What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***Official Soccer Discussion Thread*** (3 Viewers)

The Dutch Football Association (KNVB) is proposing five radical rule changes to the way football is played.

Speaking at the Soccerex event in Amsterdam, Gijs de Jong, the KNVB’s secretary-general, was talking about how football may look by 2050.
De Jong outlined that the KNVB is lobbying FIFA and the International Football Association Board (IFAB), football’s law-making body, to implement its proposed changes. Its five proposals include throw-ins being replaced by kick-ins, self-pass free kicks, sin bins, flying substitutes, and the introduction of net playing time.

Kick-ins replacing throw-ins would mean when the ball goes out of play it will be kicked back onto the pitch as opposed to thrown in by the player. A self-pass free-kick would allow the player to pass the ball to themselves from a free-kick, something they are not allowed to do at the moment.

Flying substitutions would enable the manager to make as many changes as they want during a match. The current rules allow for five substitutions, which was increased in the Premier League and around Europe from three to five ahead of the 2022-23 season.
The KNVB also wants to see sin bins replace yellow cards and has been experimenting in the Netherlands with different times, initially starting at 10 minutes before switching to five.

It is also proposing 30-minute halves, doing away with the standard 45 minutes. As part of its ideas, the match would not stop when a substitution is taking place, rather, when the clock would be paused any time the ball goes out of play, meaning you would be guaranteed 60 minutes of in-play action.

The KNVB has implemented kick-ins and self-pass free-kicks in youth football and will be trialling all rule changes when PSV Eindhoven host the Otten Innovation Cup in August.

IFAB is aware of the KNVB’s proposals and its kick-ins instead of throw-ins idea has been discussed by the organisation’s Football Advisory Panel and Technical Advisory Panel before.
https://archive.ph/o/Z3PMe/https://...23/08/10/premier-league-rule-changes-2023-24/
 
The Dutch Football Association (KNVB) is proposing five radical rule changes to the way football is played.

Speaking at the Soccerex event in Amsterdam, Gijs de Jong, the KNVB’s secretary-general, was talking about how football may look by 2050.
De Jong outlined that the KNVB is lobbying FIFA and the International Football Association Board (IFAB), football’s law-making body, to implement its proposed changes. Its five proposals include throw-ins being replaced by kick-ins, self-pass free kicks, sin bins, flying substitutes, and the introduction of net playing time.

Kick-ins replacing throw-ins would mean when the ball goes out of play it will be kicked back onto the pitch as opposed to thrown in by the player. A self-pass free-kick would allow the player to pass the ball to themselves from a free-kick, something they are not allowed to do at the moment.

Flying substitutions would enable the manager to make as many changes as they want during a match. The current rules allow for five substitutions, which was increased in the Premier League and around Europe from three to five ahead of the 2022-23 season.
The KNVB also wants to see sin bins replace yellow cards and has been experimenting in the Netherlands with different times, initially starting at 10 minutes before switching to five.

It is also proposing 30-minute halves, doing away with the standard 45 minutes. As part of its ideas, the match would not stop when a substitution is taking place, rather, when the clock would be paused any time the ball goes out of play, meaning you would be guaranteed 60 minutes of in-play action.

The KNVB has implemented kick-ins and self-pass free-kicks in youth football and will be trialling all rule changes when PSV Eindhoven host the Otten Innovation Cup in August.

IFAB is aware of the KNVB’s proposals and its kick-ins instead of throw-ins idea has been discussed by the organisation’s Football Advisory Panel and Technical Advisory Panel before.
https://archive.ph/o/Z3PMe/https://...23/08/10/premier-league-rule-changes-2023-24/
No. No NO NO NO and HELL NO. Stop trying to ruin the beautiful game with these ridiculous changes.

If I remember correctly, most games have approx 50-55 mins of action in the 90 mins. So now they want to change the fundamental way the game is managed to get 5-10 more mins of action?
 
If I remember correctly, most games have approx 50-55 mins of action in the 90 mins. So now they want to change the fundamental way the game is managed to get 5-10 more mins of action?
I may be incorrect but the idea of the clock stoppage has little to do with adding 5 extra minutes to a game. I believe the idea behind it is to remove all incentives to time waste (which continues to be a huge problem the refs can not handle in any consistent manner).

I would be a 100% behind the change if it were not opening a huge window for commercial interruptions like all other sports are plagued with.

The other 4 changes I don't have too much of an opinion on one way or another. I would prefer not to see hockey style subs though if I had a choice. I would much rather see an improvement or change to the offside rule.
 
If I remember correctly, most games have approx 50-55 mins of action in the 90 mins. So now they want to change the fundamental way the game is managed to get 5-10 more mins of action?
I may be incorrect but the idea of the clock stoppage has little to do with adding 5 extra minutes to a game. I believe the idea behind it is to remove all incentives to time waste (which continues to be a huge problem the refs can not handle in any consistent manner).

I would be a 100% behind the change if it were not opening a huge window for commercial interruptions like all other sports are plagued with.

The other 4 changes I don't have too much of an opinion on one way or another. I would prefer not to see hockey style subs though if I had a choice. I would much rather see an improvement or change to the offside rule.
Yes, they are trying to remove time wasting by changing to a 60 minute stopped clock instead of enforcing laws already on the books.

My point being studies have shown that there is actually something like 50-55 minutes of actual in-game action across the 90 mins (if I remember correctly, I could be wrong). They are exploring a fundamental change to the game that would ultimately net them an additional 5-10 mins of actual in-game action. And may extend the full run time beyond 2 hour block most regular games can fit in. Why? I do not think that is the positive they believe it is.

And in their scenario, is that going to stop a keeper from lying on the floor with the ball? Not going to stop someone from taking way to much time on a free kick.

Like you said it will be "opening a huge window for commercial interruptions like all other sports are plagued with."
 
Austin FC just paid $7.5 million to get Osman Bukari. Trying to read about him and watch highlights but I don't know much.

For y'all experts - can I get excited about this? This is a good thing for us, right?
from what I have read it sounds like an exciting signing but neither I nor many others are going to claim to have much knowledge of the Serbian league.

DAMMIT. What’s the point of this thread then? I thought yall were soccer nerds?

(I’m joking, if that wasn’t clear).
 
Austin FC just paid $7.5 million to get Osman Bukari. Trying to read about him and watch highlights but I don't know much.

For y'all experts - can I get excited about this? This is a good thing for us, right?
from what I have read it sounds like an exciting signing but neither I nor many others are going to claim to have much knowledge of the Serbian league.

DAMMIT. What’s the point of this thread then? I thought yall were soccer nerds?

(I’m joking, if that wasn’t clear).
Yeah but they play football in Serbia. Different type of nerd
 
Austin FC just paid $7.5 million to get Osman Bukari. Trying to read about him and watch highlights but I don't know much.

For y'all experts - can I get excited about this? This is a good thing for us, right?
from what I have read it sounds like an exciting signing but neither I nor many others are going to claim to have much knowledge of the Serbian league.

DAMMIT. What’s the point of this thread then? I thought yall were soccer nerds?

(I’m joking, if that wasn’t clear).
You guys don't watch the Serbian leagues?

osman is a stud... Plays with both feet, uses his teammates, works hard off the ball and does the funky chicken dance with sound affects when he scores. Also wears underoos during games. And may or may not juggle bowling pins while playing.

Based on extensive serbian league watching.
 
For fans of the long running EA FIFA game that was discontinued after FIFA and EA ended their 30 year partnership, FIFA is expected to announced the FIFA licenses for games has been sold to game developer 2K.
 
Last edited:
My team is doomed :(

================
https://x.com/CalebPongratz10
Caleb Pongratz

@CalebPongratz10

Caleb Porter stated that the Revolution held an inter-squad scrimmage yesterday that they won 2-0 .... Dylan Borrero and Giacomo Vrioni scored...

"Those are little things that hopefully will help us get over the hump in terms of confidence" - Caleb Porter

No idea how you win an inter-squad scrimmage when you're playing yourself though...
 
For me, this is a huge issue that needs to be solved but I think it should first start with having a clear defined off season for all leagues.

For example, reading that Spurs was traveling half way across the world as soon as the season was over to start playing friendlies is insane to me.

=========

 
It is no wonder the Revs have been selling off high quality players and replacing them with cheap knockoffs that they are now the worst team in the league.

This was one of the Revs sales to Chelsea

Gotta feel bad for Revs fans, but I'm happy for Djorde. He got his shot and grabbed it with both hands.

I don't think he'll be Chelsea's #1 long term. He's not top 10 GK in the world caliber, which is what Chelsea will have ambitions for it's GK. However, he's clearly a capable enough GK to play a long time in the top 5 leagues in Europe. I expect him to eventually settle into a mid-tier to upper half team in the EPL and be a 6-10 season #1 guy for a team.
 
Time stoppages in soccer? Absolutely not. There are rules out there that WILL regulate time wasting. USE THEM. Stopping the clock will do nothing but give incentive to add commercials to the only sport currently without that ****ty part of the product.

I will consider the merits of any other possible changes, but on this I'm adamantly against it. We all know exactly what greed will do with those stopped clocks and I want nothing to do with that. I stopped watching the NBA mostly because of commercials and time stoppages. The last 5 minutes of a game take an hour now. It's stupid, frustrating, insane, and it's why that sport is dying. Please keep it out of soccer.
 
For example, reading that Spurs was traveling half way across the world as soon as the season was over to start playing friendlies is insane to me.

Newcastle was on the same tour and trotted out their youth team to take on the A League All Stars and predictably got battered. Some people were crying that it was disrespectful to do that instead of playing the first team (Spurs and Newcastle played strong lineups against each other) but what is Howe supposed to do? I actually think he was sending a bit of a message to ownership.
 
MLS stopped the clock without extra ads back in the day. And if Americans can do it...

They caught no amount of **** for that change, but it was glorious. No time-wasting. Refs couldn't cheat for Alex Ferguson. Fans and players knew exactly how much time was left. Fantastic in every way without any downsides IMO.

ETA: worth adding that they didn't stop it every time the ball went out of play. Just for the time-wasting, injuries, etc.
 
MLS stopped the clock without extra ads back in the day. And if Americans can do it...

They caught no amount of **** for that change, but it was glorious. No time-wasting. Refs couldn't cheat for Alex Ferguson. Fans and players knew exactly how much time was left. Fantastic in every way without any downsides IMO.

ETA: worth adding that they didn't stop it every time the ball went out of play. Just for the time-wasting, injuries, etc.
MLS was predominantly idealistic college kids who didn't know anything about time wasting anyways. Was not a league where that would've been the case whatever you did with the clock.
 
MLS stopped the clock without extra ads back in the day. And if Americans can do it...

They caught no amount of **** for that change, but it was glorious. No time-wasting. Refs couldn't cheat for Alex Ferguson. Fans and players knew exactly how much time was left. Fantastic in every way without any downsides IMO.

ETA: worth adding that they didn't stop it every time the ball went out of play. Just for the time-wasting, injuries, etc.
So much wrong with this. Where's the "worst post ever" emoji??

Let's start with the obviously subjective nature of when to stop the clock and what constitutes "time wasting".

And I absolutely hated the stopped clock, 10 second crowd countdown to the end of a game when I got to college and this was a thing. The drama of trying to score before the whistle blew or trying to hold on to the lead, not knowing when it will was part of the emotion and the passion of the game.
 
Yeah, we're not gonna agree on this one. I watched it game in and game out for several seasons and loved it. It ENDED time wasting. It made Fergie Time impossible. Refs had a tool they could actually use to manage the ticky tack time-wasting -- the things they were never in a million years going to yellow card for every offence. There was no incentive to stay down if you weren't hurt. The clock stopped either way -- so if you were really injured you could still get treatment. A GK is time wasting a restart or the ball is booted into row Z97 after the whistle? Just stop the clock until the ball's in play. There's literally no downside.
 
For example, reading that Spurs was traveling half way across the world as soon as the season was over to start playing friendlies is insane to me.

Newcastle was on the same tour and trotted out their youth team to take on the A League All Stars and predictably got battered. Some people were crying that it was disrespectful to do that instead of playing the first team (Spurs and Newcastle played strong lineups against each other) but what is Howe supposed to do? I actually think he was sending a bit of a message to ownership.

Roma played Milan in Perth Australia today, apparently. This seems incredibly stupid but I guess they know what they are doing and I've not really looked into it. I can't image spending a single Australian dollar nor wasting a minute of my life watching this game.

 
For example, reading that Spurs was traveling half way across the world as soon as the season was over to start playing friendlies is insane to me.

Newcastle was on the same tour and trotted out their youth team to take on the A League All Stars and predictably got battered. Some people were crying that it was disrespectful to do that instead of playing the first team (Spurs and Newcastle played strong lineups against each other) but what is Howe supposed to do? I actually think he was sending a bit of a message to ownership.

Roma played Milan in Perth Australia today, apparently. This seems incredibly stupid but I guess they know what they are doing and I've not really looked into it. I can't image spending a single Australian dollar nor wasting a minute of my life watching this game.

Allow me to be sound from the other side.
They are expanding the game world wide. If you are a fan of Serie A and this is the one game between these two historic clubs you get to see, it's a fun exhibition. I've been to a number of Man United games in the U.S. as it's much more affordable than going to Old Trafford. Sure, I expect only a token appearance of the stars and a lot of youth players, but it's a great atmosphere. Stands are almost always packed.
Today's game had a near full attendance. Alessandro Del Piero played a few years in Australia after his Juve glory days and i'm sure that brought some attention to the Serie A.
These are 20-30 year old adults in peak shape. Their entire job is devoted to playing soccer. They are flying charters to Australia and get a chance to be tourists and play a soccer match. No one is taking it super seriously, it's an exhibition. I see absolutely no issues with it. If players are not fit, or injured, they don't play.
Hell, how many games has Anthony Martial played over the past 36 months and he's made tens of millions of dollars. If you can't play an exhibition to expand your fan base, maybe they can get into another field? I'm sure there are plenty of other opportunities afforded to these guys to make millions of dollars a year out there.
 
Yeah, we're not gonna agree on this one. I watched it game in and game out for several seasons and loved it. It ENDED time wasting. It made Fergie Time impossible. Refs had a tool they could actually use to manage the ticky tack time-wasting -- the things they were never in a million years going to yellow card for every offence. There was no incentive to stay down if you weren't hurt. The clock stopped either way -- so if you were really injured you could still get treatment. A GK is time wasting a restart or the ball is booted into row Z97 after the whistle? Just stop the clock until the ball's in play. There's literally no downside.
You are correct, we will not agree :boxing:

I've played since I was 6, every level through college and sunday league. Watch constantly. Yes the time wasting is an issue. Mostly that they allow the keeper to "fall down" with the ball when no one is around and sit on it. And they allow throwins to take way to long. Don't book them, give free kicks (like you are supposed to with the keeper). Refs have a lot they can do to move the game along and don't. But the "we don't get enough in-game action over 90 mins so lets change it" is not an issue to me.

To me there is a ton of downside:
Lack of drama from that one last attack
Games taking beyond 2 hours to play
Inevitable commercial breaks and extended clock stoppages
Constant need to Americanize every spot
Removal of a potential 30 mins of in-game action


(It's all good, I just love the game how it is and see no reason to change it)
 
Last edited:
Games taking beyond 2 hours to play
Inevitable commercial breaks and extended clock stoppages
Constant need to Americanize every spot
Removal of a potential 30 mins of in-game action
I was talking about a stopped clock generally, not the Dutch idea of a 60 minute limit on play (though few games get 60 minutes anyhow).

In practice the MLS stopped clock experiment:
  • Did not increase the length of games (the stoppages just replaced "injury time")
  • There were no commercial breaks
  • It had no impact on the amount of in-game action
Those things at least we don't have to wonder about. The rule was in place from 96-99 and didn't do those things. I'd love to see some hard numbers, but I don't think I ever have.

The one thing that would be fine by me to add would be something like rugby uses -- where an attacking play (including resulting corners?) would continue at the end of regulation until the defending team gains possession of the ball.
 
Games taking beyond 2 hours to play
Inevitable commercial breaks and extended clock stoppages
Constant need to Americanize every spot
Removal of a potential 30 mins of in-game action
I was talking about a stopped clock generally, not the Ducth idea of a 60 minute limit on play (though few games get 60 minutes anyhow).

In practice the MLS stopped clock experiment:
  • Did not increase the length of games (the stoppages just replaced "injury time")
  • There were no commercial breaks
  • It had no impact on the amount of in-game action
Those things at least we don't have to wonder about. The rule was in place from 96-99 and didn't do those things. I'd love to see some hard numbers, but I don't think I ever have.

The one thing that would be fine by me to add would be something like rugby uses -- where an attacking play (including resulting corners?) would continue at the end of regulation until the defending team gains possession of the ball.
So you are saying the added "injury time" is fairly close to what the stop clock would add to a game?

The only reason people are talking about this is to try and get more "in-game action". And basically you are saying that didn't happen.
 
Games taking beyond 2 hours to play
Inevitable commercial breaks and extended clock stoppages
Constant need to Americanize every spot
Removal of a potential 30 mins of in-game action
I was talking about a stopped clock generally, not the Ducth idea of a 60 minute limit on play (though few games get 60 minutes anyhow).

In practice the MLS stopped clock experiment:
  • Did not increase the length of games (the stoppages just replaced "injury time")
  • There were no commercial breaks
  • It had no impact on the amount of in-game action
Those things at least we don't have to wonder about. The rule was in place from 96-99 and didn't do those things. I'd love to see some hard numbers, but I don't think I ever have.

The one thing that would be fine by me to add would be something like rugby uses -- where an attacking play (including resulting corners?) would continue at the end of regulation until the defending team gains possession of the ball.
So you are saying the added "injury time" is fairly close to what the stop clock would add to a game?

The only reason people are talking about this is to try and get more "in-game action". And basically you are saying that didn't happen.
I think the only reason people are looking for solutions is not specifically about more game action. It is almost 100% about trying to fix time wasting of which the current rules are not effective enough and players know they can get away with crap.

More game action may be a nice result of fixing time wasting but I don't think it is the main goal.
 
Games taking beyond 2 hours to play
Inevitable commercial breaks and extended clock stoppages
Constant need to Americanize every spot
Removal of a potential 30 mins of in-game action
I was talking about a stopped clock generally, not the Ducth idea of a 60 minute limit on play (though few games get 60 minutes anyhow).

In practice the MLS stopped clock experiment:
  • Did not increase the length of games (the stoppages just replaced "injury time")
  • There were no commercial breaks
  • It had no impact on the amount of in-game action
Those things at least we don't have to wonder about. The rule was in place from 96-99 and didn't do those things. I'd love to see some hard numbers, but I don't think I ever have.

The one thing that would be fine by me to add would be something like rugby uses -- where an attacking play (including resulting corners?) would continue at the end of regulation until the defending team gains possession of the ball.
So you are saying the added "injury time" is fairly close to what the stop clock would add to a game?

The only reason people are talking about this is to try and get more "in-game action". And basically you are saying that didn't happen.
I think the only reason people are looking for solutions is not specifically about more game action. It is almost 100% about trying to fix time wasting of which the current rules are not effective enough and players know they can get away with crap.

More game action may be a nice result of fixing time wasting but I don't think it is the main goal.
You could be right, but most every time I see the talk on this it is linked between the two.

And if that puts me in the "Get off my Lawn!" category, so be it. Don't change the beautiful game!
:banned:
 
For example, reading that Spurs was traveling half way across the world as soon as the season was over to start playing friendlies is insane to me.

Newcastle was on the same tour and trotted out their youth team to take on the A League All Stars and predictably got battered. Some people were crying that it was disrespectful to do that instead of playing the first team (Spurs and Newcastle played strong lineups against each other) but what is Howe supposed to do? I actually think he was sending a bit of a message to ownership.

Roma played Milan in Perth Australia today, apparently. This seems incredibly stupid but I guess they know what they are doing and I've not really looked into it. I can't image spending a single Australian dollar nor wasting a minute of my life watching this game.

Allow me to be sound from the other side.
They are expanding the game world wide. If you are a fan of Serie A and this is the one game between these two historic clubs you get to see, it's a fun exhibition. I've been to a number of Man United games in the U.S. as it's much more affordable than going to Old Trafford. Sure, I expect only a token appearance of the stars and a lot of youth players, but it's a great atmosphere. Stands are almost always packed.
Today's game had a near full attendance. Alessandro Del Piero played a few years in Australia after his Juve glory days and i'm sure that brought some attention to the Serie A.
These are 20-30 year old adults in peak shape. Their entire job is devoted to playing soccer. They are flying charters to Australia and get a chance to be tourists and play a soccer match. No one is taking it super seriously, it's an exhibition. I see absolutely no issues with it. If players are not fit, or injured, they don't play.
Hell, how many games has Anthony Martial played over the past 36 months and he's made tens of millions of dollars. If you can't play an exhibition to expand your fan base, maybe they can get into another field? I'm sure there are plenty of other opportunities afforded to these guys to make millions of dollars a year out there.

I get why they do it and understand the need for constant branding / marketing efforts to raise revenue in football. I went to a couple pre-season exhibitions in the US about 15-20 years ago and swore off them at that time. I'd rather go watch a local bar league game where players are running hard and trying to win. I know that is just me being old and curmudgeonly, but the point here is that this is not a pre-season exhibition. Their season finished less than a week ago. I don't know the status of all these guys, but I see several names who are likely playing tournaments this summer, including Musah, and question whether that's fair to them.
 
Games taking beyond 2 hours to play
Inevitable commercial breaks and extended clock stoppages
Constant need to Americanize every spot
Removal of a potential 30 mins of in-game action
I was talking about a stopped clock generally, not the Dutch idea of a 60 minute limit on play (though few games get 60 minutes anyhow).

In practice the MLS stopped clock experiment:
  • Did not increase the length of games (the stoppages just replaced "injury time")
  • There were no commercial breaks
  • It had no impact on the amount of in-game action
Those things at least we don't have to wonder about. The rule was in place from 96-99 and didn't do those things. I'd love to see some hard numbers, but I don't think I ever have.

The one thing that would be fine by me to add would be something like rugby uses -- where an attacking play (including resulting corners?) would continue at the end of regulation until the defending team gains possession of the ball.

I was at a Div 1 college game in the US a few years ago and saw a "buzzer-beater" goal. The kick was taken from open play and a horn sounded while it was in the air going toward goal. It was either a game winner or equalizer. Didn't feel right to me but the crowd loved it.
 
For example, reading that Spurs was traveling half way across the world as soon as the season was over to start playing friendlies is insane to me.

Newcastle was on the same tour and trotted out their youth team to take on the A League All Stars and predictably got battered. Some people were crying that it was disrespectful to do that instead of playing the first team (Spurs and Newcastle played strong lineups against each other) but what is Howe supposed to do? I actually think he was sending a bit of a message to ownership.

Roma played Milan in Perth Australia today, apparently. This seems incredibly stupid but I guess they know what they are doing and I've not really looked into it. I can't image spending a single Australian dollar nor wasting a minute of my life watching this game.

Allow me to be sound from the other side.
They are expanding the game world wide. If you are a fan of Serie A and this is the one game between these two historic clubs you get to see, it's a fun exhibition. I've been to a number of Man United games in the U.S. as it's much more affordable than going to Old Trafford. Sure, I expect only a token appearance of the stars and a lot of youth players, but it's a great atmosphere. Stands are almost always packed.
Today's game had a near full attendance. Alessandro Del Piero played a few years in Australia after his Juve glory days and i'm sure that brought some attention to the Serie A.
These are 20-30 year old adults in peak shape. Their entire job is devoted to playing soccer. They are flying charters to Australia and get a chance to be tourists and play a soccer match. No one is taking it super seriously, it's an exhibition. I see absolutely no issues with it. If players are not fit, or injured, they don't play.
Hell, how many games has Anthony Martial played over the past 36 months and he's made tens of millions of dollars. If you can't play an exhibition to expand your fan base, maybe they can get into another field? I'm sure there are plenty of other opportunities afforded to these guys to make millions of dollars a year out there.

For me it’s the timing. I’m fine with preseason tours, but not so much immediately after injury-plagued season tours.
 
Games taking beyond 2 hours to play
Inevitable commercial breaks and extended clock stoppages
Constant need to Americanize every spot
Removal of a potential 30 mins of in-game action
I was talking about a stopped clock generally, not the Dutch idea of a 60 minute limit on play (though few games get 60 minutes anyhow).

In practice the MLS stopped clock experiment:
  • Did not increase the length of games (the stoppages just replaced "injury time")
  • There were no commercial breaks
  • It had no impact on the amount of in-game action
Those things at least we don't have to wonder about. The rule was in place from 96-99 and didn't do those things. I'd love to see some hard numbers, but I don't think I ever have.

The one thing that would be fine by me to add would be something like rugby uses -- where an attacking play (including resulting corners?) would continue at the end of regulation until the defending team gains possession of the ball.

I was at a Div 1 college game in the US a few years ago and saw a "buzzer-beater" goal. The kick was taken from open play and a horn sounded while it was in the air going toward goal. It was either a game winner or equalizer. Didn't feel right to me but the crowd loved it.
Did they allow the goal?

Should be a no goal if after the horn. Yet another reason against it.
 
For example, reading that Spurs was traveling half way across the world as soon as the season was over to start playing friendlies is insane to me.

Newcastle was on the same tour and trotted out their youth team to take on the A League All Stars and predictably got battered. Some people were crying that it was disrespectful to do that instead of playing the first team (Spurs and Newcastle played strong lineups against each other) but what is Howe supposed to do? I actually think he was sending a bit of a message to ownership.

Roma played Milan in Perth Australia today, apparently. This seems incredibly stupid but I guess they know what they are doing and I've not really looked into it. I can't image spending a single Australian dollar nor wasting a minute of my life watching this game.

Allow me to be sound from the other side.
They are expanding the game world wide. If you are a fan of Serie A and this is the one game between these two historic clubs you get to see, it's a fun exhibition. I've been to a number of Man United games in the U.S. as it's much more affordable than going to Old Trafford. Sure, I expect only a token appearance of the stars and a lot of youth players, but it's a great atmosphere. Stands are almost always packed.
Today's game had a near full attendance. Alessandro Del Piero played a few years in Australia after his Juve glory days and i'm sure that brought some attention to the Serie A.
These are 20-30 year old adults in peak shape. Their entire job is devoted to playing soccer. They are flying charters to Australia and get a chance to be tourists and play a soccer match. No one is taking it super seriously, it's an exhibition. I see absolutely no issues with it. If players are not fit, or injured, they don't play.
Hell, how many games has Anthony Martial played over the past 36 months and he's made tens of millions of dollars. If you can't play an exhibition to expand your fan base, maybe they can get into another field? I'm sure there are plenty of other opportunities afforded to these guys to make millions of dollars a year out there.

For me it’s the timing. I’m fine with preseason tours, but not so much immediately after injury-plagued season tours.
I get it, but as I'm sure you understand there is this little event going on in Europe this summer which is normally when pre-season tours fire up and many players will not be available.
And again, if players are injured, they don't participate in these exhibitions. It's a paid trip to Australia ffs.
These players make ungodly sums of money to play a game. Showing up for an exhibition should be the least of their worries.
 
Games taking beyond 2 hours to play
Inevitable commercial breaks and extended clock stoppages
Constant need to Americanize every spot
Removal of a potential 30 mins of in-game action
I was talking about a stopped clock generally, not the Dutch idea of a 60 minute limit on play (though few games get 60 minutes anyhow).

In practice the MLS stopped clock experiment:
  • Did not increase the length of games (the stoppages just replaced "injury time")
  • There were no commercial breaks
  • It had no impact on the amount of in-game action
Those things at least we don't have to wonder about. The rule was in place from 96-99 and didn't do those things. I'd love to see some hard numbers, but I don't think I ever have.

The one thing that would be fine by me to add would be something like rugby uses -- where an attacking play (including resulting corners?) would continue at the end of regulation until the defending team gains possession of the ball.

I was at a Div 1 college game in the US a few years ago and saw a "buzzer-beater" goal. The kick was taken from open play and a horn sounded while it was in the air going toward goal. It was either a game winner or equalizer. Didn't feel right to me but the crowd loved it.
Did they allow the goal?

Should be a no goal if after the horn. Yet another reason against it.

Yes - it was just like a buzzer shot in basketball.
 
The only reason people are talking about this is to try and get more "in-game action". And basically you are saying that didn't happen.
I'm saying that it stopped people rolling around on the ground to run down the clock. There's no incentive to time waste, so they didn't do it anymore. And the games weren't longer. If anything I expect they were a few minutes shorter, but haven't seen any data on that.
 
Games taking beyond 2 hours to play
Inevitable commercial breaks and extended clock stoppages
Constant need to Americanize every spot
Removal of a potential 30 mins of in-game action
I was talking about a stopped clock generally, not the Dutch idea of a 60 minute limit on play (though few games get 60 minutes anyhow).

In practice the MLS stopped clock experiment:
  • Did not increase the length of games (the stoppages just replaced "injury time")
  • There were no commercial breaks
  • It had no impact on the amount of in-game action
Those things at least we don't have to wonder about. The rule was in place from 96-99 and didn't do those things. I'd love to see some hard numbers, but I don't think I ever have.

The one thing that would be fine by me to add would be something like rugby uses -- where an attacking play (including resulting corners?) would continue at the end of regulation until the defending team gains possession of the ball.

I was at a Div 1 college game in the US a few years ago and saw a "buzzer-beater" goal. The kick was taken from open play and a horn sounded while it was in the air going toward goal. It was either a game winner or equalizer. Didn't feel right to me but the crowd loved it.
Did they allow the goal?

Should be a no goal if after the horn. Yet another reason against it.

Yes - it was just like a buzzer shot in basketball.
That was the wrong call then. Has to cross the line before the buzzer or whistle.
 
Soccer is different than the other sport for a lot of reasons, obviously.
One big one for me is that it has a running clock. No stoppages, no time outs.
Football, Hockey, Basketball are all great sports as well, but all three mirror each other with their clock management.

I love the added time concept. Loved it even before I knew about "Fergie-Time" (and it is awesome that 11 years later it is still called that). Changing this causes a fundamental change to the game and how it is played. And to me that doesn't make it better just because it might eliminate some time wasting. Let's eliminate diving, Neymar's 30 yard roll if someone comes bear him, bad usage of VAR and bad refs, all before we start looking at changes that IMO do not need to be.

I guess that's just me, and a hill I'll fight on.
 
One big one for me is that it has a running clock. No stoppages, no time outs.
There's a clock on TV and another one in the stadium that keep running. The real one is stopped for like 3-5 minutes a half. You just can't see it. :-)
:wall: True. The center refs do stop the watch for injuries and var reviews. That's how the get the stoppage time.
But that isn't for every out of play, or every time a player is on the floor. It still is essentially a running clock.
 
But that isn't for every out of play
Since I'm sure everyone is enchanted and on the edge of their seat for us to keep this going as long as possible...

The ref doesn't stop the clock for all of these. Just the ones that go on beyond the normal stoppage. It's effectively the same as the current system like 95% of the time as to when the clock is stopped. It's just that you can see exactly when it is and isn't stopped.
 
One big one for me is that it has a running clock. No stoppages, no time outs.
There's a clock on TV and another one in the stadium that keep running. The real one is stopped for like 3-5 minutes a half. You just can't see it. :-)
:wall: True. The center refs do stop the watch for injuries and var reviews. That's how the get the stoppage time.
But that isn't for every out of play, or every time a player is on the floor. It still is essentially a running clock.
I think it was stopped for almost everything in the last world cup. That is why almost every game ran 10+ minutes longer.

But even though that was well received by the fans since it finally seem to account for all the time wasting, the leagues virtually ignored it and went back to the standard 3-5 minutes virtually which sadly played right back into the hands of the time wasters.
 
=======

Apple are reportedly close to agreeing a deal with FIFA that would see the tech company win the worldwide television rights for the new, revised Club World Cup competition.

The New York Times report that this landmark deal could be worth more than $1billion as Apple look to take their next step into the world of live sports.
 
=======

Apple are reportedly close to agreeing a deal with FIFA that would see the tech company win the worldwide television rights for the new, revised Club World Cup competition.

The New York Times report that this landmark deal could be worth more than $1billion as Apple look to take their next step into the world of live sports.
I have heard a little about the club world cup, but mostly negative and that the clubs, at least in Europe, do not want to be a part of.

Everyone wants a piece of the sport. Too many games, too many competitions means a lot more injuries.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top