60 Minute Matches

[Exonerator]

Forgive me if there's been a discussion about this elsewhere but I thought I'd create a thread on it anyway because I'm torn about it.

Basically, there's been a suggestion from the IFAB to change the length of a match from 90 minutes to 60 minutes with the clock being stopped when the ball goes out of play; the logic behind it being to prevent there being an incentive to time waste.

I like the concept because apparently on average the ball is only in play for 55-60 minutes per match anyway but it seems like a huge change and there's a lot of opposition to it.

What do you think?

[ChappyHova]

I don't really see the negative to it other than breaking tradition. Would be weird for a while but people would get used to it

[Stu]

90 minutes with the clock stopping when it goes out. Rugby goes 80 mins with the clock stopping, no reason football needs to go 20 mins less.

[Simon]

Yeah but if the balls only in play on average 60 minutes per game then that would add another 30 minutes of actual playing time. Essentially adding extra time to every single game. Players would be fucked.

You to reduce the total time if your stopping the clock when out of play.

[Olivier]

I'm not 100% sold but it's an interesting idea. I don't think the broadcasters would be though with things like "Championship Sunday" being screwed up with matches at different points.

They need to figure out how the match ends too. If they are doing this does the match end on a buzzer when the clock hits 0 or the next time the ball goes out of play etc?

[Stu]

Jun 23, 2017 10:16:57 GMT Simon said:

Yeah but if the balls only in play on average 60 minutes per game then that would add another 30 minutes of actual playing time. Essentially adding extra time to every single game. Players would be fucked.

You to reduce the total time if your stopping the clock when out of play.

fuck the players im the one having to pay £40+ to watch it

[notpropaganda]

Makes sense to me tbh. I'd say they should end it when the ball goes out of play ala rugby, and if there's any cynicism (fouling players just to end the match) then you've a free play to carry on.

Could be interesting too because if teams are chasing a goal they may be more likely to hold onto possession to work an opening rather than lumping it into the box.

[Today I feel Uruguay]

Stopping the clock when the ball goes out is a must however long they want to make the matches. Never understood stoppage time being about a 10th of what is should be.

[ChappyHova]

No one could complain about added time any more either, when they put up 4 minutes and play 4 minutes 30 seconds for what seems like no reason.

[Simon]

Jun 23, 2017 11:45:36 GMT ChappyHova said:

No one could complain about added time any more either, when they put up 4 minutes and play 4 minutes 30 seconds for what seems like no reason.

Yeah but then what will people talk about in the pub?

[Stu]

How shit a 60 minute match is

[ChappyHova]

Why? It's the same lol

[Stu]

Cos it just sounds shit lol why not 80 like rugby, they beat the fuck out of each other and go longer

[Simon]

Why does it need to be longer? If the amount of actual playing time remains the same then there's no difference.

[ChappyHova]

Rugby is a lot different, it's more aerobic than anaerobic. I used to play Rugby and I could do the 80 minutes, don't get me wrong it wasn't easy but for a lot of the game you can be plodding about. Obviously there is still lots of sprinting but also more opportunities to catch your breath, in football you don't have those opportunities without fucking your team up.

Put me on a footy pitch and I'm gasping for air after 5 minutes cause there's loads more sprinting.