I like almost all the proposed changes. Some conflict with others (like the more radical 60' of play would negate other playing time provisions) but I would basically like to see all of these implemented. I'd also want extremely strict punishment for diving, not during the game (beyond what's already anticipated - a yellow card) because it would generate controversy and more refereeing errors when players appeared to dive but were actually taken down, but after the game a panel of experts would extensively review the tapes, and players who were determined to be guilty of diving would face very stiff penalties such as several games of unpaid ban, and huge fines, enough to really hurt them financially (fines might be assessed based on a large percentage of a player's annual salary). I would like to see diving entirely eliminated from the game.
The NCAA has them: "For live telecasts, a timeout that may not exceed two minutes in length may be taken after the 23rd minute of each half before a throw-in near the halfway line of the field or before a goal kick." Adding time for PK, goal, injury, and substitution, as proposed, would be a great idea in my opinion. But, so would a caution for the sloooowww walk to the touchline by the player being substituted, for the mass confrontation that seems to accompany every PK decision, and any post-goal celebration that was obviously previously planned and coreographed. In other words, we've got the tools to achieve more playing time, if the leagues would support our use of them. Unfortunately, no competition I've seen seems to consider any of these time-wasting activities a problem.
@JeffG Coreographed post-goal celebrations don't bother me. The NFL has rules to curb them, and it is one of the reasons why it became known as the "No Fun League." Do we really want the same for soccer? It is harder to score in soccer so wild celebrations are part of the culture of the game. Why change it?
Because it's not a celebration of the goal, it's an announcement that "we knew we were going to do this and we pre-planned this routine to shove it in our opponents' face". It's taunting. And when it's allowed at the highest levels, you know it'll work its way down to the levels we work.
I was thinking about the effective playing time thing and if they shorten the halves to 30 minutes (or whatever) with stopping the clock, what is the real difference then? It just causes the referee to have to remember to start and stop the clock (or remember to signal to do so if there is an official clock operator) but net net the half will take about 45-50 minutes to complete as it does now and they will be "playing" about the same amount of time. In the rare game where you have little to no fouls, goals, subs then it would be quicker (with shortened halves) but on average we are still going to take around 45 minutes to play a half either way. If the stop/start the clock provisions are hard and fast I guess it makes things more uniform and if they are hard and fast then I bet we will see more time the clock is stopped than currently estimated then the VAR gets involved (as replay does now for US pro sports) and we add 3 seconds after a review that takes 2 minutes... YUCK! I dunno, most everyone seems kind of OK with with the "effective playing time" part of the current system, maybe an initiative to better address obvious tactics and be a little more open to seeing 5-8 minutes of stoppage versus the current 2-3 that seems most prevalent regardless of the actual time wasted.
I don't think too much of this is going anywhere, so I don't personally plan to devote too much more time to any of this. My biggest problem was the idea that all these potential stoppage time calculations were to be introduced prior to any shortening of the game to 60 minutes. Given what we're seeing in the Confed Cup, despite what was said, that's not happening. And 60 minutes isn't happening anytime soon. Someone wrote that the Laws are written for the professional match, which is partially true. They are also written in a way that is transferable down to the grassroots level. Introducing a 60 minute match with a stopped clock would end that--one way or another. Either the lower levels simply could not adapt (clock stopping too difficult, clock stopping also too often--1 match ball instead of 7+--plus simply the idea of appropriately scheduling multiple matches on a single field) so you'd end up with two completely different games. Or they would adapt in a way that would ruin the game. So a shortening of the match and a move to EPT is very difficult to impossible at the lower levels. Even at the upper levels, while it could allow for commercial breaks it kills the 2-hour window around which people can plan their viewing habits. There's a reason soccer is rising in popularity in the United States and baseball is not and it's not entirely cultural. I'm not actually worried about too much of the more radical stuff in this document ever making it into Law. I'm just surprised some of it has been written down in the first place.
I wrote that (in this thread anyway) and also included that provisions are in place for grass roots (youth) so excluding youth from the clock stopping is easy as they already have different game lengths anyway. Just rethinking it this weekend it dawned on me (as you mention ALL the provisions for stopping must be in place) net net this is no different so why bother? Also as you mention if they add for all the stoppage before shortening the halves we have 60 minute halves. I think of all the things they can mess with - this one is best left alone except to deal with obvious delaying tactics and again possibly look to 5-8 ish minutes being the norm (better/closer account for what we add for now) but not getting to 15-20.
That exclusion would be easy, true. But don't you think it would be weird when professionals are playing 60 minute matches and 17-year olds are playing 90-minute ones? And while the clock-stopping exclusion would be easy, the issue of the top level playing EPT only but the lower levels not would wreak havoc on player development, training, conditioning, etc. How could one argue DA, for example, is preparing the best youth players for the professional game if they are playing with an entirely different set of timing rules?
Well - agreed! However DA is already different in many ways so it could be additional "tiers" are added with the top (open argument for what THAT is) youth tiers following professional. Of course this adds horribly to the complexity for most of refs like me that do all levels of youth and very limited levels beyond, none approaching top professional. And my post was just pondering that net net it isn't any different except for the referee having to stop the clock (or not) as EFT is the same so conditioning, etc. is no different. If a 90 minute DA match has 60 minutes of EFT within a 2 hour window and a professional 60 minute match has 60 minutes of EFT within a 2 hour window there isn't any difference. As you noted, if they try to get EFT "fixed" now without the reduction in game times then 120 minute matches would be the result to get 90 minutes of EFT and the 2 hour window is not remotely possible.
That is what is happening in Futsal. Pro games have stoppage of time, While most (all that I have refereed so far, including Nationals) have a set time with no stoppage except for Time Outs.
You don't really think there is a likelihood of these absurd changes actually being written into law? The fact they went into all this trouble and made a document and released to the press, for me, means some of them could be. Why would they go through all this trouble and not try to have them implemented? My biggest question is what is behind this impetus to make these changes? Who is actually unhappy with the current state of the game? Or are IFAB and Elleray and Van Basten just bored and they want to give themselves something to do to justify their bloated salaries?
Stuff like this always floats out there from time to time. We're well into the digital age, so having a sleek website with branding as opposed to a series of memos for consideration, like we might have in 2002, is just a sign of the times. Still doubt it goes anywhere. The only thing that really shocks me is Elleray's apparent involvement. And I'm also not saying that none of these will become part of the game. If I was guessing, I would say that some of the most radical things are included so that some of the less radical changes seem reasonable and face an easier path to getting adopted.
Why would timing youth soccer with the clock stopping be any harder than what is already done for sports like basketball and football that have the clock stop?
Basketball is played in an arena with a scoreboard. Football is usually played in a stadium with a scoreboard and, when it's not (and even when it is, I believe), one of the multiple officials on the field is already tasked with keeping time and stopping the clock between plays. What percentage of youth and grassroots soccer matches around the world have a scoreboard? And for the 99% of matches that don't, do we want a referee going to his watch at every whistle and every out of bounds play? It's a recipe for disaster with the referee's focus taken away from the match itself and the management of players (and get ready for 100x more "how much time is left?" questions, too).
This^^ Soccer also has quick restarts which can sometimes literally be less than a second. So you know have the referee fiddling with their watch, trying to watch for the restart and dealing with any extra shenanigans going on right after the whistle. Recipe for bad things.
And football doesn't stop on every play. And has very clear and discrete plays that start in a very formal fashion. I can't imagine trying to handle my watch like this in a competitive game -- let alone imagine a newbie even trying to do so.
While not addressing the specificity of 60v90, in todays professional leagues when many players are paid based upon statistics (goals, minutes played, etc) and when champions and pro/rel are sometimes decided by goal differential, it is very important to play every minute possible.
This makes no sense. No it is not. While there are stipulations/bonuses in contracts on minutes played, how much the ball is actually in play doesn't matter. There are no provisions anywhere in any contract on the ball having to be in play for x amount of time. I just don't see what the problem is with the length of the game. You'll get one or two games a year where the losing team will complain about too much added time being played after conceding a goal in extra time. You'll almost never see a team complain for losing game, by saying "we lost because the referee didn't give us enough time."
How often do you see goals scored in extra time? Allowing players/teams 90 minutes to score goals is very important.
Both semifinal games had one minute of stoppage time after the first half and three after the second.