Changes In Football thread

[From Despair To Where?]

A relegation play-off would be tasty.

Bottom 2 go down as usual, then 2 clubs play off to avoid the final relegation place. Great viewing in the Premier League especially with all the money at stake.

As long as they incorporate the Italian model that if the 4th bottom team is more than, say, 6 pts clear of 3rd bottom, they stay up.

[Winston Biscuit]

Interesting podcast with David Dein this morning (football ramble) where he talks about the changes in the game he has been behind, and said the next thing he is pushing for, and hopes to have trialed somewhere next season, is 'pure time' which is taking the current game which has the ball in play for 60 minutes on average, and changing it to a fixed 60 minute game and the clock stops each time the ball goes out of play

and he wants 7 subs

[paultheroyal]

Interesting podcast with David Dein this morning (football ramble) where he talks about the changes in the game he has been behind, and said the next thing he is pushing for, and hopes to have trialed somewhere next season, is 'pure time' which is taking the current game which has the ball in play for 60 minutes on average, and changing it to a fixed 60 minute game and the clock stops each time the ball goes out of play

and he wants 7 subs

Can just imagine the arguing over not stopping the clock for a few seconds for a quick throw / not a quick throw.

Does the game stop dead on 60. Or do we wait to just boot the ball out of play once 60 is up. Do teams commit tactical fouls when 60 is up for the game to be completed.

Utter nonsense. Change for the sake of change and another push over into an American market. Game is 90 - referree's have control over stoppage time - its really not an issue.

For the point of clarity Winston - i am not calling you utter nonsense etc etc - just this idea. Dont want to appear arrogant etc etc.

[South Coast Royal]

Am not advocating such a change but it annoys me when refs don't allow more added time.
On Sunday for instance the one stoppage for an injury to Ayew lasted for more than 5 minutes alone.
There was a further stoppage for Ayew lasting about a minute and there was over a minute for VAR on one of the goals.

So, the total added time should have been in the region of 7-8 minutes but was only 5.

Paul should be able to tell us-is it the 4th official or the on-pitch ref that makes the added time decision?

[paultheroyal]

Am not advocating such a change but it annoys me when refs don't allow more added time.
On Sunday for instance the one stoppage for an injury to Ayew lasted for more than 5 minutes alone.
There was a further stoppage for Ayew lasting about a minute and there was over a minute for VAR on one of the goals.

So, the total added time should have been in the region of 7-8 minutes but was only 5.

Paul should be able to tell us-is it the 4th official or the on-pitch ref that makes the added time decision?

In my day - Assistant 1 would run his watch through and indicate with a discrete signal when you reach around 43 mins how long is left. Assistant 2 would stop his watch for added on time, in line with the referee and again give a signal in how long is left.

You dont see these signals now in Step 1 because they are all mic'd up. So, id imagine they all collectively agree the time and the referee would call it, to be fed back to the 4th official.

[Dirk Gently]

Interesting podcast with David Dein this morning (football ramble) where he talks about the changes in the game he has been behind, and said the next thing he is pushing for, and hopes to have trialed somewhere next season, is 'pure time' which is taking the current game which has the ball in play for 60 minutes on average, and changing it to a fixed 60 minute game and the clock stops each time the ball goes out of play

and he wants 7 subs

The whole "pure time" thing is the thin-end of the wedge in turning football into American football from a TV advertising point of view.

If it doesn't matter to the overall time played, then what harm will it do to add in a 2 minute TV ad-break every ten minutes or so - play has stopped anyway, so why not extend the stoppage a bit so you can sell the rights to your product for more money?

[Silver Fox]

You'd think they'd have worked out how to squeeze those breaks in by now seeing as they've definitely been planning on doing it since at least when the USA got the '94 World Cup

[Winston Biscuit]

Am not advocating such a change but it annoys me when refs don't allow more added time.
On Sunday for instance the one stoppage for an injury to Ayew lasted for more than 5 minutes alone.
There was a further stoppage for Ayew lasting about a minute and there was over a minute for VAR on one of the goals.

So, the total added time should have been in the region of 7-8 minutes but was only 5.

Paul should be able to tell us-is it the 4th official or the on-pitch ref that makes the added time decision?

I am finding the divergence of refereeing in different european countries this season quite interesting (see the number of red cards in France for example). in Spain there is now so much injury time being added in some games that Atletico have decided that they can only bring on Griezmann in the 60th minute if they don't want to risk him playing more than 45 minutes. There was even a game where he came on in the 61st minute and later on they were getting ready to sub him back off as there was so much injury time his playing minutes were about to hit 45

[Stranded]

Interesting podcast with David Dein this morning (football ramble) where he talks about the changes in the game he has been behind, and said the next thing he is pushing for, and hopes to have trialed somewhere next season, is 'pure time' which is taking the current game which has the ball in play for 60 minutes on average, and changing it to a fixed 60 minute game and the clock stops each time the ball goes out of play

and he wants 7 subs

Can just imagine the arguing over not stopping the clock for a few seconds for a quick throw / not a quick throw.

Does the game stop dead on 60. Or do we wait to just boot the ball out of play once 60 is up. Do teams commit tactical fouls when 60 is up for the game to be completed.

Utter nonsense. Change for the sake of change and another push over into an American market. Game is 90 - referree's have control over stoppage time - its really not an issue.

For the point of clarity Winston - i am not calling you utter nonsense etc etc - just this idea. Dont want to appear arrogant etc etc.

It's not really massively American when it is simply following another popular English sport in Rugby in ensuring that play lasts the time needed.

Quite simple what to do at the end of the game, the ref blows the whistle. If, however, they want to add some late excitement to games, then they simply say the rule is the game doesn't finish until the ball is out of play for a stoppage that is not a foul - again similar to rugby.

Only concern I would have about it, is how much time a game would take. With the current system, you go into a match kicking off at 3pm, knowing you will most likely be out by 5pm - if the game has a strict 60 minute limit, it is possible that a game may last 10/15 mins longer than today as every second lost will get played, whereas we all know today that if a player is down injured for 5 mins, you often only get a couple of this minutes back as injury time. Would like to see it trialled though - maybe use the Toulon tournament or something like that to see how it works.

[Winston Biscuit]

Can imagine it would encourage time the ball is out of play to drag on a bit as there is no longer an urgency to get it back into play. Time for a breather/drink etc

[6ft Kerplunk]

In my day - Assistant 1 would run his watch through and indicate with a discrete signal when you reach around 43 mins how long is left. Assistant 2 would stop his watch for added on time, in line with the referee and again give a signal in how long is left.

You dont see these signals now in Step 1 because they are all mic'd up. So, id imagine they all collectively agree the time and the referee would call it, to be fed back to the 4th official.

Is there a reason why the fourth official isn't in charge of how much time is added on for injuries and subs with the ref then just adding on how long needs to be added on for what he feels is time wasting?

[Franchise FC]

In my day - Assistant 1 would run his watch through and indicate with a discrete signal when you reach around 43 mins how long is left. Assistant 2 would stop his watch for added on time, in line with the referee and again give a signal in how long is left.

You dont see these signals now in Step 1 because they are all mic'd up. So, id imagine they all collectively agree the time and the referee would call it, to be fed back to the 4th official.

Is there a reason why the fourth official isn't in charge of how much time is added on for injuries and subs with the ref then just adding on how long needs to be added on for what he feels is time wasting?

That’s just way too sensible

I wrote to the FA, UEFA and FIFA about that and a few others years ago
Not a single reply, not even to tell me not to be stupid enough to waste my energy

[Sutekh]

In my day - Assistant 1 would run his watch through and indicate with a discrete signal when you reach around 43 mins how long is left. Assistant 2 would stop his watch for added on time, in line with the referee and again give a signal in how long is left.

You dont see these signals now in Step 1 because they are all mic'd up. So, id imagine they all collectively agree the time and the referee would call it, to be fed back to the 4th official.

Is there a reason why the fourth official isn't in charge of how much time is added on for injuries and subs with the ref then just adding on how long needs to be added on for what he feels is time wasting?

That’s just way too sensible

I wrote to the FA, UEFA and FIFA about that and a few others years ago
Not a single reply, not even to tell me not to be stupid enough to waste my energy

Simple common sense. No reason time keeping can’t be kept by an official in the stand or by the 4th official esp. given refs are all mic’d up these days. But then common sense seems to be barred from almost everything nowadays.

[paultheroyal]

In my day - Assistant 1 would run his watch through and indicate with a discrete signal when you reach around 43 mins how long is left. Assistant 2 would stop his watch for added on time, in line with the referee and again give a signal in how long is left.

You dont see these signals now in Step 1 because they are all mic'd up. So, id imagine they all collectively agree the time and the referee would call it, to be fed back to the 4th official.

Is there a reason why the fourth official isn't in charge of how much time is added on for injuries and subs with the ref then just adding on how long needs to be added on for what he feels is time wasting?

Referee was sole time keeper in my day advised by assistants - i used to have 2 watches running. One straight through and one stopped.

I would imagine a ref would have one now which runs for each stoppage plus the time added on by 4th official for each substitution.

[Sanguine]

On timing, I'd like to see an approach that falls somewhere in the middle - where the referee can call for the match clock to be stopped for major injuries or delays, and for VAR reviews. Then added time just becomes an accumulation of substitutions and minor stoppages.

[Sanguine]

Referee was sole time keeper in my day advised by assistants - i used to have 2 watches running. One straight through and one stopped.

I would imagine a ref would have one now which runs for each stoppage plus the time added on by 4th official for each substitution.

The only match I ever refereed, I forgot to stop my watch at half time, or indeed check it again until it said 70-something. Ended up checking with someone what the time was, as an estimate.

[Franchise FC]

On timing, I'd like to see an approach that falls somewhere in the middle - where the referee can call for the match clock to be stopped for major injuries or delays, and for VAR reviews. Then added time just becomes an accumulation of substitutions and minor stoppages.

So exactly the same as rugby then

[Sanguine]

On timing, I'd like to see an approach that falls somewhere in the middle - where the referee can call for the match clock to be stopped for major injuries or delays, and for VAR reviews. Then added time just becomes an accumulation of substitutions and minor stoppages.

So exactly the same as rugby then

Yeah, I guess. Might be me not knowing the rules wholly, but the match clock seems to stop quite a lot in rugby.

[Franchise FC]

On timing, I'd like to see an approach that falls somewhere in the middle - where the referee can call for the match clock to be stopped for major injuries or delays, and for VAR reviews. Then added time just becomes an accumulation of substitutions and minor stoppages.

So exactly the same as rugby then

Yeah, I guess. Might be me not knowing the rules wholly, but the match clock seems to stop quite a lot in rugby.

Yeah, it really doesn’t
There are specific incidents when the clock is stopped

[Winston Biscuit]

https://twitter.com/David_Ornstein/status/1581904137867776000

Premier League set to stage enhanced pre-season tournament in USA next summer. Not finalised but potentially ~6 clubs in 2 groups with games in multiple cities on east/west coasts. 1st step on “roadmap for meaningful matches abroad”