IFAB Proposed Rule Changes includes a 60 Minute Clock

Midas Mulligan said:
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 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.
Click to expand...

i get it but the back pass didnt change the time from 45 to 30 mins per half or clock stopping etc. i do think its going to evolve ( way back when offside rule was changed, extra sub in extra time, VAR, goal line technology) though basic set rules still pretty much intact. Its just the whole changing time really gets to me....and as you said it opens doorway for ads commercial breaks, even VAR can lead to that right now.

i always thought that a team that is good enough has to be able to retain possession or be able to break down a bunker ( at least train for it) in order to create chances or score.
 
Fantazma said:
i always thought that a team that is good enough has to be able to retain possession or be able to break down a bunker ( at least train for it) in order to create chances or score.
Click to expand...
Breaking down a bunker is one thing. I'm talking about 30 second throw ins. 45 second goal kicks. Injuries on every tackle.

That stuff makes my blood boil.
 
Midas Mulligan said:
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".
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily disagree with you per se but I'm still not sure there'd be an overall benefit. The rules apply to both sides, and if one side is doing something within the rules the "proper" thing would be for the other team to counter that tactically, not necessarily with a rule change.

I mean, NJRB used the high press on us since forever and it's sliced us apart in the past. But this past match Johnson would mostly play out of the back as usual but on occasion would pass it directly to the midfield to keep those Jersey bastids honest. Well, as honest as possible. Yes, we lost on a moment of inattention and also thanks to a bunch of woodwork, but the point is they used a tactic against us and we countered with a different tactic to overcome that and it almost worked out for us (ignoring many other things of course).

Anyway I'm rushing because I just got to the office and I'm supposed to be working for some reason, but my position is that I don't see all that much difference in how an NFL-style clock would alter the game. 60 broken up minutes vs. 90 continuous minutes. Same difference.
 
Midas Mulligan said:
Breaking down a bunker is one thing. I'm talking about 30 second throw ins. 45 second goal kicks. Injuries on every tackle.

That stuff makes my blood boil.
Click to expand...

i see....still meh to me though.....all of that does not add up to 15 mins, a few mins sure but not 15 ( exception is of course big injury). thing is i always thought the clock to zero in old MLS was lame to me .....do i want something similar like that back? i dont.

if it does happen then we get a different version of the sport...and maybe maybe longer games due to potential ad time...if ads happen man lots of people will be put off
 
Midas Mulligan said:
Breaking down a bunker is one thing. I'm talking about 30 second throw ins. 45 second goal kicks. Injuries on every tackle.

That stuff makes my blood boil.
Click to expand...
OK, I see what you're saying. Maybe the way to deal with that is to have the 4th official time all that and then tell the ref near the end of the half so the *actual* amount of time could be added and not just some very rough estimate.

Or maybe you could give a time-waster a, uh, brown card, with two of those being a yellow. How's *that* for an alternative.
 
Midas Mulligan said:
Breaking down a bunker is one thing. I'm talking about 30 second throw ins. 45 second goal kicks. Injuries on every tackle.

That stuff makes my blood boil.
Click to expand...
So address those tactics directly. Take too long on throw in? other teams ball. Take too long on goal kick? Pick a punishment. Corner kick? Throw in for other team? The last thing we need is Jesse Marsh yelling at Mark geiger because three seconds ran off the clock on a goal kick, and Geiger waving his hands to the scoreboard operator to add three seconds back on the clock.
 
Seth said:
I don't necessarily disagree with you per se but I'm still not sure there'd be an overall benefit. The rules apply to both sides, and if one side is doing something within the rules the "proper" thing would be for the other team to counter that tactically, not necessarily with a rule change.

I mean, NJRB used the high press on us since forever and it's sliced us apart in the past. But this past match Johnson would mostly play out of the back as usual but on occasion would pass it directly to the midfield to keep those Jersey bastids honest. Well, as honest as possible. Yes, we lost on a moment of inattention and also thanks to a bunch of woodwork, but the point is they used a tactic against us and we countered with a different tactic to overcome that and it almost worked out for us (ignoring many other things of course).

Anyway I'm rushing because I just got to the office and I'm supposed to be working for some reason, but my position is that I don't see all that much difference in how an NFL-style clock would alter the game. 60 broken up minutes vs. 90 continuous minutes. Same difference.
Click to expand...
Ideally, you're right. But when the refs allow bullshit on every ball into touch and the other team is flopping and faking injuries constantly, it pisses me off so much.

Because even a rather large gap in quality can take a long time to manifest itself on the scoreboard, the cheating that's allowed can and does significantly alter matches. If refs actually punished players and added the proper time, I'd be fine. But they never, and I do mean never, seem to.
 
Midas Mulligan said:
Ideally, you're right. But when the refs allow bullshit on every ball into touch and the other team is flopping and faking injuries constantly, it pisses me off so much.

Because even a rather large gap in quality can take a long time to manifest itself on the scoreboard, the cheating that's allowed can and does significantly alter matches. If refs actually punished players and added the proper time, I'd be fine. But they never, and I do mean never, seem to.
Click to expand...
Can't disagree with any of that.
 
Tom in Fairfield CT said:
So address those tactics directly. Take too long on throw in? other teams ball. Take too long on goal kick? Pick a punishment. Corner kick? Throw in for other team? The last thing we need is Jesse Marsh yelling at Mark geiger because three seconds ran off the clock on a goal kick, and Geiger waving his hands to the scoreboard operator to add three seconds back on the clock.
Click to expand...
That might be a better solution. As I said, I'm not sure where I come down on this specifically. All I'm certain of is that I want see the bullshit curbed.
 
Tom in Fairfield CT said:
So address those tactics directly. Take too long on throw in? other teams ball. Take too long on goal kick? Pick a punishment. Corner kick? Throw in for other team?
Click to expand...
Midas Mulligan said:
Ideally, you're right. But when the refs allow bullshit on every ball into touch and the other team is flopping and faking injuries constantly, it pisses me off so much.
Click to expand...

Yeah those suggestions will never happen. it's like the debate about adding a pitch clock to baseball. People say we should enforce the existing rules as written instead, and in theory I agree, but it can never happen. In both soccer and baseball it has never happened. It will never happen, because there will be too much pushback the moment it is tried. If you argue for this you are arguing for the status quo.

Status quo is a defensible position, and I likely am on that side myself. I still would like to see the 60 minute clock stopping experiment as I noted above, but in the end I think the system we have is the best in an imperfct world.
 
they should take away the limited subs too. more energy on the field = more action.
 
Tom in Fairfield CT said:
Haha, do i do that? If I do, I don't do it on purpose. Does it come off as dicky sounding? Haha, I've never noticed that trait in anyone else, I wonder what I do to make it sound like that.
Click to expand...
Nah. It's not really a thing that I've noticed more than a few times. You were the example that came to me. Ulrich might have been a good choice, too. (or me, but more fun to bring someone else into it)
 
Midas Mulligan said:
Nah. It's not really a thing that I've noticed more than a few times. You were the example that came to me. Ulrich might have been a good choice, too. (or me, but more fun to bring someone else into it)
Click to expand...
Wut? If I agree with or "like" a post, it's sincere. If I don't like it, I won't beat around the bush and feign agreement.

For the record, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your post - just confused by it.
 
Mario said:
they should take away the limited subs too. more energy on the field = more action.
Click to expand...

they also should get rid of throw ins... football is supposed to be played with your feet. Should have to kick the ball up to your head and head it to where u want to pass.
 
Ulrich said:
Wut? If I agree with or "like" a post, it's sincere. If I don't like it, I won't beat around the bush and feign agreement.

For the record, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your post - just confused by it.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Wait, so we're only supposed to rep a post if we agree with it? I guess I sometimes do that, but I also rep for good points I don't agree with, funny comments, good links, and just because I have clumsy fingers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top