Mouser Watch #2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hoddle is a god
  • Start date Start date
  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
deedub93 said:
I also think that the time keeping could be taken out of the hands of the ref like in rugby. Everytime the ball goes dead the clock stops, every substitution, red, yellow card the clock stops, it would be more transparent without 'fergie' time.
Click to expand...

<applause>

This, I do agree with.

Some researchers did a time and motion study of a few hundred top flight football matches, and discovered that the average amount of actual football played per game was something ridiculously low, like 60 minutes out of the 90, even with extra time, meaning that paying punters were being cheated out of a third of the action. Rugby-type time-keeping would solve this problem overnight. The initial problem, of course, will be that nearly every game will overrun by around 30 minutes, but I'm sure that will come down as players and managers get it into their thick skulls that time-wasting will bring them no profit.
 
Hoddle Is A God said:
<applause>

This, I do agree with.

Some researchers did a time and motion study of a few hundred top flight football matches, and discovered that the average amount of actual football played per game was something ridiculously low, like 60 minutes out of the 90, even with extra time, meaning that paying punters were being cheated out of a third of the action. Rugby-type time-keeping would solve this problem overnight. The initial problem, of course, will be that nearly every game will overrun by around 30 minutes, but I'm sure that will come down as players and managers get it into their thick skulls that time-wasting will bring them no profit.
Click to expand...

if footy changed to an in-play clock then games would have only 60 minutes of game time anyway 90 minutes of actual play is insane
 
Khedron said:
if footy changed to an in-play clock then games would have only 60 minutes of game time anyway 90 minutes of actual play is insane
Click to expand...

Why? rugby has 80 minutes and if you are playing in the pack it is non stop. 40 minutes of that is worth about 90 minutes on a football pitch.
 
Khedron said:
if footy changed to an in-play clock then games would have only 60 minutes of game time anyway 90 minutes of actual play is insane
Click to expand...

Many things are "insane," my friend. Believing that man set foot on the Moon with the technology of an Armstrad computer but hasn't managed the feat in over 40 years since is insane. Believing that the USA is not controlled and run by Jewish bankers set on the utter destruction of Palestine whilst making a profit off the back of war is insane. Believing that we are the only intelligent life in a Universe of hundreds of trillions of stars is insane.

But believing that professional athletes, paid many hundreds of thousands of pounds each and every year, should be able to play football for a full 90 minutes once in every week is most certainly not insane.
 
Roy Rogers is going to be a bit miffed, Howard Webb, the well known Mancunian from Rotherham is refereeing Loserpool tomorrow. To top that Rotherham sounds a bit like Rotherhithe, which is a tunnel in London not very close to Stanford Bridge. Clearly there is some kind of conspiracy against the mice.
 
deedub93 said:
Roy Rogers is going to be a bit miffed, Howard Webb, the well known Mancunian from Rotherham is refereeing Loserpool tomorrow. To top that Rotherham sounds a bit like Rotherhithe, which is a tunnel in London not very close to Stanford Bridge. Clearly there is some kind of conspiracy against the mice.
Click to expand...

"Loserpool"

Oh the pure irony.<laugh>
 
Was anyone watching the Cardiff game today?The cameras stayed on the Sunderland defender doing everything to the Cardiff forward for,well,almost 5 minutes.They were both spoken to by the ref twice so he saw it and just issued warnings.With a camera ref,there may have been a red card and a penalty!
If it had happened outside the penalty area,without a doubt the ref would have issued a card.Why not inside the box?
It's too weird and the FA needs to do something instead of sweet f.a.!
 
bigsmithy9 said:
Was anyone watching the Cardiff game today?The cameras stayed on the Sunderland defender doing everything to the Cardiff forward for,well,almost 5 minutes.They were both spoken to by the ref twice so he saw it and just issued warnings.With a camera ref,there may have been a red card and a penalty!
If it had happened outside the penalty area,without a doubt the ref would have issued a card.Why not inside the box?
It's too weird and the FA needs to do something instead of sweet f.a.!
Click to expand...

That would mean questioning the infallibility of the ref, or whichever sloblock excuse The FA are hiding behind this week.
 
Khedron said:
if footy changed to an in-play clock then games would have only 60 minutes of game time anyway 90 minutes of actual play is insane
Click to expand...

Not really, rugby players do 80 (and last play) minutes, and rugby is certainly much more demanding physically. Obviously some players move more than others - the back row and scrum half for example, but the fitness can't be too dissimilar, if at all.

Rugby also requires constant mental concentration, as at a high level it's all about inducing a mistake or gap in the defence.

I'd give the referee the help of a video ref. Don't think it would lessen any drama, or at least past a negligible amount. The 'try time' decisions in rugby are generally quite tense really.
 
"Not really, rugby players do 80 (and last play) minutes, and rugby is certainly much more demanding physically."

I doubt that top flight rugby from KO to end of half is usually more than 46 mins elapsed time each half.
And the physical aspect is tempered by the number of subs allowed, "blood" replacements etc.
 
The RDBD said:
"Not really, rugby players do 80 (and last play) minutes, and rugby is certainly much more demanding physically."

I doubt that top flight rugby from KO to end of half is usually more than 46 mins elapsed time each half.
And the physical aspect is tempered by the number of subs allowed, "blood" replacements etc.
Click to expand...

Have you ever played the game?

Blood replacements are pretty out of the ordinary, they only happen when completely necessary.

It's a lot more tiring to take constant physical contact + run, than just run after a ball.
 
"Have you ever played the game?"

Yes. But that doesn't change my observations.
Even with dead ball / injury stoppage, TMO etc, rugby does not drag into the mind-numbing
time dilation of the NFL. Far from it.
 
Adam Byrne: Liverpool's title hopes are fading away.
(Tweet from a Mouser, on BBC Football website)

<laugh><laugh><laugh>

What ****ing title hopes? They never had any!

Everton is the best side on Merseyside, as the table will demonstrate after today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back