Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

Your unpopular football opinion?

My unpopular opinions;

1)
At the professional level, they should introduce a formal basketball-style timekeeper rather than the referee adding an arbitrary number of minutes at the end of each half. Ball is out of play, clock stops. Ball is back in play, clock resumes.
Maybe with an additional instruction that when time elapses, the referee doesn't blow the whistle while the attacking team still has possession in their attacking half.
Removes (or at least seriously reduces) the incentive for time wasting - once the clock stops you don't gain anything from rolling on the pitch, or slowly walking off when substituted, or a team doing substitutions purely to waste time.
Much better spectacle for the fans.

2)
Thrown ins - why?
For the outfield players, the game is literally about not using your hands.
Then when the ball goes out of play, suddenly you do have to use your hands, and in a very specific manner to throw the ball. Why not just place the ball on the touch line and have an indirect free kick instead? Related fact; I was always terrible at taking throw-ins.
 
petszk said:
My unpopular opinions;

1)
At the professional level, they should introduce a formal basketball-style timekeeper rather than the referee adding an arbitrary number of minutes at the end of each half. Ball is out of play, clock stops. Ball is back in play, clock resumes.
Maybe with an additional instruction that when time elapses, the referee doesn't blow the whistle while the attacking team still has possession in their attacking half.
Removes (or at least seriously reduces) the incentive for time wasting - once the clock stops you don't gain anything from rolling on the pitch, or slowly walking off when substituted, or a team doing substitutions purely to waste time.
Much better spectacle for the fans.

2)
Thrown ins - why?
For the outfield players, the game is literally about not using your hands.
Then when the ball goes out of play, suddenly you do have to use your hands, and in a very specific manner to throw the ball. Why not just place the ball on the touch line and have an indirect free kick instead? Related fact; I was always terrible at taking throw-ins.
Click to expand...
Good points raised.

I think with 1) I'm sure I had heard of some sort of trial reducing halves to 30mins, but using this method of timekeeping. I may have made that trial up in my head though

With 2 - on a full field/outdoor game - that significantly changes the game, in the sense that there is much more a kick could do (distance, placement, etc) than a throw. Would also mean a bit more work for the referee for no reason, as would have to potentially add the ceremony of the wall/distance from the kick point.
 
petszk said:
My unpopular opinions;

1)
At the professional level, they should introduce a formal basketball-style timekeeper rather than the referee adding an arbitrary number of minutes at the end of each half. Ball is out of play, clock stops. Ball is back in play, clock resumes.
Maybe with an additional instruction that when time elapses, the referee doesn't blow the whistle while the attacking team still has possession in their attacking half.
Removes (or at least seriously reduces) the incentive for time wasting - once the clock stops you don't gain anything from rolling on the pitch, or slowly walking off when substituted, or a team doing substitutions purely to waste time.
Much better spectacle for the fans.

2)
Thrown ins - why?
For the outfield players, the game is literally about not using your hands.
Then when the ball goes out of play, suddenly you do have to use your hands, and in a very specific manner to throw the ball. Why not just place the ball on the touch line and have an indirect free kick instead? Related fact; I was always terrible at taking throw-ins.
Click to expand...
FIFA trialled kick ins instead of throw ins in the early 1990s, and soon dropped the idea.
They thought it would speed up the game, but it actually slowed the game down, as they had to wait for free kick specialists to come and pump long balls into the goal mouth.
 
ashtongate said:
FIFA trialled kick ins instead of throw ins in the early 1990s, and soon dropped the idea.
They thought it would speed up the game, but it actually slowed the game down, as they had to wait for free kick specialists to come and pump long balls into the goal mouth.
Click to expand...

Blurg.
Maybe make it so that the player nearest the ball needs to take the kick in, to get it back in play quickly, rather than stuffing around with the rigmarole of turning it into a "proper set piece"?
Or leave it as a throw in. It's a bit silly, but not terrible.
 
NicCarBel said:
I think with 1) I'm sure I had heard of some sort of trial reducing halves to 30mins, but using this method of timekeeping. I may have made that trial up in my head though
Click to expand...

It wouldn't surprise me if a proper stop-start game clock did mean that 45 minutes would be too long for a half (might end up actually taking 60-70 minutes just to get to half time), and they'd probably need to shorten the halves to end up with the same amount of game time.
 
petszk said:
It wouldn't surprise me if a proper stop-start game clock did mean that 45 minutes would be too long for a half (might end up actually taking 60-70 minutes just to get to half time), and they'd probably need to shorten the halves to end up with the same amount of game time.
Click to expand...
Or if they just enforce the existing time wasting rules it would be surprising how little time wasting there would be.

For those that would consider it tough - you give the Captain one warning about the slow goal kicks/slowing down the play (including picking up the ball and walking off with it) and a card to the next offender - can't complain if you were told it would be enforced and warned not to do it.

Can't imagine the rules ever being applied in the Western Asian region though - would be a genuine highlight of my football spectating to see that.
 
petszk said:
Blurg.
Maybe make it so that the player nearest the ball needs to take the kick in, to get it back in play quickly, rather than stuffing around with the rigmarole of turning it into a "proper set piece"?
Or leave it as a throw in. It's a bit silly, but not terrible.
Click to expand...
Ref counts back from 5 and if you don't kick it before he gets to zero, the other team gets a kick and a countdown
 
petszk said:
It wouldn't surprise me if a proper stop-start game clock did mean that 45 minutes would be too long for a half (might end up actually taking 60-70 minutes just to get to half time), and they'd probably need to shorten the halves to end up with the same amount of game time.
Click to expand...
I think there was a study by the AFC around the time we hosted the Asian Cup (might even have been an analysis of the Asian Cup itself) that the average was the high 50mins of game time (ball in play) per match.
 
petszk said:
My unpopular opinions;

1)
At the professional level, they should introduce a formal basketball-style timekeeper rather than the referee adding an arbitrary number of minutes at the end of each half. Ball is out of play, clock stops. Ball is back in play, clock resumes.
Maybe with an additional instruction that when time elapses, the referee doesn't blow the whistle while the attacking team still has possession in their attacking half.
Removes (or at least seriously reduces) the incentive for time wasting - once the clock stops you don't gain anything from rolling on the pitch, or slowly walking off when substituted, or a team doing substitutions purely to waste time.
Much better spectacle for the fans.

2)
Thrown ins - why?
For the outfield players, the game is literally about not using your hands.
Then when the ball goes out of play, suddenly you do have to use your hands, and in a very specific manner to throw the ball. Why not just place the ball on the touch line and have an indirect free kick instead? Related fact; I was always terrible at taking throw-ins.
Click to expand...

They trialled 2. Just about every one over the half way line ended up hoofed into the box like a corner kick.

Edit: I see someone mentioned this above already. Here's the story about it.

the18.com

Looking Back At The Failed Kick-In Experiment From The 1994-95 Isthmian League | The18

Arsene Wenger is doubling down on his throw-in ban, but history shows his idea is destined for failure.
the18.com the18.com
 
Last edited:
NicCarBel said:
Good points raised.

I think with 1) I'm sure I had heard of some sort of trial reducing halves to 30mins, but using this method of timekeeping. I may have made that trial up in my head though

With 2 - on a full field/outdoor game - that significantly changes the game, in the sense that there is much more a kick could do (distance, placement, etc) than a throw. Would also mean a bit more work for the referee for no reason, as would have to potentially add the ceremony of the wall/distance from the kick point.
Click to expand...

Yes. #1 was in a lower Dutch league. Thirty minute halves or something. I'll see if I can find it.

Edit: Here.

analyticsfc.co.uk

Otten Innovation Cup: The Rules, like the times, are changing - Analytics FC

Stevphen Shukaitis attends the tournament trialling potential new rules for football and ponders whether they are, in fact, a good thing
analyticsfc.co.uk analyticsfc.co.uk
 
Last edited:
petszk said:
It wouldn't surprise me if a proper stop-start game clock did mean that 45 minutes would be too long for a half (might end up actually taking 60-70 minutes just to get to half time), and they'd probably need to shorten the halves to end up with the same amount of game time.
Click to expand...

I think the games would go for longer. If you have a free kick and the clock stops you can take as long as you want. Getting hammered by the opposition, take 5 minutes to take a goal kick. Sure there might be, pick a number, 45 minutes of actual game time but the 'half' could take 80 minutes.

So I hear you say make it 30 minutes playing time and then they're on the field for 50 minutes. I can't see how this would solve anything.

And can you imagine it towards the end of a match? Like the basketball the last 2 minutes could go for 10. Plenty of time for ads I suppose. (Don't give Infantino ideas.)

Just add the time on and be more aggressive with cards for recalcitrants.
 
Last edited:
Muz said:
I think the games would go for longer. If you have a free kick and the clock stops you can take as long as you want. Getting hammered by the opposition take 5 minutes to take a goal kick. Sure there might be, pick a number, 45 minutes of actual game time but the 'half could take 80 minutes.

So I hear you say make it 30 minutes playing time and then they're on the field for 50 minutes. I can't see how this would solve anything.

And can you imagine it towards the end of a match? Like the basketball the last 2 minutes could go for 10. Plenty of time for ads I suppose. (Don't give Infantino ideas.)

Just add the time on and be more aggressive with cards for recalcitrants.
Click to expand...
Yep, I'm all for adding the time on and more cards for time-wasters. And the bit that really pisses me off, and I've seen this in more than a few professional games, is where in added time a referee gives a goalkeeper a yellow card for wasting time at a goal kick, but then doesn't add on additional time to the original added time before blowing the final whistle. If you have specifically recognised and sanctioned a player for wasting time, then how can you not add on that wasted time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muz
Keeper66 said:
Yep, I'm all for adding the time on and more cards for time-wasters. And the bit that really pisses me off, and I've seen this in more than a few professional games, is where in added time a referee gives a goalkeeper a yellow card for wasting time at a goal kick, but then doesn't add on additional time to the original added time before blowing the final whistle. If you have specifically recognised and sanctioned a player for wasting time, then how can you not add on that wasted time?
Click to expand...

Yes. That's so bloody annoying. Want to really stamp it out get the boffins that are counting time added on to double the time wasted when a card is issued for time wasting.

Waste 30 seconds, 60 seconds gets added on.
 
petszk said:
My unpopular opinions;

1)
At the professional level, they should introduce a formal basketball-style timekeeper rather than the referee adding an arbitrary number of minutes at the end of each half. Ball is out of play, clock stops. Ball is back in play, clock resumes.
Maybe with an additional instruction that when time elapses, the referee doesn't blow the whistle while the attacking team still has possession in their attacking half.
Removes (or at least seriously reduces) the incentive for time wasting - once the clock stops you don't gain anything from rolling on the pitch, or slowly walking off when substituted, or a team doing substitutions purely to waste time.
Much better spectacle for the fans.

2)
Thrown ins - why?
For the outfield players, the game is literally about not using your hands.
Then when the ball goes out of play, suddenly you do have to use your hands, and in a very specific manner to throw the ball. Why not just place the ball on the touch line and have an indirect free kick instead? Related fact; I was always terrible at taking throw-ins.
Click to expand...
I'd say just have the referees take the throw ins rather than having outfield players do it since it eliminates all the rigmarole needed and also we won't get situations like this when players taking throw ins are impeded.
 
rebelliousfeminist974 said:
I'd say just have the referees take the throw ins rather than having outfield players do it since it eliminates all the rigmarole needed and also we won't get situations like this when players taking throw ins are impeded.
Click to expand...
While you are at it, lets change to an oval field and add some extra posts!!! :ROFLMAO:

Seriously, there isn't a issue with throw-ins. They've been part of the game for 150+ years, and the only thing that needs to be clamped down on (and the laws of the game already specify that this should be done) is time-wasting at throw ins and throws not being taken from the right place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top