I like number 2. Similar to rugby, you can touch kick it to yourself. Would def speed the game up as can get up and get in with things if someone is trying to possible stop a counter. number 5 should be brought in. Was a stat showing amount of time ball was in play and some games were down at 50 minutes. Would stop any time wasting as well
first thing would be for refs to actually start enforcing the rules on preventing quick free kicks and throw ins .
Saw that a few days ago. Searched for out without joy after seeing this thread. No.4 is just a plain no. The rest I can see an argument for
I like the idea of stopping the clock when the balls not in play but fear it's leading towards that dreaded American approach; adverts etc during each stoppage etc
This just has to be a pisstake On the throw in debacle....leave it alone. Its pretty much fine,but ffs stop players stealing yards #oldtraditionalist
The thing with 5. is scheduling. A match could go on for a long time if the clock is only going while the ball is in play. Fans getting home after matches will not know what time train they will be getting etc. The TV companies have control over scheduling. When games kick off at the same time and finish at the same time bar maybe 5 or 10 minutes difference for added time, the next round of games will be all over the place if the earlier ones are nowhere near finishing. The day's fixtures could run on until midnight. One of Brentford's games had the ball in play for only about 49 minutes. That whole game with a running clock lasted for 90 minutes (plus few minutes added time). Imagine that game with a stopping clock, it would go on for well over another hour meaning the whole game with the new stopping clock would last for approximately 3 hours. Maybe not quite that long because each half has been cut to 30 minutes but you get what I'm saying.
Really I think we have an issue in this country with indulging a lot of poor fare served up by some teams. The rules are set that no matter what teams get a set level of games on tv. That's fine but then these teams turn up and immediately start getting into the most negative aspects of the game. Invariably it's burnely v whoever from the top half and its backs to the wall, oh how brave blah blah as the keeper take 2.mins over every kick and full backs take a minute over every throw etc. I'd actually remove this egalitarian ****e out of the prem and rather than replace it with the Spanish oligarch model, replace with an entertainment model. Oh you scored barely any goals last season. Well you get barely any air time and as a result barely any money. I mean everton took it to a whole other level of flopping down pretending to have head injuries and seeking to start fights every time the whistle blew but for me that'd be an instant, nah turn thst **** off get some more diabolical Leeds defending up on screen.
Or because teams know the clocks stopped they won’t time waste like they do in normal games so will just crack on with tbings.
Just a couple of caveats to all this. These work for Hockey thats not to say they would work for Football (some maybe) I know I keep saying Hockey is a faster game, but it is: So the self-take rule works because it provides a big advantage and encourages team to get on with the game (note here the defending team has to be 5m away before they can engage). Meaning you can be clear of a oppo player before they can reengage. The ball really doesn't spend much time off the pitch, again because you are looking to gain that speed advantage the ball comes back into play very fast. I'd say of a 70min game the ball would probably spend less than 10mins not in play. Most stoppages are short and the clock is stopped for longer ones, cards, penalties, injuries. Also there is a culture difference, nobody goes to ground unless they're seriously injured. Minor injuries the player just sort of hobbles off for 5-10min (or longer) and this is probably aided by the rolling subs, the knowledge you can go off recover and then come back on. All these means the game is very fluid and time wasting is kept to a minimum, also time wasting in hockey is really hard to do and doesn't waste that much time.
I'm sure they do but we're talking about the FA and PL here. If there's a potential to mess things up, they will mess it up. VAR will be into it's third season and still no consistency on applying it's own rules.
I suppose the idea would be that the player gets the ball down and passes the ball back into play within seconds. (something similar to TAA's corner v Barca) In reality only a few teams would do that, the ones that want to counter or get the ball forward quick. The rest will want to treat as a set piece and slow the game down to waste more time than a throw would take.
Just ask yourself: rather than debate to solution offered, why not debate the problem that is supposedly being solved. Now... what exactly is the problem?
I believe the discussion is the amount of time the ball is not in play over the 90mins. note, Not in play, rather than out of play.
Quote: "There are two big time wasters at the moment - throw-ins and free kicks, and a little bit goal-kicks as well because you play out now in the box. The target is to make the game more spectacular and quicker." I get the "spot it and go" element of the thinking. It makes sense in a perfect world. The free kicks, sure spot it and dribble. It sounds fun but it's an OPTION Same for a throw, one crucial aspect is its from height so is more difficult to control and pass back than a ball on the ground. Again is an OPTION. In the real world risk and reward comes into play. When we see a forward take a ball that's been knocked out by a defender, look round and then stop and wait for a full back to slowly jog up. Take the ball and prob throw it backwards... the idea that forward could spot ball and run (not the idea btw) is quite exciting and unpredictable. The reality is people don't want to lose shape here. The reality is most of the time you don't get the ball within 5 seconds All the arguments everyone has put in is the reality of football. If the game is to speed up then you have to pressure players into it. The ball is not in play as players and teams don't want it to be and refs refuse to do anything about it. E.g keepers holding ball for 1min not 20second Keepers like krul or pickford taking 2mins over goal kick (which Mr wenger seems to think is not an issue) It's all about refs knowing full well they are the absolute worst person on the planet if they wave a yellow for time-wasting early on or if someone gets sent off they are accused of ruining the game.etc etc. Imo if you try to invent a means to hurt sides just enough to make them keep ball in play it'll be a better solution than dicking with the game Forget the cards, reverse the free kick/ corner/ throw if teams take too long.
