They should have a set time to leave and the game goes on you then book the player entering the field, also the ref currently doesn’t restart the game until the player entering the field gets into position why they should just start. The Rhead one the other evening was the worst case I have seen were he lay down saw it was a corner got up headed it away and then went down again and then took an age to get off the field, he should have been made to go off behind the goal
He does but that is his lack of ability and lack of real movement from the others, any punishment must happen in the game or there is no benefit in fact it could count against you if the player got banned and it was against a rival team in the next match. Burge is another terriblely slow distributor
I agree with you... but the first v Lincoln should be telling burge that with quicker thought and quick and thoughtful distribution he might contribute to more CCFC goals. It should also be telling oggy and robins that this is something to work on.
Recently there was a plan to reduce the playing time down to two halves of either 30 or 35 minutes and to stop the clock for when the ball is dead. It had some merit. There was a game earlier this season where someone timed the “live ball” time. It was less than 50 minutes and flowed not much different to any other game.
There was a game earlier this season where someone timed the “live ball” time. It was less than 50 minutes and flowed not much different to any other game.
I'd like to see a game where there's a timekeeper like in ice hockey. Whenever the ball isn't in play the clock stops. Be interesting to see how long the game lasts!
I'd like to see a game where there's a timekeeper like in ice hockey. Whenever the ball isn't in play the clock stops. Be interesting to see how long the game lasts!
Recently there was a plan to reduce the playing time down to two halves of either 30 or 35 minutes and to stop the clock for when the ball is dead. It had some merit. There was a game earlier this season where someone timed the “live ball” time. It was less than 50 minutes and flowed not much different to any other game.
I've got a book about football statistics at home, not to hand unfortunately, that talks about exactly this in one section.
What was interesting for me was how it appears to be a very deliberate tactic at times. The game with the least "live ball" time on record (at time of publishing) was a Stoke v Arsenal game from around the time Stoke had Delap wreaking havoc with his long throws (looking at the records my best guess without looking at the book is the 10/11 season when Stoke beat won 3-1 with Delap in the team). IIRC the amount of time the ball spent on the pitch was around 45-50 minutes. Stoke had seemingly gone into the match knowing that the more time the ball spent live, the more chance Arsenal had of playing around them and scoring. The more time the ball was in touch, the less time Arsenal had to build a rhythm and the more chance Delap would have a throw in near the area.
I've got a book about football statistics at home, not to hand unfortunately, that talks about exactly this in one section.
What was interesting for me was how it appears to be a very deliberate tactic at times. The game with the least "live ball" time on record (at time of publishing) was a Stoke v Arsenal game from around the time Stoke had Delap wreaking havoc with his long throws (looking at the records my best guess without looking at the book is the 10/11 season when Stoke beat won 3-1 with Delap in the team). IIRC the amount of time the ball spent on the pitch was around 45-50 minutes. Stoke had seemingly gone into the match knowing that the more time the ball spent live, the more chance Arsenal had of playing around them and scoring. The more time the ball was in touch, the less time Arsenal had to build a rhythm and the more chance Delap would have a throw in near the area.