Caixinha backs IFAB plans for clock only ticking when the ball is in play

Bunbury Bear said:
Wouldnt the clock stop as soon as the game stopped for the injury.
Click to expand...
It would but players feigning injury can disrupt the flow of the game as they writhe on the ground. This proposal would also take the timekeeping out of the ref's hands and that is no bad thing.
 
Why do some people constantly feel the need to keep changing the game ?

Fans actually attending games wasn't good enough for them - they had to televise every kick of every ball of every game.

Saturday 3pm kick-offs weren't good enough for them - they had to have matches kicked all over the week.

The numbers 1-11 weren't good enough for them - they had to have players wearing numbers 56, 83 and 92.

Fans singing spontaneous songs wasn't good enough for them - they had to have choreographed dirge blasting out of the PA.

Dugouts weren't good enough for them - they had to have 'technical areas'.

Linesmen weren't good enough for them - they had to have 'assistant referees'.

Extra time wasn't good enough for them - they had to have 'silver / golden goals'.


Can't these bstards just go somewhere else, and leave the rest of us to just enjoy the game as it is - flaws and all.
 
Taki said:
Time wasting is a legitimate, if frustrating, tactic. Football is a game of a fixed time period and the object is to score a goal in that time. You're allowed to deploy strategies to stop that happening. I wouldn't even have the added on time you get now. 90 minutes - it's not difficult. If you don't score, that's your problem.

These complaints tend to come from the bigger club and countries upset they don't get the entire game set up to ensure they win.
Click to expand...
Unadulterated pish.

If it was legitimate why do people get booked for doing it; albeit not often enough?

Ridiculous post.
 
As You Were said:
Football isn’t broken and doesn’t need fixed.

Wish we could just leave it be.
Click to expand...
Too much time wasting in football nowadays. Sometime you watch a game and there is very little action from about 65 mins onwards due to a combination of time wasting, feigning injury and substitutions.

I would keep the game at 90 mins and stop the clock when the ball goes out or there is a stoppage.
 
govantrueblue said:
Please god no.

Can Imagine a midweek game at Pittodrie finishing at 22.30.

Last game title deciders kicking off at the same time would hand the advantage to the game that's finishing last
Click to expand...
That would be no different to now. If two matches kick off their second halves at exact the same time but one game has two minutes, the other five minutes of injury time, you still end up with this situation.
 
This would generally be of benefit to us. How many times have we gone behind or the game is level with the opponents taking ages over every single throw in, goal kick etc. The ref looks on like a gormless idiot then fails to add the time on at the end.

It always makes me laugh when we go ahead in these games then they change to frantic mode, taking everything as quickly as possible, goalies suddenly take goal kicks from the right side again.
 
Great idea ,most actual game time is 55- 57 minutes so we're almost there , as for TV company's nothing will change there'll still be half time and if there's an injury they can put are on in corner if they want ......
 
Really don’t understand people thinking that the game can’t be improved, and that they keep “mucking around” with the rules.

Why wouldn’t you want to try and remove contentious issues from the game such as time wasting, diving, dodgy decisions etc? Forever fans complain that too much focus ends up on these things instead of the actual football yet when steps are suggested to fix them there is resistance. Do football fans actually secretly like these parts of the game? Would having nothing to argue about and pin blame on make the game boring?

Teams will always continue to exploit everything in the rule book to gain an advantage until it’s changed in the rule book. Personally I don’t see anything wrong with changes that don’t actually affect the technical aspects of the game itself, which this wouldn’t.
 
GersFanHutch said:
Really don’t understand people thinking that the game can’t be improved, and that they keep “mucking around” with the rules.

Why wouldn’t you want to try and remove contentious issues from the game such as time wasting, diving, dodgy decisions etc? Forever fans complain that too much focus ends up on these things instead of the actual football yet when steps are suggested to fix them there is resistance. Do football fans actually secretly like these parts of the game? Would having nothing to argue about and pin blame on make the game boring?

Teams will always continue to exploit everything in the rule book to gain an advantage until it’s changed in the rule book. Personally I don’t see anything wrong with changes that don’t actually affect the technical aspects of the game itself, which this wouldn’t.
Click to expand...
Why not at corner kicks bigger arc and only corner kick taker allowed in , stopping stupid two and three guys kicking lumps out of each other trying to run clock down , or to get ball back in play?
 
In regards to time wasting the referee could easily stop this just a quick yellow card to the keeper even if it's 30 minutes ( we've all saw this at Ibrox ) job done.......
 
GF1 said:
It doesn't seem to affect rugby or NFL amd look at the billions of dollars spent on NFL through tv advertising
Click to expand...

A 60 minute game of American Football takes about 3 hours to play because of all the stoppages. We don't want that.
 
If they do it, the game clock needs to be visible on the pitch so it can't be the referee controlling it. I quite like the idea.

I'd make other changes also.
A team gets an automatic 1 bonus point if they start a game with (1 or 2) under 21 youths.
A way of forcing the youth into our games
They're no use on the bench or coming on like young Namane for 30 seconds and not touching the ball. Reward the bonus point for starting.
 
Would definitely like to see this.

Time wasting and players faking injuries is the worst thing about football. It’s worse outside the U.K. the amount of times a keeper fakes an injury in the last 5 minutes is an absolute joke.
 
SuperFuzz said:
It would be a lot simpler to apply one new rule.
If there is a throw in or foul for team A only a player from team A can touch the ball once the whistle has been blown to award the throw in or foul. If a player from team B touches the ball again before the throw in or foul has been taken they would get a yellow card. It would instantly prevent player mucking about by taking the ball for a walk or picking it up and should speed up the game.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, it pisses me off when the opposition team fart about with the ball.
 
bLuE PirAtE said:
Why are people terrified of change? We trialed the golden goal, it wasn't popular so it got ditched. If we try this new initiative and its not popular then we go back to the way it was.
I remember the panic when the rule was changed to stop the keeper picking the ball up from a pass from his own player. I'm sure those who are old enough to remember this will admit it was a change for the better.
No change is forever, if the stop the clock thing don't work.... Then ditch it!
Click to expand...

As much as I hate to admit to change, the fact is that the game has always historically been subject to change.
If it hadn't been, we would still be playing without goal nets
 
SemperParatus said:
Unadulterated pish.

If it was legitimate why do people get booked for doing it; albeit not often enough?

Ridiculous post.
Click to expand...

Thank you. God bless.

I mean legitimate in the sense of justifiable. You get booked for fouls too but no one is seriously going to argue that we should ban fouls completely. Or maybe they are. Fouling is, to an extent, a justifiable part of the game.

Needless to say, we're happy to use timewasting when it suits us. There is something petulant about complaining on opposition tactics.
 
Football has never really taken off in the US because it is more improvised than Baseball, American Football and Basketball. These sports are more predictable and have more set plays.

The US is still light years ahead in terms of sports science and specific individual conditioning.

These rule changes would suit the teams with superior abilities, resources and tacticians. Most of the "romance" would leave the game. Big clubs would prefer this as it would help them with more stable revenue streams.

An egalitarian drafting system would probably have to replace the current transfer system otherwise the gulf between the elite clubs and the rest would just continue t grow.
 
Matches are still going to last 40+mins each half rule just guarantees you at least 30 mins of the ball being in play. It's not that drastic a change so TV companies probably won't care too much. If anything, the less time wasting the more adverts they can build into a schedule.
 
Ubik said:
im all for it..
Click to expand...

I'd be all for it if it was left at 2 x 45 minute halves and the clock stopping when play stops.
But what's the point of reducing the time per half when you're just going to arrive at 45 mins per half anyway.
 
High Society said:
change can be positive. I do worry about who is making the changes. Is it people who pay to watch live football or is it owners, administrators who are more interested in Armchair fans?

How to improve the game? Lots of ideas on this

1. At a throw in, allow the ball to be thrown in by any means, one handed or otherwise.

2. all bye kicks to be taken from the penalty spot to stop the goalie running around from one side to the other.

3. Extend the 18 yard line full width and no offside beyond that line. ( we trialled this before )

4. Blow for offside immediately if deemed interfering with play.

5. Finish all drawn cup ties with a sudden death penalty shoot out.

6. When a player is substituted make him go off the field at the nearest point of exit.

7. Allow physio on to attend injured player and restart the game as they do in rugby.

8. Increase the height and width of the goals. Maybe 6 inches higher and 1 foot wider. Players are taller and goalkeepers in particular are about 6 inches taller than they were 50 years ago.

9. Introduce the VAR system asap

10. red cards should result in a ban that also includes missing the next game against opponents involved in red card.

11. ENFORCE the 6 second rule of goalies to release the ball after catching it.
Click to expand...


I agree with most of these but not all.

Rule 12 Do away with the unnecessary compliance officer.
 
It’s Unadulterated nonsense.
What would happen for cup games that finish level? Extra time then potentially penalties? FFS your looking at Midnight for midweek cup games.
 
If players from a team currently winning a match realise that time wasting won't give them any advantage, it'll eliminate time wasting from the game.

The match clock would therefore only pause for genuine stoppages, e.g. set pieces, injuries, bookings.

IMO if you were to add up the time the match clock was paused under this system, it would probably be less than the time we currently see added to the end of the first half and second half. It would also eliminate any grievance about how much or little time the ref adds on at the end of the match.

I would object to halves being cut to 30 minutes. Keep them at 45 minutes and implement the pausing of the match clock.
 
games last 90 minutes but ball is in play on average 55-57 minutes its not going to take much longer if its 30 minutes of ball " in play " there wont be 3pm games finishing at 6pm or 8pm finishing at midnight........
 
govantrueblue said:
It’s Unadulterated nonsense.
What would happen for cup games that finish level? Extra time then potentially penalties? FFS your looking at Midnight for midweek cup games.
Click to expand...

Surely they would just make extra time 10 minutes each half and there’d be no difference to now in the overall time.
 
If this comes in you will have pop up adverts every time the clock stops. US football coverage on nbc already has an ad banner during the game this is the next money making scheme
 
SemperParatus said:
4 Quarters
Short, sharp plays
Time Outs
Changes of possession
Play clocks

Stupid comparison
Click to expand...

Exactly what do you mean by "stupid comparison" ?
The post I referred to mentioned NFL games, and I posted that a 60 minute game actually lasts 3 hours due to all the stoppages you refer to. A game of football wouldn't take that length of time but would be considerably longer if the clock was stopped for every throw in, bye kick, corner etc. which we wouldn't want.
 
BobbyShearer55-65 said:
Why do some people constantly feel the need to keep changing the game ?

Fans actually attending games wasn't good enough for them - they had to televise every kick of every ball of every game.

Saturday 3pm kick-offs weren't good enough for them - they had to have matches kicked all over the week.

The numbers 1-11 weren't good enough for them - they had to have players wearing numbers 56, 83 and 92.

Fans singing spontaneous songs wasn't good enough for them - they had to have choreographed dirge blasting out of the PA.

Dugouts weren't good enough for them - they had to have 'technical areas'.

Linesmen weren't good enough for them - they had to have 'assistant referees'.

Extra time wasn't good enough for them - they had to have 'silver / golden goals'.


Can't these bstards just go somewhere else, and leave the rest of us to just enjoy the game as it is - flaws and all.
Click to expand...

What do you think about the pass back rule being changed?
 
wontoofree said:
A 60 minute game of American Football takes about 3 hours to play because of all the stoppages. We don't want that.
Click to expand...

In American Football you get speared every 3 seconds. That will only happen in football if John Beaton is in charge of more games
 
A dual clock system would be much easier to introduce.
A game lasts 90 minutes.
The clock is stopped every time it is out of play, and quite simply if a minimum of 30 minutes of in-play time have not been completed this becomes your injury time. With the match not stopping in each half until 30 minutes of in-play action have been completed.

If PSG, Real, Man City and Barcelona are the CL semi finalists and want to play 90 minutes of high tempo football on the deck then the game should roll on to 90 minutes regardless.

If Hamilton and Thistle want to waste time fans should get a minimum of 30 minutes in play each half.

You can then brand it how you like, as a sweeping change through football or simply as a refereeing directive affecting stoppage time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GF1
wontoofree said:
A 60 minute game of American Football takes about 3 hours to play because of all the stoppages. We don't want that.
Click to expand...

That is also to do with time outs, whole teams changing around depending on defence/attack and the game being split into quarters. Football does not have any of it.

I would like to see it trialed in friendlies to find out if it is worthwhile.

When I first seen it I thought it sounded terrible however I am slowly coming round.
 
I'd like it to stay the way it's always been,we all like a good debate about the game,although I can see his point and can't stand timewasting,but the worse aspect of the game is feigning injury, that's what they should crack down on.
 
Solution is for refs to play accurate stoppage time. Hibs at Ibrox was the perfect example of a ref stopping the game early.

Have an assistant whose job it is to count subs, corners, throws, time wasting and stoppages. He then communicates these to the ref on 85mins, who has set guidelines - 30secs per sub, 10 per throw, 20 per corner and a discretionary five mins.

We'd see regular stoppage time of 10 - 15 mins. Problem solved.
 
govantrueblue said:
The Guardian wrote an article on this subject 5 or 6 years ago.
You state that the games won't be significantly longer , see below and you might be surprised.

Play full matches
Football authorities are swindling you with institutionalised theft. They advertise 90-minute matches and that's what you pay for – but you only get about two-thirds of that. Because of relentless faffing about by players, the average amount of time that the ball has been in play in Premier League matches this season is 62min 39sec.

That, including stoppage time, means you spend over half an hour watching players roll on the floor, line up walls, trudge off the pitch and laugh in your unsuspecting face as they celebrate goals (imagine if a taxi driver stopped his cab, jumped out and danced on the pavement for a couple of minutes while the meter kept running: would you get out and jig along with him, you fools?). And if you went to watch Blackburn-Stoke this season, you also got to watch Rory Delap repeatedly drying a ball. For about 10 minutes (in that match the ball was in play for only 50:04min).

The solution is simple: next season the referee must kill the clock whenever the ball is not on the pitch and moving. It is galling that fourth officials always indicate about one minute of time added on at the end of the first half and around four at the end of the second. It should be at least 15 in both.
Click to expand...

Well the problem is not the game it is those who play the game with the mentality to cheat and those who officiate so perhaps like in rugby TV should be used to correct refereeing decisions and catch out the offenders?
 
baldy.bonce said:
Disagree.
Yesterday 5 minutes injury time added to Preston game. Preston concede an equalizer at 5 minutes and 20 seconds added time while their Manager argues with the Referees to stop the game. Even though there were no stoppages etc. to add to the injury time.

This move Caixinha backed would stop that happening to Rangers.

Plus two 30 minute-halves would be intense football and stop players tiring etc. while probably being more enjoyable to watch
Click to expand...

How would it stop them tiring?

The article states average is between 55-57 minutes. This would be 60 minutes, so is more action not less.

I'm all for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top