IFAB Proposed Rule Changes includes a 60 Minute Clock

Midas Mulligan said:
Surely this can't mean that us Americans were doing something right, can it?

http://www.espnfc.us/blog/fifa/243/...-include-60-minute-match-clocks-penalty-goals
Click to expand...
Read through some of it and I actually like the 60 minute thing. Reason being is they're spot on with there being less than 60 minutes of in-play time. When you consider ball out of bounds, fouls and all the other time wasting that goes on with 15 minutes to go in a game it makes sense.
If you actually read through the article I don't find the changes to be 'radical'
 
I read that article and 99% of the suggestions were crap. The one good one was enforcing the 6sec rule on the GK. Otherwise it'll be like basketball.
 
Ulrich said:
I read that article and 99% of the suggestions were crap. The one good one was enforcing the 6sec rule on the GK. Otherwise it'll be like basketball.
Click to expand...

The article is based off of work done with blue sky/ocean development tactics. Write down every single idea, no matter how nuts or terrible it sounds, and you're very likely to come across one or two ideas that you might not have considered previously, but are worth pursuing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gotham Gator and mgarbowski
I would be interested to see a couple of games plaed with the 60 minute stopping clock. SOmething like an international friendly, so while there are no consequences to winning/losing, the play quality is high and veeryone takes the game pretty seriously despite being of no real consequence.

I think I would end up against the change, but I think it is worth testing it in practice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JGarrettLieb
I think the no action after a PK save is a really interesting one. We see a lot players following up after a save and get a goal. Rather, after a saved GK a goal kick would be allowed.
 
NYCFC_Dan said:
Read through some of it and I actually like the 60 minute thing. Reason being is they're spot on with there being less than 60 minutes of in-play time. When you consider ball out of bounds, fouls and all the other time wasting that goes on with 15 minutes to go in a game it makes sense.
If you actually read through the article I don't find the changes to be 'radical'
Click to expand...
I agree that most isn't radical. The clock thing is something I would have to think about, and it would be radically different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NYCFC_Dan
Midas Mulligan said:
I agree that most isn't radical. The clock thing is something I would have to think about, and it would be radically different.
Click to expand...
The thing is, if they said 90 minutes of clock that stopped when play stopped that's one thing. But they're proposing 60 minutes of live play. Would that be any different from what we have now without a clock that stops? It's definitely an interesting idea but I'm not sure I see any actual benefit or indeed any real change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Midas Mulligan
Stopping the clock should eliminate stoppage time inconsistency, which may be a good thing. But I see a slippery slope: Once we stop the clock for one purpose, we open the door to stopping it for others (e.g., commercial breaks). My instinct is to keep things the way they are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul, Victors87, Gotham Gator and 6 others
i think they should do something about mobbing the ref, enforce the goalkeeper 6 seconds and maybe adjust the pk rule- but not like that.

maybe if a player is taking too long to take a throw or get the ball to award the ball to the other team...disallow keepers from not picking up the ball... i'd consider these to be more effective changes
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul, Schwallacus, Midas Mulligan and 1 other person
This is ridiculous. I'm pretty open minded to suggestions and possible changes (VAR) but only to issues where there are actual problems and not just to think of the next thing that needs "improvement".

The game is fine even with all the minimal "time wasting" if you want to call it that and you know you are committed to 2 hours. That's it. 2 hours....

This is not the baseball problem where we need to speed things up
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Paul, Tom in Fairfield CT and Ulrich
If they do 30 minutes per half and stop the clock for throw in, free kicks, etc. It's going to look like college soccer when the play two halves and run the clock down so when 0:01 turns to 0:00 the game is over. I hated that watching at school or TV, if a team is down or tied and attacking and the clock runs out the game is over even if they're still in the attack. Terrible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul, Christopher Jee, Joseph Bianco and 2 others
Not to sound pointlessly conservative, but I honestly am not sure that these proposals are addressing anything that really needs "fixing". Maybe my bias is coming from an American sports milieu (e.g. football, basketball), but compared to American sports soccer doesn't seem in any way "too slow" (bad and boring individual matches notwithstanding).

But, really; isn't this something of an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" issue?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul, SoupInNYC, NickFromAstoria and 1 other person
My dad's not a sports fan at all. He finds baseball boring and hockey too hard to understand, etc.

I took him to the game yesterday, and as we're walking out he asked me when the next home game was; that he really enjoyed it because the game never stopped. There was always something going on.

That's a long way of saying this 60-minute clock thing is fixing a problem that barely exists. Yes, there's time-wasting. I'd be in favor of adding more injury time for time-wasting (slow throw-ins/corner kicks/goal kicks/etc), but other than that, this really isn't a problem that exists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul, Victors87, Christopher Jee and 2 others
Even with 30 mins halves and clock stopping what's preventing a team from just passing it to themselves in the back and waste time that way

Still no action with actions like that. People assume that for 30 straight minutes people will just be on full speed when that will most likely not be the case
 
Fantazma said:
what's preventing a team from just passing it to themselves in the back and waste time that way
Click to expand...
Well, I think what's preventing that is precisely the reason you see teams start employing time wasting tactics ridiculously early - said teams usually seem to be the ones who aren't capable of passing it around the back.

I don't love the idea, but I don't hate it, either. I get so tired of watching my clubs control the run of play and get nothing added on at the end of games when the other team has been up to time wasting since the 20th minute.

I generally dislike arbitrariness, and this removes a huge variable that is arbitrarily decided.

I do think sundance sundance makes a valid point, though. And that makes me nervous about it.

In a broad sense, though, I think we all just have to accept that the game will always evolve. Think about how dreadful matches were when keepers could handle backpasses. That was horrid to watch.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Christopher Jee and Vallos
Seth said:
The thing is, if they said 90 minutes of clock that stopped when play stopped that's one thing. But they're proposing 60 minutes of live play. Would that be any different from what we have now without a clock that stops? It's definitely an interesting idea but I'm not sure I see any actual benefit or indeed any real change.
Click to expand...
With you being an MCFC supporter, I figure you'd have watched enough negative football employed against you that you'd recognize the massive difference.

I know that's what makes me seriously consider going from "okay with it" to "this is something desperately needed".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back