Varane publicly challenges the FA over rule changes and number of games

duffer said:
Absolutely. Which is why these new "rules" will only impact the bellends.
Click to expand...
That remains to be seen. Knowing the FA, they will ask the refs to flash yellow cards for everytime a player waves an arm in frustration at a decision.
 
You can now expect us to be fecked over with the first decision the FA get involved in.

He's right on all counts though. Time wasting or not, players are going to be playing an extra 10 minutes every game in an already packed schedule. It's too much. As for the referees, they need to be more accountable. If the FA wont do that the players are going to get frustrated.
 
Posh Red said:
Not in those exact words, but if they’ve been asked to reduce time celebrating, and tone down interactions with the referee, then I can easily understand why someone may refer to that as ‘showing less emotion’. Particularly if it’s not a native speaker.
Click to expand...

They haven't been asked to reduce time celebrating. Not sure where that has come from.

 
They added all these new rules but not even investigating Eddie Howe.
 
UnitedSofa said:
Click to expand...


He's spot on.

That being said, clubs need to stop having hectic pre season schedules. You can't complain about having too many games when you make your own players take part in matches across several different countries before August.
 
He might have a point in terms of policing player 'emotions' (although I see the other side of this, which is partly about protecting the refs and attracting potential refs to the sport via less tolerance for current ones being harangued) but the games thing doesn't entirely stand up.

Yes, the games might be more intense in certain regards than before, but there's less ('aggressive') fouling and, more importantly, the sports science has advanced to ensure that players are if anything better able to play the same number of games as in the past. Also, the squads are larger, and more games in principle should give opportunity to use more players, particularly with the five subs rule. It's not the FA's fault if some managers don't want to 'risk' rotating and risk burn-out instead. With the league cup in particular teams have the chance to use the depth of their squad, which should in principle make it a more egalitarian competition (in practice, not so much with City's squad depth in recent years) as well as chance for young players to stake their claim.
 
NieThePiet said:
I don't understand the problem really?

The players are still allowed to show emotions, nothing has changed? Kicking the ball away has nothing to do with emotions? Protesting with the full team against refs is showing emotions too? So all other sports I known are playing without emotions?

And I don't think around 5 minutes more every game will change the health from players, that shouldn't be a big difference. Don't wast much time and it will be like always.
Click to expand...
I think he might be talking about how the offside/VAR changes have killed celebrations and the drama of football.

For me there's two separate things here.
1) There are undeniably too many games. The National team is mostly to blame (they should scrap the Nations league and there are way too many friendlies) but in the PL we have an extra cup comp (which is a pointless cup, even though we won it last year I would happily see it either scrapped or, better, turned into a milk cup where teams have to play their academy teams) alongside a packed schedule.
2) Time wasting new rules are good - fans want to see more football given how bad the 'ball in play' time has become. it's wither this or you stop the clock like in rugby as soon as play stops for anything.

Fixing point 1 loses money for the big wigs but that's the main issue for me. If you are a starter for England and play in a CL/EL club that goes far in every competition you could play 70+ games, that is too much.
 
Vidyoyo said:
As much as I'd like to see longer games as a fan, I don't see it matching to the physical demands of actually playing given how football has changed to become more high tempo over recent years. It's a different sport but you can see a similar parallel in baseball this year with the addition of a pitch clock to decrease time took between pitches. There's been a lot of significant injuries to pitchers as a result and it seems easy to form a connection between the two.

I believe you'd need to implement more thorough changes to the game for the players physical health not to suffer. Things like being able to bring subbed players back on after a certain amount of time so they can take a breather.

Edit - I would still love to see more punishment for feigning injuries. That's a completely different kettle of fish to taking time over a thrown-in or goal kick.
Click to expand...

Is the clock really linked to pitchers getting injured. Even last seasons, before the clock, pitchers have become very injury prone because of how intense and violent pitching mechanics are (with average fastball speed constantly pushing the ceiling) ?

I'm not sure increased injury time is the answer to time wasting and, as you point out, the athleticism in football increased by a lot.

I think there's a very valid point he makes about the schedule : Scrap the league cup (France did) and clean up European cups to be more direct with less games in groups. Reduce the number of teams in the top division is also a way to shave some games.
Of course that means less gate revenue and less FOOTBALL CONTENT to cram video tubes with, that's absolutely not where we are trending to. There's a club world cup thing FIFA is still trying to fiddle with and push, isn't there ?
 
El Zoido said:
No, what’s a piss the face of fans is paying a lot of money to go and watch these multimillionaires kick a ball around for 90 minutes and the game isn’t even in play for 40 minutes of that time. If they don’t time waste then they don’t have to play for 100 minutes, it’s very simple.
Click to expand...

Spoken like somebody who won’t miss the last bus home. Fans don’t really give a shit whether stoppage time is four minutes or ten minutes. They want the game to finish at the same time it always has.

Nothing at all will be achieved by this. It will last no more than a month.
 
duffer said:
Absolutely. Which is why these new "rules" will only impact the bellends.
Click to expand...
A very easy thing to write from an armchair. Truth is when you have so much riding on matches and couple that with the poor quality of refereeing, you're asking for more questions from players when referees feck up during games.

If the standard of refereeing was remotely consistent then you probably wouldn't get so many players "acting like bellends".

These players are conditioned to put a lot of passion in the game and also to play the game more and more. Mentally they are hugely invested in it way more than a ref. With that comes mental hurdles that the refereeing sssociation have no fecking clue about, all while allowing their own standards to officiate a game to plummet.
 
As we saw in the World Cup, teams that don’t benefit from time wasting stop doing it.

Adding 12 minutes doesn’t add any more playing time, as it is only added if the ball isn’t in play for that long. It’ll be 5 or 6 minutes in a few games time.

We’re watching such little football without the new rules it’s a joke. The ball is in play like 10 minutes less than a decade or two ago. Something needs to change.

I’m happy with the new rules, or with 60 min in play games or with forcing players with 2 >1 minute head injuries to be forced to rest up. Anything but the status quo, which is making football unwatchable.
 
Kag said:
Spoken like somebody who won’t miss the last bus home. Fans don’t really give a shit whether stoppage time is four minutes or ten minutes. They want the game to finish at the same time it always has.

Nothing at all will be achieved by this. It will last no more than a month.
Click to expand...
I'll never understand the mentality of football supporters who go to games but want to leave as early possible, even if said game is still in progress or should still be in progress.
 
Kag said:
Spoken like somebody who won’t miss the last bus home. Fans don’t really give a shit whether stoppage time is four minutes or ten minutes. They want the game to finish at the same time it always has.

Nothing at all will be achieved by this. It will last no more than a month.
Click to expand...

Mate I’m a season ticket holder and don’t live in Manchester. I’ve arrived home at 3am before for midweek evening games and then gone to work the next morning. I know what it’s like. The biggest delay isn’t the game finishing ten minutes later, it’s from getting caught in the mass exodus from the stadium. Probably more likely to get home on time now if you leave on 90 like you used to.
 
I really dislike the added time idea. Firstly, people tend only to think about knockout games in the Champions League and how teams waste time there, when the game is finely poised and a single goal could still change the match. But this is not the only scenario.

What about when two mid-table teams settle for a point and see out the game at walking pace? What about when a big team is already 5-0 up against some no-hopers but have taken off all their best players and there's little chance of any more goals from either side? How does it help either the players or the fans to stretch this kind non-event ending to 100 minutes?

Also, what about when some small team goes away to a big club, scores early and then clings on for dear life? Are we now punishing teams fighting relegation for not going away to City or Liverpool and going toe to toe?

Secondly, adding 5 extra minutes to every game in a 55-game season is like adding another 3 games to the season. With extended WCs and the club competition coming in, you can't just push players to play more and more football endlessly and expect the same quality and intensity.

What I suspect will happen is that you'll just get longer lulls in the middle of games ie you'll have the same intensity but spread more thinly over 100+ minutes. Often if a team is one goal behind, they start to take risks with 10 minutes to go and throw men forward. If the game routinely finishes later, they'll just start taking those risks later too.

If time wasting really is such a big problem, then introduce new rules to punish it as and when it happens. No need to change every game of football across the whole game just for the handful of times when this is an actual problem.
 
TMDaines said:
I'll never understand the mentality of football supporters who go to games but want to leave as early possible, even if said game is still in progress or should still be in progress.
Click to expand...
Eh? It's perfectly normal if the game is virtually over by way of result and there's a long travel home.

The delays faced because of mere minutes missing a train is insane.
 
Beyond the fatigue and player injury worries, even from a business perspective the product has decreased in quality and adding more games makes them less special.

However, I think the solution is just bigger squads where the big, successful teams just have more top quality.
 
I alway chuckle at the hypocrisy of managers and players crying about their well being due to too many matches but come matchday they without fail refuse to use their 30 man squads.
 
limerickcitykid said:
I alway chuckle at the hypocrisy of managers and players crying about their well being due to too many matches but come matchday they without fail refuse to use their 30 man squads.
Click to expand...
How is it players fault that whole squad isn't used?
 
There's nothing unreasonable about expecting to see 90 minutes of actual football in a game.

But, it's also the case that clubs, tactics, fitness/recovery strategies and squad management have been operating for a long time on the basis that matches generally involve 75-80 minutes of actual play. Teams will have to adapt to the new reality and if they don't they will suffer for it, particularly those teams whose styles involves a lot of pressing etc.
 
quadrant said:
I really dislike the added time idea. Firstly, people tend only to think about knockout games in the Champions League and how teams waste time there, when the game is finely poised and a single goal could still change the match. But this is not the only scenario.

What about when two mid-table teams settle for a point and see out the game at walking pace? What about when a big team is already 5-0 up against some no-hopers but have taken off all their best players and there's little chance of any more goals from either side? How does it help either the players or the fans to stretch this kind non-event ending to 100 minutes?

Also, what about when some small team goes away to a big club, scores early and then clings on for dear life? Are we now punishing teams fighting relegation for not going away to City or Liverpool and going toe to toe?

Secondly, adding 5 extra minutes to every game in a 55-game season is like adding another 3 games to the season. With extended WCs and the club competition coming in, you can't just push players to play more and more football endlessly and expect the same quality and intensity.

What I suspect will happen is that you'll just get longer lulls in the middle of games ie you'll have the same intensity but spread more thinly over 100+ minutes. Often if a team is one goal behind, they start to take risks with 10 minutes to go and throw men forward. If the game routinely finishes later, they'll just start taking those risks later too.

If time wasting really is such a big problem, then introduce new rules to punish it as and when it happens. No need to change every game of football across the whole game just for the handful of times when this is an actual problem.
Click to expand...

If they cling on for dear life through time wasting, it’s cheating. In the same way that handballing, shirt pulling etc are. You can’t just let it slide because they’re a smaller club.

You’re now finding systematic head injuries on the hour mark, where teams use the time to take on liquids and discuss tactics. It’s boring and an exploitation of the rules.

They’re not playing 5 minutes more per game with the new rules. They’re playing the same number of minutes as a decade ago, before clubs started cheating. Either the rules should be changed, or continuous steps should be made to disincentivise cheating,to stop the teams that cheat the most from benefitting the most.
 
goalscholes said:
If they cling on for dear life through time wasting, it’s cheating. In the same way that handballing, shirt pulling etc are. You can’t just let it slide because they’re a smaller club.

You’re now finding systematic head injuries on the hour mark, where teams use the time to take on liquids and discuss tactics. It’s boring and an exploitation of the rules.

They’re not playing 5 minutes more per game with the new rules. They’re playing the same number of minutes as a decade ago, before clubs started cheating. Either the rules should be changed, or continuous steps should be made to disincentivise cheating,to stop the teams that cheat the most from benefitting the most.
Click to expand...
But big teams already get 5/6 minutes added on when chasing a game when there hasn’t been any time wasting?
It’s going to be a shit show.
 
Remember the geese said:
The new 'extra added on time rule' is a complete nonsense. Here's a novel idea - instead of adding on an arbitrary 10 minutes (for example), how about treating each game on it's own merit and timing it accurately and correctly?
Click to expand...

Who said every game was going to be 10 minutes? even yesterdays game was 8 minutes added.
 
JuriM said:
How is it players fault that whole squad isn't used?
Click to expand...
If you're fearing for your wellbeing so much there is the simple solution of making yourself unavailable for some matches. But yes, the manager's hypocrisy is greater. They don't give a shit about the player's safety, only winning football matches.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
I think he might be talking about how the offside/VAR changes have killed celebrations and the drama of football.

For me there's two separate things here.
1) There are undeniably too many games. The National team is mostly to blame (they should scrap the Nations league and there are way too many friendlies) but in the PL we have an extra cup comp (which is a pointless cup, even though we won it last year I would happily see it either scrapped or, better, turned into a milk cup where teams have to play their academy teams) alongside a packed schedule.
2) Time wasting new rules are good - fans want to see more football given how bad the 'ball in play' time has become. it's wither this or you stop the clock like in rugby as soon as play stops for anything.

Fixing point 1 loses money for the big wigs but that's the main issue for me. If you are a starter for England and play in a CL/EL club that goes far in every competition you could play 70+ games, that is too much.
Click to expand...

Easy solutions to the too many games debate.

Scrap the Nations League.

Scrap international matches in summer's where there isn't a major tournament scheduled.

I'd also stop Champions League sides dropping into Europa League if they finish 3rd in their group.

I'd keep the League Cup. Its a decent competition and in era where football at tbe top is ultra competitive, gives you a chance of success early in the season. I would make the semi final one leg though.
 
MancunianAngels said:
Easy solutions to the too many games debate.

Scrap the Nations League.

Scrap international matches in summer's where there isn't a major tournament scheduled.

I'd also stop Champions League sides dropping into Europa League if they finish 3rd in their group.

I'd keep the League Cup. Its a decent competition and in era where football at tbe top is ultra competitive, gives you a chance of success early in the season. I would make the semi final one leg though.
Click to expand...
I agree easy for us to say, I would agree with all of those bar the League cup but they are too lucrative for the league/National teams to scrap them.

League Cup I think is crying out for a revamp - Olympic style rules would be cool, I actually think it would be much more exciting to see our young players + some seniors in a competitive setting.
 
If we're clamping on time wasters holding up the pace of games, maybe scale back the VAR too (just saying).
 
I'm glad that Varane is saying something, even if some may not agree fully or even with part of what he says. He's a great leader. I'm more than a little concerned with fixture congestion and with the amount of games being played. You'd think that fans wouldn't mind seeing 'more football', but this does seem to be a concern help by many. The other side of the coin is that maybe this will force coaches and managers to use their squad a little better. You can't keep relying on the same 11 starters + 3 subs anymore. The game has changed and clubs have to adapt to this. From my point of view, I do think we seemed hesitant last season to give our younger players a go to freshen up the team and rotate amongst the squad. This season, I would certainly like to see our team rotated more.

As a side note, I do think we're going through a cultural shift with football at the moment. I just get the feeling that this next season (including the Summer window) will have repercussions for the next decade. The Saudi influence, the rise in transfer fees and wages (not helped by the first point), the fixture congestion, the lack of top quality strikers out there which I do think will lead to closer-fought/lower scoring games, tactical adjustments with more teams playing on the counter, an overall slower paced game, the rising costs involved with just following your team - which just seems to get more and more expensive whilst we're in a cost of living crisis, and so on.
 
Kag said:
He’s right. The new additional time rule is a load of old bollocks and will get canned after three weeks.

It‘s also another huge piss in the face of match-going supporters, who already have to leave the ground early in order to make sure they get home before 6am the next morning.

The game is fine as it is; just leave it alone.
Click to expand...
It's being run as a commercial enterprise for returns on investment, not for the players or the fans.
 
The additional time rule is pure bollox. Was watching Sheffield Wednesday v Southampton on Friday and there was 15 minutes combined added time, for basically nothing. It's going to cause fatigue issues throughout the season.
 
Robbie Boy said:
The additional time rule is pure bollox. Was watching Sheffield Wednesday v Southampton on Friday and there was 15 minutes combined added time, for basically nothing. It's going to cause fatigue issues throughout the season.
Click to expand...

It'll just end up being like a 'false extra-time' scenario, where nothing actually happens during that time anyway.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
I agree easy for us to say, I would agree with all of those bar the League cup but they are too lucrative for the league/National teams to scrap them.

League Cup I think is crying out for a revamp - Olympic style rules would be cool, I actually think it would be much more exciting to see our young players + some seniors in a competitive setting.
Click to expand...

Not convinced it needs changing. I'd argue its just as exciting as the FA Cup now. Its only 6 games if you reach the final (only 5 if you made the semi final one leg).

What I find bizarre is why mid some of the Premier League clubs don't take it seriously. A good opportunity to qualify for Europe and win a trophy. Clubs like Villa and Brentford could easily win it this season.
 
Zero issue with something being done to address the timekeeping. As someone noted above, the ball is actually in play a lot less in games now than it used to be and that should be addressed. Personally I think just stopping the clock like they do in other sports (with commensurate shorter halves) would be easier though.

But to Varane's point, players clearly play too much and that's bad for the fans given we want to see the best players playing to their best levels as much as possible. But number of actual games seems the more pressing issue.

The point about emotions, I'm not sure what he's referring to. But if it's to do with bad behaviour on the pitch towards referees etc. then yes, they should be pushed into showing more self control and less emotion.
 
Ok I'll get stick for this but I genuinely don't get why footballers cant play 2 games of 60 minutes a week. Physiologically it should be easy. I mean people do hard labor all day every day. People run consecutive marathons. The human body should be able to cope no problem. Unlike a dude working in a mine after 60 mins they get a massage and play some Fifa. I get that its an impact sport but if you have been injured then you shouldn't be playing. Maybe this is the main problem. Being forced to play with small injuries that just builds up? But why are they tired all the time? Is it all the commitments outside the game and they are just emotionally done? Then this needs to be addressed.
 
Doracle said:
Only if there have been actual injuries or other stoppages which justify it. He obviously has a good point about the schedule generally but match length is the wrong focus.
Click to expand...
Don't recall much of either of those during yesterday's Shield match, yet there were 12 mins added. Seems to be another rule where possibly the intent was correct (punish those time wasting teams) but it will be implemented incorrectly/inconsistently.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
There's nothing unreasonable about expecting to see 90 minutes of actual football in a game.

But, it's also the case that clubs, tactics, fitness/recovery strategies and squad management have been operating for a long time on the basis that matches generally involve 75-80 minutes of actual play. Teams will have to adapt to the new reality and if they don't they will suffer for it, particularly those teams whose styles involves a lot of pressing etc.
Click to expand...
We're lucky to see 75m of play in a lot of matches. Even with a 100m game, it'll barely crack 80 half the time....
 
King7Eric said:
How am I supposed to politely tell a ref he's rubbish at his job?

Making instead of trying to cover up the issue, FA should invest more resources into ensuring the refs are of a higher standard.
Click to expand...

They should allow referees from overseas. The current level of English referees is a joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.