www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40311889

Discuss in less than 10,000 words. My opinion is definitely on the outrage bus.

I was outraged initially. Then realised little would change. In fact, it would make things more interesting.

We already have 2 x 45 minute halves, each having at hest 30 minutes of play each. So by ensuring 30 mins of football this would roughly stay the same, but would stop shit house teams taking the piss.

The only thing that annoyed me was the penalty rebound suggestion. Where is the advantage to the attacking team. It's bad enough that a team has conceded a penalty but to give the defending team an advantage by disallowing rebounds is crackers.

Yeah after reading in a bit more detail I can see the benefits of the hour game like. How it's done on a practical level is a different question mind, and could it mean a vast range of actual finishing times for each match?

I can't believe this isn't a pisstake. If they want to improve the game, crack on with what they have planned re diving ie ban players who do it.

The 6 second keeper holding the ball thing is never enforced, would be great if it was. And why are throw ins allowed to be taken 10 yards further up the pitch from where the ball went out.

The principle is right because the paying punters are only getting 2/3rds of what they paid so see, but some of the methods outlined are questionable.

If "Referees, players, coaches and fans all agree that improving player behaviour and respect for all participants and especially match officials........" is correct then the coaches & the players should stop trying to take unfair advantage & not moan when the ref mans-up & enforces the rules. Isn't time-wasting already a yellow card offence ?

This does affect the floating fan though so you think the owners of these clubs would wise up.

I'll go and watch local footy if I can't get to see pools. As I currently live in the Midlands I've been to Wolves and Birmingham. I wouldn't go and watch West Brom whilst Pulis is in charge - and there are plenty of people around here, including baggies fans, with the same sentiment.

I imagine some of these changes might actually see fans returning if it meant an end of dull as fuck tactics.

Allow trainers to come on without stopping play as per rugby would be a great start and it would be amazing how few "injuries" occurr in a game.

Also don't stop the game for substitutions just make sure no more than 11 players on field at one time. It would then also be amazing how the mock running which is actually slower then walking would stop together with applauding fans, shaking hands with every player, having a cuppa tea etc.

These would have far more beneficial effect than some of the suggestions.

It sounds like they watched a few games of rugby and said right, which of these features might we use in footy?
I actually think rugby has got it pretty spot on, apart from the overuse of the TMO by scaredycat refs.

That's just plain absurd to suggest in football, the ball can switch halves and areas of the pitch in seconds compared to rugby and a football manager couldn't make a rolling sub without stopping play that is a mad suggestion when do you suggest you take your centre half or keeper off when his leg is hanging off. Football is game were five yards of space for a split second can decide a match. Imagine a forward running past a player receiving treatment to score, farcical!!

The game has done alright for about 150 years it's doesn't really need fundamentally changing.

Couple of points, as the players are only playing 60 minutes instead of 90 will there be a reduction in their wages and as we currently pay too watch 90 minutes will there be a reduction in admission money ?

Aren't they basically just saying that referees aren't administering added time properly?

I mean, against Carlisle I was actually worried after the game that I would get into trouble after my first half added time announcement. With Carlisle going 1 up early on, then proceeding to waste time from about the 10th minute I took the mick a little and mentioned the stated added time as an 'ABSOLUTE minimum'.

If refs take into account time wasting, why change the length of the actual game? Would it be to sly in these other free kick and penalty rules? Maybe that's a bit conspiracy theory and just the way the article is written but those other rules do seem silly.

What's wrong with penalty rebounds? They are allowed in actual play, so why change it unless referees aren't enforcing encroachments properly?
Allowing dribbling/passing to yourself just sounds like confusion. It's not going to deter the initial foul unless all free kicks will be allowed to be taken quickly rather than by the refs whistle. Otherwise the advantage of getting everyone back into position will still be the point of the 'tactical' foul anyway.

In the history of Football, overall players should be generally fitter than they have ever been yet can't do a full 90 minutes?

To me it sounds like it's an attempt to regulate the length of football for TV schedules and even this wouldn't work like they hope.

From the home game against Portsmouth:-

"It's long overdue that time-wasting is addressed in the game. I'm not saying this time lapse happened on every occasion, but in the second half it took the keeper 30 seconds to get the ball back into play, & a later throw-in took 20 seconds. Multiply the seconds across the whole match, & we supporters are getting short changed for our attendance money. Fair enough the ball can't be in play for 90 minutes, but the gamesmanship has gone too far. I don't like even our players dribbling the ball into the corners to waste time, but at least it puts the onus on the opposition to tackle, whereas when the ball's out of play only the ref can get things moving"

PJ - the game has changed over 150 years, as latterly it is being spoilt by gamesmanship, cynicism, & un-sporting behaviour.

If you went to a concert, how much time would you expect them to waste between numbers? League, & non-league, football is supposed to entertain its spectators

But they are not playing for 90 minutes are they.

Currently they aren't even playing for 60 minutes.

Under the current format the fans could argue they're owed money.

Under the new system we will be getting value for money.

After reading all these interesting points, I am still on the Outrage Bus. I can see the need to stop timewasting etc, but the suggestions seem..... well Americanised!!!!! American Football was changed to stop the clock after each play, so the TV companies could show a short advert, hence a 1 hour game lasts 3 hours. I also seem to remember when America hosted the World Cup (1994?) they put forward changes including changing the game to 3 periods or 4 quarters (TV adverts again) as well as some other "Minor" Changes to the rules.

Look at it from a basic level, Sunday Morning "Pub" Football is dying, reducing games to 1 hr, some players will probably give it a miss and have a lie in before they go to the Pub! Will kids Football be reduced from 30 min halves to 15/20 min halves? Not much playing time for kids to get the Football bug!

Yes tighten up on bad sportsmanship, bad tackles, time wasting, gamesmanship, but as PJ said, Football has been around for 150 years, with only the odd tweak here and there, but no need to radicalise the rules, or it will be a different sport altogether.

"You could say it is a quiet revolution aimed at getting football even better," Elleray told The Times newspaper.

"My starting point was to look at the laws and say 'what are they for?' and if there is no particular reason then would changing them make the game better?"

Just enforce the existing rules then, instead of the daft proposals about penalties, free kicks & corners

We seem to be blaming the players for time wasting, diving etc but Coaches/Managers surely must discuss this before the game and encourage too do it even though they always deny they ever do ?

So basically you go to a match and you have no idea how long it's going to last. Who decides what's time wasting etc, a recipe for confusion. It sounds lovely in theory but just irritating in practice.

So explain the demarcation times between play and non play how much work will be put on the officials, who will all have a different interpretation of play and non play.
They'll be time keeping instead of watching events fully on the pitch. A load of bureaucratic bollocks

don,t worry if these proposals are brought in tomorrow the managers/coaches will find another way to get round em. keep things as they are, enforce all timewasting rules and book the bastards who contravine. as for throw ins we all know where the ball goes out and so do the players. if they pinch ground its easy for the ref just to blow up and give the throw to the other team. the message will get through eventually probebly by the new year.

be a nightmare for those of us who get a takeout delivered soon after full time if we have no idea when a game will finish.

Surely it will be easier to judge?

I thought it was gonna be 60minutes of ball in play action plus however long they fucked about taking set pieces etc?