World Cup LD

[klunderbunker]

It allows the referee some leeway to end the game at an appropriate moment. Basketball and hockey are six seconds from a score change at all times - football is not. It also keeps things flowing and mildly discourages time wasting.

Additionally, the current system works fine when Alex Ferguson is locked away, and change for its own sake is dumb.

Why should the need leeway? Why shouldn't the game end when the allotted time is over? I don't understand why the game should be extended so a team should have one last chance.

I'm not saying it screws up the game or makes it unwatchable. I just don't quite get why it can't be timed and executed more precisely.

It would make the game last 20mins longer.

Also American sports have time limits on offensive possessions that football doesn't. Makes the game 'faster' but also more dead ball situations to keep time. Football can flow for minutes without a dead ball situation or seconds before one.

No it wouldn't. I'm saying the time that is added on for stoppage time doesn't exist and you just stop the clock for things like injuries, the time between goals being scored and the start of play again, and the ball not being in play. I can't imagine that extends a game 20 minutes.

We don't have time limits on possessions. We have time limits on the offensive team doing something to keep the game interesting. As for the game flowing, it wouldn't stop that at all. The clock would only be stopped when play is stopped.

 

[Loveless]

Honda is class. 1-0


I forgot Tiote was playing. If he gets through this tournament without a red card I'll be amazed.

 

[Loveless]

Japan are a great example of getting the best out of what you have. Quick moving, all 2-footed, organised & full of running.

 

[Loveless]

Madness. Beardier Drogba has somehow got Ivory Coast playing.

 

[Alastor]

The Drogba effect. Sub on and do nothing yet Ivory Coast scored twice.

 

[Loveless]

Japan don't deserve to be losing at all.

 

[Alastor]

No it wouldn't. I'm saying the time that is added on for stoppage time doesn't exist and you just stop the clock for things like injuries, the time between goals being scored and the start of play again, and the ball not being in play. I can't imagine that extends a game 20 minutes.

We don't have time limits on possessions. We have time limits on the offensive team doing something to keep the game interesting. As for the game flowing, it wouldn't stop that at all. The clock would only be stopped when play is stopped.

Basketball is supposed to be 48 minutes long. How long is the usual game? Many times the refs even stopped games to get the stoppages correct. How long is a game of American football supposed to be? How long does it last?

I said offensive possessions. How is that any different from what you pointed out? And there are more stoppages in time due to the rule due to more turnovers.

 

[Alastor]

Japan just don't have enough talent to compete at this level consistently.

 

[klunderbunker]

Basketball is supposed to be 48 minutes long. How long is the usual game? Many times the refs even stopped games to get the stoppages correct. How long is a game of American football supposed to be? How long does it last?

I said offensive possessions. How is that any different from what you pointed out? And there are more stoppages in time due to the rule due to more turnovers.

That's FAR more due to time outs, fouls and commercial breaks, as well as the court being much smaller, meaning the ball can go out of play much faster. An hour, and it goes longer for the same reasons.

Why would time stop for a turnover if the play doesn't stop? The clocks you're talking about in American sports have nothing to do with the game clock.

 

[Alastor]

That's FAR more due to time outs, fouls and commercial breaks, as well as the court being much smaller, meaning the ball can go out of play much faster. An hour, and it goes longer for the same reasons.

Why would time stop for a turnover if the play doesn't stop? The clocks you're talking about in American sports have nothing to do with the game clock.

The ball is out of play more often with the rules. Game clock stopped for correction of either the possession or game clock often enough.

Football have fouls too.

 

[klunderbunker]

The ball is out of play more often with the rules. Game clock stopped for correction of either the possession or game clock often enough.

Football have fouls too.

In soccer? I find that REALLY hard to believe.

25-30 a game with multiple free kicks taking place as a result?

 

[Alastor]

In soccer? I find that REALLY hard to believe.

25-30 a game with multiple free kicks taking place as a result?

12-18 fouls per game on average for each team. So yeah 25-30 is about right. I would say the ball is out of play on average of 10minutes per half. Added time of each half is usually 3mins so if we stop game clock it would be adding about 7-8mins more per half. So about 15mins more to the current duration of each game.

 

[klunderbunker]

12-18 fouls per game on average for each team. So yeah 25-30 is about right. I would say the ball is out of play on average of 10minutes per half. Added time of each half is usually 3mins so if we stop game clock it would be adding about 7-8mins more per half. So about 15mins more to the current duration of each game.

And that would just be a nightmare, right?

 

[Alastor]

And that would just be a nightmare, right?

Look at how often time keeping disputes have slowed down game finishes in American sports which have FIXED stoppages to allow for easier timekeeping. Football have too random many stops and random starts for accurate game clock time keeping, Might as well keep to the current system which many are familiar with if there is going to a huge margin of error.

 

[klunderbunker]

Look at how often time keeping disputes have slowed down game finishes in American sports which have FIXED stoppages to allow for easier timekeeping. Football have too random many stops and random starts for accurate game clock time keeping, Might as well keep to the current system which many are familiar with if there is going to a huge margin of error.

Time disputes? Rather rarely actually. Maybe occasionally near the end of the game but it's hardly every five minutes.

That last part is my issue: I don't believe that there has to be that big a margin of error.

 

[Loveless]

You don't want each half to be lasting an hour+, it'd ruin the pace of the game & in cases of extratime, players would be dead on their feet. The current system works better, it keeps the game moving at a pace and doesnt allow teams to waste time or disrupt the rythym.

 

[Tastycles]

They don't stop the clock in football because stopping the clock kills the momentum the game has. For whatever reason, they've decided to do that in American Football, and the US audience is cool with that - but that's one of the main reasons why everyone in the world watches Association Football, and no other countries seriously play NFL style football. Furthermore, because you can pass it forwards and retain possession in our football, anyone who was losing would just boot it out for an opposition throw in near their corner flag if there was stoppages.

Anyway, I don't know what Rooney has to do to get dropped by England. In 2010 he was garbage and had a go at the fans that criticised the team for failing to beat the mighty Algeria, in 2006 he got himself sent off for stamping, in 2012 he got suspended for being a cunt in the qualifiers.

Nasri is a prick that doesn't fit into the team, so France didn't even bother taking him. Rooney is a prick that doesn't fit into the team, so England try and shoehorn him in. He was abysmal. It's clear to anyone watching how that game developed that Barkley should be in for him, and the Ox should probably be in for Welbeck.

People can say 'oh, Rooney was United's best player this season. Even if that was true, The Ox and Barkley were amongst the better players in teams that finished above United in the league.

I'll tell you this for free too. If Ashley Cole was playing playing, England wouldn't have lost. The defence looks ramshackle.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I have no fewer than three sweepstake teams: Greece, Bolivia and the ***** currently losing 2-0 to Chile.

It's been brought to my attention that I probably meant Bosnia.

 

[Барбоса]

I'll tell you this for free too. If Ashley Cole was playing playing, England wouldn't have lost. The defence looks ramshackle.

Not convinced by that. Not only is Cole on a downward turn, even at his best he would have struggled against Candreva and Darmian last night in that system and in particular with the lack of help from Rooney.

Baines was left exposed and having to choose between marking his man or the full back overlapping, unsurprisingly, he ended up doing neither, forcing Gerrard/Henderson/Jagielka to vacate the midfield/defence to help, leaving space in the centre.

I don't think the system should change, just the personnel. But it won't happen due to the media hard on for Rooney despite his consistent folding under pressure in an England shirt and Hodgson's personal hard on for Welbeck.

 

[#tamale]

Uruguay just had to disappoint me. At least my Italy as champions prediction has a promising start.

And fuck the Mexico-Brazil start time and Mexico in general.

 

[Tastycles]

I don't think Welbeck was that bad - considering I spend a good 3% of my time talking about how shit Danny Welbeck is at football, that's saying something.

I just think Cole would have had the experience to think "Right, Rooney's being a cunt, I'll just stay put here and they won't do us on the wings." Also, he's probably more capable of saying to Rooney "stop being a cunt" than Baines is.

Either way, Rooney was garbage. I know he put the cross in, but he was so poor the rest of the game that it beggars belief. I'd drop him for Uruguay, bring him back for Costa Rica and if he's still shit, I'd not play him again in the whole tournament. Lambert may never have played in massive games before, but he's never played in a shit, selfish manner in them either, unlike Rooney.

 

[MCMG]

Rooney is England's most talented player but getting him to play to his potential is an impossible task. Even Fergie failed towards the end.

The midfield wasn't right last night. Johnson and Baines had poor games and needed more help. I honestly think Phil Jones might be the answer.

 

[Барбоса]

I thought Welbeck did fine too, aside from when he was supposed to help Baines...

Rooney really was dire in every aspect aside from one run and cross. You could see several players at him to help out, especially at that brief delay when the physio wrecked himself after the goal.

For my money, both fullbacks played well enough to not be dropped and Phil Jones is never the positive answer to a question, particularly as he is not a fullback.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Mou praised that 3 Lions' performance.

 

[Loveless]

Damn you Switzerland, you're my dark horses