This might work and it would mean more opportunity for players on the bench, problem being players could start doing it intentionally to get fresh legs on.
Sin bin for yellow is stupid unless two sin bins is a red and banned next match too Otherwise it's a license to commit professional fouls because down to 10 for a few minutes is far better than going a goal down
think about someon like lucas.. he basically gets a yellow card most game he plays. he thinks absolutely nothing of playing the system refs have developed of "its too early for a booking" and will persistently foul until carded. Watch swansea this weekend. their two cms will foul and foul and foul until they get a card to slow up play and just generally stop lfc getting going from defense to attack so their teams get set. Thats the thing a sin bin is really designed for. In rugby again... the one sport that has it.... one BIG bug bear is giving penalty after penalty away to slow play down and get defenses set and it can take SOME refs a very long time to issue a yellow to a team which triggers the sin bin. So a sin v v a yellow for me may actually not be good as two sin bins = off and in that case refs will resist using it. So if theres a yellow for one thing and then a sin bin for 5 mins for other stuff and you can put the same guy in that sin bin loads of times perhaps refs would use that more to calm games down. The sin bin should be for stuff thats designed to stop games flowing and attacks occuring. Pull, pushes, obstructions, standing on top of a free to stop it being taken, kicking ball away etc. I would like to see an experiment done where you roll guys on and off for this professional stuff and see how many time a player gets binned. I would actually be interested to see if you could track v swansea how many times in first half cork for example does cynical fouls and it let off scott free by the useless ref we have for this game. You watch. until Swansea cms are book lfc won't have a flowing game.
MLS use basically the same system as rubgy it is managed on field by the ref but the system is not blind. it is connected to the stadium clocks and the count down from 45 to 0. the ref stops the watch. in rugby you count up to 80mins. you can see when the ref has stopped the clock fair enough like but the thing then is refs stop it for everything.
Thought this was interesting '' .... brought in ... to oversee all technical areas ranging from innovations in technology to refereeing.'' Yet not one mention of either in his ideas of how to 'improve' the game.
Clock starts at 90 mins and counts down. To 0. Game stops immediately at 0. Clock doesn't tick when ball out of play. On one hand, it's fairer, you know exactly how long you've got. On the other hand it ruins some of the suspense and excitement from the end of a close fought game.
90 minutes of actual play is ages. When in-play timekeeping has been raised it's been based on about 60 minutes of actual play. You get the excitement of shooting from anywhere with 5 seconds left on the clock though.
Injury time is based on the ref stopping his clock, supposedly. Again, Rugby has it good...the clock on the TV score reflects the refs watch. Once it reaches 80 mins then the game ends when the ball next goes dead. I'd like that in football... Once time is up the ball has to go dead. The team defending a lead/draw has to get possession of the ball and kick it out of play. The team chasing the game has to keep the ball in play and try and score. If a free kick is given, defending team may kick it out directly or the chasing team can play the ball.
Yup often thought would be good idea.. but you don't have stoppages in rugby for injuries just play round them so still need that injury time in football. Guess say 90 mins plus what ever ref says then when ball goes dead after that time
Having seen games play both ways, I prefer the system how it currently is (although admitting it give the ref a chance to provide biased Fergie-time). When the game is close and one team is banging on the door to change a result, it's more suspenseful not knowing how many more chances they actually have. Rugby giving until next deadball is at least better than the MLS alternative though. Personally, I think they should introduce a robotic golden snitch that you have to hunt down and whoever catches it wins the game, thus completely invalidating the whole rest of the game and making it all pointless.
That sounds completely stupid and pointless. And if there was a film about it I'd definitely never watch it.
Well yeah, football is going to be different in certain aspects. Clock runs when ball goes out of play, clock stops if play isn't resumed after a certain amount of time (time wasting). Clock stops to the ref's whistle when a player is down injured. Pretty certain this is how injury time is calculated anyway? Just go with the dead ball rule at the end of added time as it is.
Definitely wouldn't watch any sequels to it either, as well as a related film that comes out much later about wizards in America written by same woman that did those films and is loosely related prequel.
