Other Teams' Stuff

Non-United football chat
User avatar
swampash
Legend
Posts: 2809
Joined: 9 years ago

Not consulting the players is pretty dimwitted, if you ask me.
User avatar
Felwin
Legend
Posts: 1206
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Abroad

Fuck the Glazers wrote: 3 months ago It's impossible tbh. It will affect the quality of the games. It already does tbh. Teams that play an intense press like Liverpool, Newcastle, us tbf, are not gonna be able to keep it up over a full season. There'll also be even less room for actual training, tactics, technical shit. it'll be just days of rest and recuperation. It mostly already is now tbf.
Exactly. One of the big reasons City outlasted everyone this year was because they can afford 2 top class players for every position. That's the future IMO. Massive stockpiling of talent by the state-backed clubs. 7+ substitutes. 2 games a week.

Funny how City's schtick for the first 10 years under Abu Dhabi was about how the game is rigged to favour the big teams. Now every change being made benefits them and they're suddenly quiet about it. Unless it's when the authorities are trying to punish them, then it's a crime against god.
User avatar
dozer
Legend
Posts: 3752
Joined: 10 years ago

FuB wrote: 3 months ago
dozer wrote: 3 months ago I can't comprehend why they can't have 60min games where the clock is stopped every time the ball is out of play. No complicated stoppage time calculations and any other crap.
The outfield ref shouldn't have to deal with clock times. The game ends when it hits 60 mins. I read that that's the approximate duration a game is actually played with the rest being wasted on stoppages so 60mins looks like a good time to end the game.

It seems so easy to implement and resolve all ambiguity. I don't know what I'm missing.
I suspect there's a whole lot of tradition that you're failing to comprehend. Not saying that's a good reason for how things are but, then again, if you want things as you describe then you could always watch the soulless sales and marketing opportunity they call "American Football".

Regardless, I don't think a system such as you describe would make much difference since teams are well versed in wasting time during all phases of a match, be it to roll around in fake agony or run the ball into the corner to waste time at the end of the game. In a stop clock scenario, there would just be more of the latter to compensate for any of the former... just like there already is.
dozer wrote: It's the players and managers who've abused this system and exploited dead ball situations. They've pretended to be injured trying to buy time but are quick to blame referees when they ignore a genuine injury and don't stop play because the ref thinks the player's crying wolf. This bullshit affected the sport and the viewing experience pretty hard. So yeah, I wouldn't consult the players if I were among the authorities.
I think, if you read things a bit better, it's the number of games throughout the season that Varane and other players are taking issue with, not that they could be extended by extra minutes.
Tradition of what? Stopping the clock breaks tradition and is souless. How? Your post is vague.
I think it will improve the time wasting. The benefit of dead ball time wastages disappear.
Players can waste time in play by running to the corner flag but they're already doing that to the maximum extent possible.
They can't go further. If they could, they would have already done that because points are most important.

Varane is complaining about the number of games, but it sounded to me like it was a reaction to the extra minutes since he refers to the new rules. The only new rule I'm aware of is the stoppage time rule.
We had a meeting last week with the FA. They recommended from the referees new decisions and rules.
....
Fuck the Glazers
Legend
Posts: 9461
Joined: 10 years ago

De Bruyne hates it too. They need to organise and refuse. Players and fan interests align - we both want a quality, fun game aka product. More, and much longer games will kill that.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... rs-hit-out
User avatar
dozer
Legend
Posts: 3752
Joined: 10 years ago

Fuck the Glazers wrote: 3 months ago De Bruyne hates it too. They need to organise and refuse. Players and fan interests align - we both want a quality, fun game aka product. More, and much longer games will kill that.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... rs-hit-out
Their dumb solution is to extend stoppage time without reducing playing time. It still doesn't address problems like subjectivity and inconsistency in applying these stoppage times. Managers will argue saying team x got 20 mins stoppage but we only got 10. When there is inconsistency, time wasting will continue to persist because the players will hope the refereeing ineptitude will favour them on that day. 60 mins with auto stoppages is the way.

They shouldn't consult the players and managers though. These are the main culprits who've exploited the rules to fuck the game up for everyone else.
User avatar
FuB
Site Admin
Posts: 2022
Joined: 8 years ago

dozer wrote: 3 months ago
FuB wrote: 3 months ago
dozer wrote: 3 months ago I can't comprehend why they can't have 60min games where the clock is stopped every time the ball is out of play. No complicated stoppage time calculations and any other crap.
The outfield ref shouldn't have to deal with clock times. The game ends when it hits 60 mins. I read that that's the approximate duration a game is actually played with the rest being wasted on stoppages so 60mins looks like a good time to end the game.

It seems so easy to implement and resolve all ambiguity. I don't know what I'm missing.
I suspect there's a whole lot of tradition that you're failing to comprehend. Not saying that's a good reason for how things are but, then again, if you want things as you describe then you could always watch the soulless sales and marketing opportunity they call "American Football".

Regardless, I don't think a system such as you describe would make much difference since teams are well versed in wasting time during all phases of a match, be it to roll around in fake agony or run the ball into the corner to waste time at the end of the game. In a stop clock scenario, there would just be more of the latter to compensate for any of the former... just like there already is.
dozer wrote: It's the players and managers who've abused this system and exploited dead ball situations. They've pretended to be injured trying to buy time but are quick to blame referees when they ignore a genuine injury and don't stop play because the ref thinks the player's crying wolf. This bullshit affected the sport and the viewing experience pretty hard. So yeah, I wouldn't consult the players if I were among the authorities.
I think, if you read things a bit better, it's the number of games throughout the season that Varane and other players are taking issue with, not that they could be extended by extra minutes.
Tradition of what? Stopping the clock breaks tradition and is souless. How? Your post is vague.
I think it will improve the time wasting. The benefit of dead ball time wastages disappear.
Players can waste time in play by running to the corner flag but they're already doing that to the maximum extent possible.
They can't go further. If they could, they would have already done that because points are most important.

Varane is complaining about the number of games, but it sounded to me like it was a reaction to the extra minutes since he refers to the new rules. The only new rule I'm aware of is the stoppage time rule.
We had a meeting last week with the FA. They recommended from the referees new decisions and rules.
....
Your suggestion was to take monitoring the time away from the ref and that's the point of tradition i am referring to.

Soulless, yes: If you stop the clock every time the ball goes out of play, it won't matter how long it takes to put the ball back into play and then that dead time will be rife for advertisement breaks like you see in American sports. Ball's gone out for a corner? Let's have an advert.

I'm all for adding on time at the end and making that time actually representative of how much has been wasted. I don't think it will solve the problem though. There'll still be play-acting and time-wasting. It'll just be that teams waste more time that they already do at the end of the game in order to compensate.
NQAT's official artificial intelligence
User avatar
dozer
Legend
Posts: 3752
Joined: 10 years ago

FuB wrote: 3 months ago
dozer wrote: 3 months ago
FuB wrote: 3 months ago
dozer wrote: 3 months ago I can't comprehend why they can't have 60min games where the clock is stopped every time the ball is out of play. No complicated stoppage time calculations and any other crap.
The outfield ref shouldn't have to deal with clock times. The game ends when it hits 60 mins. I read that that's the approximate duration a game is actually played with the rest being wasted on stoppages so 60mins looks like a good time to end the game.

It seems so easy to implement and resolve all ambiguity. I don't know what I'm missing.
I suspect there's a whole lot of tradition that you're failing to comprehend. Not saying that's a good reason for how things are but, then again, if you want things as you describe then you could always watch the soulless sales and marketing opportunity they call "American Football".

Regardless, I don't think a system such as you describe would make much difference since teams are well versed in wasting time during all phases of a match, be it to roll around in fake agony or run the ball into the corner to waste time at the end of the game. In a stop clock scenario, there would just be more of the latter to compensate for any of the former... just like there already is.
dozer wrote: It's the players and managers who've abused this system and exploited dead ball situations. They've pretended to be injured trying to buy time but are quick to blame referees when they ignore a genuine injury and don't stop play because the ref thinks the player's crying wolf. This bullshit affected the sport and the viewing experience pretty hard. So yeah, I wouldn't consult the players if I were among the authorities.
I think, if you read things a bit better, it's the number of games throughout the season that Varane and other players are taking issue with, not that they could be extended by extra minutes.
Tradition of what? Stopping the clock breaks tradition and is souless. How? Your post is vague.
I think it will improve the time wasting. The benefit of dead ball time wastages disappear.
Players can waste time in play by running to the corner flag but they're already doing that to the maximum extent possible.
They can't go further. If they could, they would have already done that because points are most important.

Varane is complaining about the number of games, but it sounded to me like it was a reaction to the extra minutes since he refers to the new rules. The only new rule I'm aware of is the stoppage time rule.
We had a meeting last week with the FA. They recommended from the referees new decisions and rules.
....
Your suggestion was to take monitoring the time away from the ref and that's the point of tradition i am referring to.

Soulless, yes: If you stop the clock every time the ball goes out of play, it won't matter how long it takes to put the ball back into play and then that dead time will be rife for advertisement breaks like you see in American sports. Ball's gone out for a corner? Let's have an advert.

I'm all for adding on time at the end and making that time actually representative of how much has been wasted. I don't think it will solve the problem though. There'll still be play-acting and time-wasting. It'll just be that teams waste more time that they already do at the end of the game in order to compensate.
Linking monitoring to tradition is a bit of a dramatic association. It's just a simple progressive step IMO and it's certainly less of a traditional change (if we can even make this association) than VAR.
I see your point about adverts, but I'm not sure if this will lead to adverts. I don't watch American sports so I guess you know better. I'd certainly be against stopping the clock if this was the case.
User avatar
FuB
Site Admin
Posts: 2022
Joined: 8 years ago

dozer wrote: 3 months ago
Linking monitoring to tradition is a bit of a dramatic association. It's just a simple progressive step IMO and it's certainly less of a traditional change (if we can even make this association) than VAR.
I see your point about adverts, but I'm not sure if this will lead to adverts. I don't watch American sports so I guess you know better. I'd certainly be against stopping the clock if this was the case.
Whilst it's awfully interesting to discuss semantics with you dozer, I don't think it's a stretch to say "traditionally, the referee keeps time in a football match". VAR has been divisive enough without offloading another of the referee's traditional duties.

With regards to adverts during a game: get ready for it. They already do it here in Italy and it's one of the reasons I just can't be arsed with Italian football coverage, be it domestic, European or international. Any opportunity to jump to a quick advert is taken, often resulting in missing the restart in play. I'm not an aficionado of American sports. I don't watch them at all.. that was my initial point: They all seem so soulless like a marketing-fest with some sports in the middle.
NQAT's official artificial intelligence
User avatar
Felwin
Legend
Posts: 1206
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Abroad

FuB wrote: 3 months ago
dozer wrote: 3 months ago
Linking monitoring to tradition is a bit of a dramatic association. It's just a simple progressive step IMO and it's certainly less of a traditional change (if we can even make this association) than VAR.
I see your point about adverts, but I'm not sure if this will lead to adverts. I don't watch American sports so I guess you know better. I'd certainly be against stopping the clock if this was the case.
Whilst it's awfully interesting to discuss semantics with you dozer, I don't think it's a stretch to say "traditionally, the referee keeps time in a football match". VAR has been divisive enough without offloading another of the referee's traditional duties.

With regards to adverts during a game: get ready for it. They already do it here in Italy and it's one of the reasons I just can't be arsed with Italian football coverage, be it domestic, European or international. Any opportunity to jump to a quick advert is taken, often resulting in missing the restart in play. I'm not an aficionado of American sports. I don't watch them at all.. that was my initial point: They all seem so soulless like a marketing-fest with some sports in the middle.
I absolutely hate those adverts where the match gets squashed into a corner and 50-60% of the screen becomes some shite. Get them here in Germany.

Surprising they’re not already using VAR to cut to advert breaks. Surely fairly easy to use a couple of those 5-10 second YouTube ads for a bit of extra revenue.
User avatar
dozer
Legend
Posts: 3752
Joined: 10 years ago

FuB wrote: 3 months ago
dozer wrote: 3 months ago
Linking monitoring to tradition is a bit of a dramatic association. It's just a simple progressive step IMO and it's certainly less of a traditional change (if we can even make this association) than VAR.
I see your point about adverts, but I'm not sure if this will lead to adverts. I don't watch American sports so I guess you know better. I'd certainly be against stopping the clock if this was the case.
Whilst it's awfully interesting to discuss semantics with you dozer, I don't think it's a stretch to say "traditionally, the referee keeps time in a football match". VAR has been divisive enough without offloading another of the referee's traditional duties.

With regards to adverts during a game: get ready for it. They already do it here in Italy and it's one of the reasons I just can't be arsed with Italian football coverage, be it domestic, European or international. Any opportunity to jump to a quick advert is taken, often resulting in missing the restart in play. I'm not an aficionado of American sports. I don't watch them at all.. that was my initial point: They all seem so soulless like a marketing-fest with some sports in the middle.
Nah.. it's more than just semantics when I think about it, the argument of tradition is weak.
We can argue any rule change as a deviation from tradition. This tradition was bullshit anyway and needs changing.
Now referees keep time for say 100+ minutes which is another bullshit deviation.
Are the referees good enough? No. They've been inept and have traditionally been inept throughout the history of the sport. The excuse then was that humans couldn't cope with the speed of real time decision making.
But I was convinced even before it happened that VAR would only expose the referees and increase the outrage because the dumb decisions would continue to be made even with video assistance.
Now we will have inconsistencies when stoppages are applied - it already is but the complaints will be worse.

We must take the decision making away from referees wherever possible. This includes stoppage time calculation. Video assistance still keeps the decision with referees in most cases.
Goal line tech and the offside line video assistance took the decision away from referees and it's almost perfectly executed and it has not made the game worse. Only once I think a ref fucked up not using the offside line in the Arsenal game during VAR but then that's the point, the human element fucked it up and the line wasn't used.

If they want to introduce ads then they'll find a way regardless of who calculates the stoppage time.
Post Reply