Long-form: Would Adding More Breaks Be So Bad?

There was an article on EPLTalk.com about the ‘proposal’ that the game will be split into three thirty-minute periods during the Qatar World Cup.

This notion has been widely panned by football fans far and wide, but it got me thinking: maybe this is not such a bad idea.

Why it IS a bad idea:

Well, let’s back up a minute.  Three thirty-minute period IS a bad idea, but not for obvious knee-jerk reason (“What’s next?  Wearing helmets and kicking field goals?”).  Three periods is the problem – you’ll be kicking in one direction twice and the other direction only once.

A better idea:

A better idea would be to simply stop the game twenty-five minutes into each half (when the ball goes out of play) so players can have a bit of a rest and top-up on fluids.  And this could be an optional thing, like those extra referees behind the goals.  You’ll take a break in some competitions and not in others.

Bad things about the idea:

Extra stoppages: Granted, there would be a stoppage which could be bad in some games.  There are games where you wish that half-time would never come because the match is in a beautiful flow (or, more likely, the players are kicking each other to pieces and you don’t want anyone to calm down).  But there are other games where you wish someone had the opportunity to wake the players from their stupor, so this could cut both ways.

It’s just a way of making money: No doubt that there would be extra commercials shown during the break.  Commercials are no fun and we don’t want more of them.  But wait a minute: commercials keep the cost of tv subscriptions down.  They send money to football clubs to keep the cost of tickets down.  Maybe a couple more wouldn’t kill us.

Good things about the idea:

Better football: Would the quality of football be better if the players weren’t so knackered at the end of each half?  It’s possible.

Fewer injuries: Another untestable claim, but surely if players were less tired they wouldn’t get injured.

Tactical changes: It would give the manager a few minutes to get his instructions to the team, so maybe the game would become more interesting from a tactical perspective.

The reason why hysteria is uncalled for:

Choice comments from that EPLTalk.com article:

• Are you F-ing kidding? Why not just play in quarters and give each team 3 timeouts?
• Why not just play 9 innings and then the players would have even more chances to hydrate?
• Lets also add adverts into the game constantly, timeouts, tobacco chewing, and anything else we can do to make it a nonsport.

But really: What would change with an extra break or two?  Practically nothing.  In terms of what happens on the pitch…really…nothing.

Compare with these other rule changes, all of which changed how the game is played or who can play it:

• Substitutes.  There didn’t used to be any.  Then there was one allowed, but only if a player was injured.  Now there it is three from seven.
• The back-pass rule.  You used to be able to pass it back to the goalie and he could pick it up!
• Red cards for violent or ‘professional’ fouls.
• Changes to the offside rule.

In conclusion:

Let’s debate the change based on whether it would be good or bad overall.  Let’s not throw the idea out because:

• It changes something, and we never change anything in football.
• It was proposed in the context of the Qatar World Cup, so it must be bad.

No related posts.