Football 2010-2011

[Benj]

Isn't that just purist romanticism though, which should have no place in a debate about progress.

[Tugger2k]

It's difficult to know what's right without knowing all the details - cos there's a big difference between shooting someone by accident and shooting them deliberately.

[ampersand]

Music after goals is regression.

Glitter Cannons is progress, massive glitter cannons.

[eFestivals]

i googled earlier and couldn't find, but what's the average time for ball in play in a football game?

the amount of throw ins, free kicks, goal kicks, restarts after goals, injuries etc, it's far more stop start than you would be led to think by neil and you had you never seen a game.

the actual playing time is usually around 2/3's of the 90 minutes I think. As a comparison, yank football (which works the minutes in a different manner) takes over twice the playing time to complete the match.

But the difference between the stoppages in football and the stoppages in other sports is the length of the stoppages. A stoppage can be just one second, because the stoppages are included within the playing time and so there's an incentive to get on with the game. Once you start having forced stoppages for reviews then the whole method of playing the game also has to change to for it work properly, and the stoppage time is likely to be taken outside of the playing time.

When the yanks had the world cup in '94 they tried their hardest to get FIFA to change the rules - they asked for halves of no longer than 30 minutes (so they could get in more ad-breaks), and they asked for stoppages to not be a part of the playing time (to get in more ad-breaks). FIFA very rightly told them where to shove it, because they recognised that the flow of the game is a big part of its appeal.

[Benj]

It's difficult to know what's right without knowing all the details - cos there's a big difference between shooting someone by accident and shooting them deliberately.

[worm]

Music after goals is regression.

Glitter Cannons is progress, massive glitter cannons.

[Gre]

Just wanted to add/correct/clarify a few things;

The biggest timewaster for NFL games are adverts. NFL games usually last 3hr - 3hr15 all in. The games I used to play - college rules - but basically the same, usually lasted 2hr30 - 2hr 45.

NFL reviews take place during the adverts, because (except very near the end of a game) they go to adverts when there is a review... it is an extra stoppage. And sometimes the stoppage can be getting on for 5 minutes. But that usually isn't the case.

BUT - NFL reviews don't stop foul play. They're used for 'factual' events; did the receiver get two feet down before going out of bounds, did the ball touch the ground before being caught, did the ball cross the plane of the goalline etc.

They are not used to stop foul play; things like holding & blocks in the back aren't eligible for review. But you don't often hear about calls like those being missed.

Then again, the NFL has 7 officials to watch 22 people. Maybe that's the way to improve things.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Gre

[eFestivals]

You only get two per half though, so you aren't inclined to waste them on trivialities.

so what you're saying is that the game would be improved by the removal of errors, but that you don't care about removing the errors if there's a lot of them.

Yeah, that makes things all so much better, and really fits with the whole idea you've put forwards for why we should be doing this.

A rule that says errors don't matter if there's too many of them is far more stupid than anything about the current system, which at least tries to be consistent.

[Benj]

the actual playing time is usually around 2/3's of the 90 minutes I think. As a comparison, yank football (which works the minutes in a different manner) takes over twice the playing time to complete the match.

But the difference between the stoppages in football and the stoppages in other sports is the length of the stoppages. A stoppage can be just one second, because the stoppages are included within the playing time and so there's an incentive to get on with the game. Once you start having forced stoppages for reviews then the whole method of playing the game also has to change to for it work properly, and the stoppage time is likely to be taken outside of the playing time.

When the yanks had the world cup in '94 they tried their hardest to get FIFA to change the rules - they asked for halves of no longer than 30 minutes (so they could get in more ad-breaks), and they asked for stoppages to not be a part of the playing time (to get in more ad-breaks). FIFA very rightly told them where to shove it, because they recognised that the flow of the game is a big part of its appeal.

[eFestivals]

You can adapt it to apply to football quite easily. The NFL/Cricket referal system is a good one and I reckon you can incorporate some instances to ongoing play so that you'll get word without it stopping the game. I personally think that this would add excitement and have people praying at the big screens, while watching the game.

PMSL.

Thank f**k you're just a pretend fan.

[ampersand]

the actual playing time is usually around 2/3's of the 90 minutes I think. As a comparison, yank football (which works the minutes in a different manner) takes over twice the playing time to complete the match.

But the difference between the stoppages in football and the stoppages in other sports is the length of the stoppages. A stoppage can be just one second, because the stoppages are included within the playing time and so there's an incentive to get on with the game. Once you start having forced stoppages for reviews then the whole method of playing the game also has to change to for it work properly, and the stoppage time is likely to be taken outside of the playing time.

When the yanks had the world cup in '94 they tried their hardest to get FIFA to change the rules - they asked for halves of no longer than 30 minutes (so they could get in more ad-breaks), and they asked for stoppages to not be a part of the playing time (to get in more ad-breaks). FIFA very rightly told them where to shove it, because they recognised that the flow of the game is a big part of its appeal.

[worm]

the actual playing time is usually around 2/3's of the 90 minutes I think. As a comparison, yank football (which works the minutes in a different manner) takes over twice the playing time to complete the match.

[worm]

Thank f**k you're just a pretend fan.

Edited March 1, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

to be fair neil

to 'accidentally' shoot someone at work means.......

accidentally loading your air gun

accidentally taking your air gun to work

accidentally aiming it at someone

accidentally forgetting that it was loaded

accidentally pulling the trigger

im pretty sure that almost any other walk of life, accidental or not, if any 'normal' person took an air gun to work and shot the work experience kid, we'd be given our P45's just as the rozzers turned up

I had my cat shot with an airgun by some little arsehole years ago, so I understand what happens. And what happens is that a moving target is far more interesting to shoot at than a static one.

But that aside, perhaps Cole had been given permission to shoot his gun on the site, on the basis that it was site big enough for it to be used safely. I don't know the details, so this might be the case - and if it is then most of what you say above is irrelevant. It was that I was getting at.

And it might have been a genuine accident. It probably wasn't, but I don't know that for sure.

If it was a genuine accident and the gun was being used on that site with Chelsea's permission then from one angle the punishment is quite harsh.

But of course if it's as you lay it out then it's a joke .... but these are footie players, where the real world doesn't much apply because that's the situation that fans have allowed to happen by buying into the bollocks that clubs have tried to sell them.

[worm]

so what you're saying is that the game would be improved by the removal of errors, but that you don't care about removing the errors if there's a lot of them.

Yeah, that makes things all so much better, and really fits with the whole idea you've put forwards for why we should be doing this.

A rule that says errors don't matter if there's too many of them is far more stupid than anything about the current system, which at least tries to be consistent.

Edited March 1, 2011 by worm

[ampersand]

also, how is any of this different to the flawed current format of a ref speaking to his buddy on the line. where they can be stood talking for 30 seconds before the ref walks up to either caution someone or award a penalty?

that breaks up play that people say is fine as it is. what's so wrong with technology playing the part of the linesman?

[TheGayTent]

Isn't that just purist romanticism though, which should have no place in a debate about progress.

Edited March 1, 2011 by TheGayTent

[Benj]

yeah i heard that they wanted it changed to quarters for 94 by an old teacher. that's obviously ridiculous though.

i'm fine with how we have it just now, there's nothing funnier than a bunch of foaming mouthed fans at a blatant incorrect decision. on either side. i stand behind one of the moaniest guys on the planet who spends the majority of his time shouting at the ref.

but you can have a player down injured for ten minutes. and i don't think that makes that game any worse because it's been interrupted. and you wouldn't be interupting the game for ten minutes at a time. probably not even ten minutes a game.

[eFestivals]

I see you lack a counter argument and have reverted to ignoring the points put to you.

yeah, cos there's a sensible counter-argument to be made to someone who thinks stoppages will improve the game, and that watching big screen is the best excitement to be had at a match.

[worm]

You are talking about progress. You're talking about butchering a game that doesn't need butchering.

Edited March 1, 2011 by worm

[worm]

yeah, cos there's a sensible counter-argument to be made to someone who thinks stoppages will improve the game, and that watching big screen is the best excitement to be had at a match.

Edited March 1, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

No. What I'm saying is that there is a much, much better system that would cease majorly wrong decisions from standing, would increase fair play and would decrease cheating at the expense of having a team of video reviewers review big plays. The play doesn't even have to stop for the review, just for the manager to call for a review.

Keep up.

the play doesn't have to stop for a review in that manner. But the play has to be wiped and re-started for any successful review.

So what happens if the other team scores a perfectly good goal in the play that shouldn't have happened because a wrong call had been made previous to it?

And any call that the ref might make can be ignored by the players, because that call might be reviewed and over-turned. So there's no meaningful control of the game at all at any time.

It's completely unworkable, before even thinking of the wider effects on the appeal of the game. Just because you like snoozeball doesn't mean that's what footie fans want to see.

[ampersand]

And any call that the ref might make can be ignored by the players, because that call might be reviewed and over-turned. So there's no meaningful control of the game at all at any time.

[TheGayTent]

You've given absolutely no rationale at all to suggest that this would butcher the game. None whatsoever. What you've done is stated it.

Do you really think I'd support 'butchering' a game I enjoy to watch? My argument is that it wouldn't be butchered and yours is purist nonsense.

[eFestivals]

There's just no counter argument Neil as you've clearly ignored every comeback and continued as if nothing's been said.

To clarify:

1. There are already stoppages (as explained).

2. The play can continue while a review is in progress (as explained).

What problem do you see with that, other than fear of change and purist romanticism?

1. there are, but are too short for reviews. So they'd be longer stoppages - it's not unchanged as you're suggesting.

2. that creates more problems than it solves. A perfectly good goal (which is nothing to do with what's under review) could be scored before a call is made on that review.

I have no fear of change. I have great fear of gross stupidity that's not joining up the dots.

I have no purist romantisicm, I do the practical. And nothing you're saying is practical without changing the game we love into one that we don't.

If I was a fan of snoozeball I'd already be a fan of yank football and cricket and other things.