I agree with your points, BUT, I think stopping the clock is the first required step towards the goal of adding commercials breaks to the game. Once you have stablished the principle of the clock not running while (for example) the ref consults with the VAR team, there is not much of a jump to simply make the clock not run for 5 minutes in each half just to show some commercials…
The pressure to make more money of the game has to be inmense at this point, I can imagine the frustration advertising execs must feel with all that valuable time “wasted” in mere football when they could be selling some stupid shit.