WHO Poll
Q: 2023/24 Hopes & aspirations for this season
a. As Champions of Europe there's no reason we shouldn't be pushing for a top 7 spot & a run in the Cups
24%
  
b. Last season was a trophy winning one and there's only one way to go after that, I expect a dull mid table bore fest of a season
17%
  
c. Buy some f***ing players or we're in a battle to stay up & that's as good as it gets
19%
  
d. Moyes out
37%
  
e. New season you say, woohoo time to get the new kit and wear it it to the pub for all the big games, the wags down there call me Mr West Ham
3%
  



Lily Hammer 8:42 Fri May 6
Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/61342349

Quite interesting article discussing why it might be a good idea to go the way of rugby and other sports to avoid time wasting shithousery.

Some of the Opta stats are intersting and no real surprise in certain cases.

We have been one of the better clubs when it comes to the ball being in play more than others.

No surprise that the worst game for ball being out of play this season was our home game vs Brentford, and the worst culprits as a team this season is Aston Villa.

Absolutely tallies with my memories of those wanky oppostions this season.

Pulis' Stoke are one of the worst teams in recent history. One of their matches had the ball in play for just 39 minutes.

I'm leaning towards this idea of 60 minute matches where the clock stops every time the ball is out of play. Radical move from the traditional 90 minutes, but when you look at the stats in the article, you have to wonder if the game might become better for this.



What do you magnificent cunts think?

Replies - Newest Posts First (Show In Chronological Order)

SurfaceAgentX2Zero 5:19 Wed May 11
Re: Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
I'm a traditionalist to the core. I hate VAR. And I hate what is turning into 'rolling substitutions'.

But, I have no objection to this proposal at all. All it will do is stop players and coaches cheating and take some unnecessary pressure off refs, who will have one less thing to worry about.

cygnet 4:39 Wed May 11
Re: Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
Re Vexed: At the moment the ball is "in play" considerably less than 60 minutes. Add in the overall impact a break in play has on a game (defences can re-organise, attacks break down, momentum gets lost and so on ) and you can see why supporters, players and managers get wound up...
The worst one this season involved West Ham at Brentford. Only 41m 13 seconds of the ball actually being in play but the average seems to be around 54 to 55m.
Here's an article which shows it is getting progressively smaller in recent years: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10220473/Premier-League-time-wasting-worse-Man-City-culpable-Aston-Villa-worst.html
Personally I'd like to see a stop clock which would hopefully bring a more flowing game and also stop wankers like Pickford collapsing to the ground with the ball in his arms and wasting 30 seconds every time he does it which, by the way, counts towards "ball in play".

)

SDKFZ 222 1:35 Tue May 10
Re: Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
On two occasions during our home match v Frankfurt, their players went down with ‘injury’, but when the ref waved play on, it was amazing how quickly the players concerned got up to run back and get involved with the play. One of the Frankfurt players also did this at their place towards the end of the match.

It just about sums it all up.

harold 12:14 Tue May 10
Re: Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
kylay
By all means take the player off for treatment, but take the offender off as well:: the offending team shouldn't have an advantage.

Mike Oxsaw 11:37 Tue May 10
Re: Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
Time wasting?

What's needed is a quick word from our sponsor while the game has...paused.

goose 10:41 Mon May 9
Re: Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
The ball going in and out of play is fine, it’s the real time wasting that needs to stop - the fake injuries, the pretending to play the goal kick short but then changing your mind, etc etc.

If the ball had to be in play for 90min you’d never get home!

Vexed 10:34 Mon May 9
Re: Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
What would this solve exactly? If the ball is only in play for 60ish mins a 60 mins stop clock is no improvement is it?

Surely the point is to make sure that the ball is in play longer so any stupid stop clock idea should be nearer 75mins to actually make such a cunty change worthwhile.

Leave the game alone you post 96er cunts.

El Scorchio 10:08 Mon May 9
Re: Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
It’s on the refs to be stronger and punish a team early for it and then it stops. So many games this season our opponents have been taking the absolute piss and the refs have done nothing at all. Well if you don’t do anything to stop it then it’s going to keep happening. Trouble like all the rules it entirely depends how a ref chooses to implement them. There needs to be more clear directive on it.

Arsenal and Brentford both got away with murder at our place.

kylay 9:49 Mon May 9
Re: Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
I wish they would go back to the way injuries used to be treated by getting the player off of the field as quickly as possible and then allowing the physio to treat them while play continued.

I also think if the game is stopped for a supposed head injury, the player(s) in question have to leave for a mandatory 3-4 minutes to undergo standard concussion protocol.

As others have said, if referees would enforce the laws as they are and use common sense you could cut out a lot of the crap. Trying to legislate for it is never going to cut it out as much as a shrewd official.

Putting in a start/stop clock will just create all other kinds of problems with dragging the game out, and teams gaming the clock in that manner.

Personally I cannot watch basketball at all because of that, and american football I only watch recorded to skip all the adverts and time-wasting.

Mike Oxsaw 9:45 Mon May 9
Re: Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
None of this will come to pass, no matter how sensible it is, because none of it was invented by the suits at the FA/UEFA/FIFA.

What their will propose is nothing more than slo-mo TV replays and nothing to address the actual problem.

SnarestoneIron 7:34 Mon May 9
Re: Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
"Everybody who receives treatment for an injury should be off for 15 minutes, that would stop the play acting cunts."

Or it could result in teams going all out to injure players!

JayeMPee 11:33 Sat May 7
Re: Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
Simple solution is to do what Rugby Union has been doing for years. Have a 90 minute clock for all to see, Injuries and substitutions stop the clock. On 45 and 90 minutes (and extra time) the match stops the moment the ball goes out of play.. That way everyone in the stadium knows when the game will finish and it will be a kick up the arse for the corrupt referees.

We might also use the sin bin instead of yellow cards, that way the team who has been sinned against benefits and not some other team in future fixtures.

Sven Roeder 11:07 Sat May 7
Re: Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
The latest wheeze is goal kicks where both centre halves stand inside the penalty area
Keeper looks at centre half
Centre half looks at keeper
Keeper looks at centre half
Centre half looks at keeper
Keeper looks at centre half
Centre half looks at keeper
Keeper waves them forward and waits til they have jogged 30m
Keeper kicks ball after having wasted a minute

If the clock started when the goal kick was taken this would go

Mike Oxsaw 10:52 Sat May 7
Re: Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
There's always been an element of time "wasting" in the game, especially when players want a quick breather.

It does appear to have been "stretched" in recent years and become part of some managers' game plan.

It also appears to be happening earlier in games, which may be an indication that we're at or passed a professional players endurance level and they've building in more unofficial "recovery time"..

New Jersey 10:24 Sat May 7
Re: Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
I even hate this when we time waste! I remember at the Boleyn Jussi getting booked for it and it was only the first half but then again he was under the instructions of BFS!

Everybody who receives treatment for an injury should be off for 15 minutes, that would stop the play acting cunts.

Sven Roeder 10:11 Sat May 7
Re: Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
Was looking up some figures of actual playing time in various sports ....while watching an AFL game where they play 4 20min quarters of real playing time where each of the 20mins take 30-32 mins to finish

American football supposedly takes 3hrs 10mins for 11 mins of live action
Baseball 2hrs 56 for 18mins
Basketball 2hrs 18 to complete 48 mins (4 x 12min quarters) with a stop clock
Football 1hr 55mins to have 57mins of live action in the 90 mins

Actually think 30mins a half with the clock stopping would be a good idea. Would be more football than in games such as Brentford's visit to us and the E/T between Real & Man C
Would mean all this dawdling and delaying restarts would become pointless and hopefully disappear

Hermit Road 9:58 Sat May 7
Re: Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
I know added time at the end of a half wouldn’t equate exactly to ball in play, but these numbers do add to what we all ‘now about how arbitrary the refs added time is. All that pointing at their watch that they do as if to indicate the time will be added and we all know it’s bollocks. Players and teams waste time because they are certain the ref won’t add it. For me it has been one of the things that has put off watching football over the last few years all the time wasting that goes unpunished.

stewie griffin 7:38 Sat May 7
Re: Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
Been a soapbox of mine for a long time. Football loves to present itself as fast and free flowing but it's as stop start as anything else.

55 minutes in play, 35 minutes not in play and 15 minutes for half time. That's 50 minutes rest for 55 minutes of exercise. And still they moan about being tired.
The average TENNIS player runs more in an hour than footballers do, and they play on consecutive days.

BENT

Manuel 5:40 Sat May 7
Re: Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
It's a tricky one as don't want to keep fucking around with the game, I mean just look at some of the ideas mooted just on this thread. It's definitely getting worse though and players going down pretending to have head injuries.

One thing they should do that won't require drastic changes is just start adding more time on at the end, i.e instead of 4 mins make it 8. It just appears that the right length of time doesn't get added on in most games.

Alfs 1:40 Sat May 7
Re: Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
Woodford Green 1:08 Sat May 7

Often wondered that so I just did a quick Google and apparently it's still a rule, but at the discretion of the referee.

Woodford Green 1:08 Sat May 7
Re: Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
About 15 years ago they introduced a rule that the GK could only hold the ball in his hands for no more than 6 seconds.

Any idea why this got reversed?

Page 1 - Next




Copyright 2006 WHO.NET | Powered by: