General officiating/rules

[bobzy]

2 hours ago, Tegis said:

The biggest factor is that in reality, players are very rarely injured for real. So the amount of time we have physios on the field will be miniscule. Todays magic spraycans and water bottles are just for show and timewasting

I don't know - I think there are a LOT of instances where a player takes a kick to, say, the ankle and it's immediately very sore/would hurt to play on so it's better to get a physio on and give some time for the impact pain to wear off.

[Stevo985]

11 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I don't know - I think there are a LOT of instances where a player takes a kick to, say, the ankle and it's immediately very sore/would hurt to play on so it's better to get a physio on and give some time for the impact pain to wear off.

I guess it's where do you draw the line? Is the above enough to justify the game stopping for treatment?

Plenty of other sports, in fact I'd say MOST other sports, if you pick up a knock you just get on with it. 

A muscle pull or a twist is different of course. But just a knock? Not for me.

[Tegis]

13 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I don't know - I think there are a LOT of instances where a player takes a kick to, say, the ankle and it's immediately very sore/would hurt to play on so it's better to get a physio on and give some time for the impact pain to wear off.

Nah, footballers take advantage. Give them an incentive to stop fannying about and they will. Real injuries is a different matter and those will require a physio but will happen at most once a game. Substitutions because of injuries are not a plural per game thing. (I think)

[bobzy]

3 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I guess it's where do you draw the line? Is the above enough to justify the game stopping for treatment?

Plenty of other sports, in fact I'd say MOST other sports, if you pick up a knock you just get on with it. 

A muscle pull or a twist is different of course. But just a knock? Not for me.

I'm not sure where I stand on it all, to be honest.  As I said before, it encourages a side to "leave one on" the opposition if you know that you can basically kick lumps and the game will just carry on.  On the flip side, players going down when they're clearly not at all injured and start rolling around purely to get the game stopped is infuriating.  As it stands, theoretically, a game doesn't stop with a knock unless there's a foul been committed or it's a suspected head injury but referees seem to bow to fan pressure if a player is down.

I don't think most other sports where you get knocked has quite the same impact but in cricket - for example - a ball smashing into a batsmans' thigh will have a short stoppage while he walks it off or gets a bit of treatment.  It's the same thing, essentially.

[bobzy]

1 minute ago, Tegis said:

Nah, footballers take advantage. Give them an incentive to stop fannying about and they will. Real injuries is a different matter and those will require a physio but will happen at most once a game. Substitutions because of injuries are not a plural per game thing. (I think)

But that's what I'm saying - I think there's a difference between what we'd coin as an injury and a player getting a kick or rolling their ankle or whatever which has an immediate soreness, but you can likely carry on after a couple of minutes.

(and there's definitely an element of taking advantage, too).

[Stevo985]

5 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I'm not sure where I stand on it all, to be honest.  As I said before, it encourages a side to "leave one on" the opposition if you know that you can basically kick lumps and the game will just carry on. 

But then that's a foul and probably a card.

6 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I don't think most other sports where you get knocked has quite the same impact but in cricket - for example - a ball smashing into a batsmans' thigh will have a short stoppage while he walks it off or gets a bit of treatment.  It's the same thing, essentially.

Games like cricket and tennis aren't great examples because there's no clock, so it doesn't matter. The players aren't trying to get an advantage from playacting because there's no advantage to gain. They don't have fouls or timewasting.

Sports like rugby, NFL, hockey, basketball etc if you get a kick or a knock you just carry on. If it's bad enough that you literally can't go on then you get treatment but it's not very common

[Stevo985]

9 minutes ago, bobzy said:

a player getting a kick or rolling their ankle or whatever which has an immediate soreness, but you can likely carry on after a couple of minutes.

These are definitely a thing but they're rare. We've all played football, how often have you had a kick that's so painful you literally can't carry on until you've had some treatment?

Even people like Peter Crouch on his podcast say that most of the time players are fine. They literally ask the physio to give them a minute to catch their breath

Edited August 3, 2023 by Stevo985

[bobzy]

5 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

But then that's a foul and probably a card.

Play the ball, kick the man after.  It's very, very rarely given as a foul.  Hell, I remember that Grealish game against Hull(?) where they just kicked lumps the entire time he was on the pitch.  Barely any fouls (he also didn't stay down, from memory).

3 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

These are definitely a thing but they're rare. We've all played football, how often have you had a kick that's so painful you literally can't carry on until you've had some treatment?

Even people like Peter Crouch on his podcast say that most of the time players are fine. They literally ask the physio to give them a minute to catch their breath

Oh, you don't need treatment - but I reckon I roll an ankle (they're quite weak) or take a kick which hurts for a bit once every fortnight (I play weekly).  It's not enough for me to roll around "injured", but I'd be hobbling for a bit and unable to run at full speed for a bit.

As Crouch alludes to, it's just a bit of time.

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, bobzy said:

Oh, you don't need treatment - but I reckon I roll an ankle (they're quite weak) or take a kick which hurts for a bit once every fortnight (I play weekly).  It's not enough for me to roll around "injured", but I'd be hobbling for a bit and unable to run at full speed for a bit.

I'm unsure what we're debating now to be honest. If it's as you describe above then the game shouldn't be stopped. And it sounds like you agree.

[bobzy]

2 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I'm unsure what we're debating now to be honest. If it's as you describe above then the game shouldn't be stopped. And it sounds like you agree.

You initially queried whether it would be enough to stop the game for; no, and it isn't currently.  The game just (should) carry on - that's the current rules.  If a foul is given, though, I've no problem with a player taking a knock getting some treatment just to get a bit of time - which is what happens anyway.

There's a difference between feigning injury and getting a knock - neither of which would require a substitution, but both are very different.

I don't know how you deal with pure injury feigning.  Or those players who go down, get up again and then just go down after the ball next goes dead.  In those situations, I think the game should carry on and they should be taken from the field of play.

[sne]

West Brom manager Carlos Corberan sent off for bitching with the refs. Great, now keep that standard when the likes of Klopp and Arteta gets going in the PL.

Not holding much hope about that one.

[fightoffyour]

All the Championship games had about 10 minutes added on with the new stoppages rule so it’s taking 2 hours to play 55 mins of football. Well done.

Stopped clock and you get 60 minutes of football in an hour and 45 mins easy, and which is the more entertaining version?

Edited August 5, 2023 by fightoffyour

[VillaChris]

Yep going to be 15 minutes added on at one of the premier league games next weekend, probably ours if we're not losing.

Hope it quietly gets dropped around October. No issue with 7-8 minutes if there's endless timewasting but 10 + is simply overkill and just results in more timewasting during that period so not like it's a better spectacle or more free flowing.

[bobzy]

16 hours ago, fightoffyour said:

All the Championship games had about 10 minutes added on with the new stoppages rule so it’s taking 2 hours to play 55 mins of football. Well done.

Stopped clock and you get 60 minutes of football in an hour and 45 mins easy, and which is the more entertaining version?

It's a nonsense but, hey, some people apparently just love seeing "90:00".

[villa4europe]

11 minutes ago, bobzy said:

It's a nonsense but, hey, some people apparently just love seeing "90:00".

I'm guessing theres 10 minutes being added on due to injuries, subs, goals etc

What do you think changes with the 60 minute clock? If anything it gets worse

The minute someone wastes taking a throw in because a team mate isn't free wasn't added yesterday, with a 60 minute clock it would, or do you think the 60 minute clock stops that from happening?

[bobzy]

53 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

I'm guessing theres 10 minutes being added on due to injuries, subs, goals etc

What do you think changes with the 60 minute clock? If anything it gets worse

The minute someone wastes taking a throw in because a team mate isn't free wasn't added yesterday, with a 60 minute clock it would, or do you think the 60 minute clock stops that from happening?

It doesn’t stop it from happening, but it excludes it from the play. Time is dead, ball isn’t in play. As soon as the ball comes back in, clock starts. Player can still get booked for slowing down the game, but zero time is lost.

It’s factual and non random. In the Sheff Wed vs Southampton game (only one I watched) there were 9 minutes added on. 1 minute of that time was then Southampton fannying about over a free kick. Game ended on exactly 99:00.

Let’s just have all games lasting for <x> amount of in game play rather than this lotto we have at the moment. 90:00 is irrelevant. 

Edited August 6, 2023 by bobzy

[Hobsons Choice]

So....25 minutes of injury time per half and players that can be nearly a metre beyond the defender and still be onside. This will all work perfectly, and not cause utter carnage.

Edit, apologies, just realised they are just trialling the new offside rule in other leagues, and not the Prem. Thank christ.

Edited August 6, 2023 by HKP90

[fightoffyour]

10 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

 

Edit, apologies, just realised they are just trialling the new offside rule in other leagues, and not the Prem. Thank christ.

God to know, I was under the impression it was a FIFA rule change already implemented. Which leagues?

[Hobsons Choice]

Just now, fightoffyour said:

God to know, I was under the impression it was a FIFA rule change already implemented. Which leagues?

If i've read it right, it'll be trialed in Sweden, Netherlands and Italy, but it was unclear if that was including top leagues, or just lower divs.

[fightoffyour]

Going well, English Football League added time: All but two matches go beyond 100 minutes:

Quote

This first English Football League programme of 2023-24 was the first to be affected, with all 35 matches featuring at least eight additional minutes of action and several 15:00 kick-offs on Saturday finishing way after 17:00.

Some botched mish-mash approach where they are effectively trying to stop the clock by adding on the exact time wasted during only specific out-of-play situations but not all of them, and then still trying to play 90 mins+.

Oh well, hopefully this failed experiment will just lead to the actual stopped clock approach being implemented sooner rather than later.