Hacker News Reader

Comment by alberto-m | Hacker News Reader

Changing the pauses of the game alters the momentum and, as consequence, the results. How is that “inconsequential”? There have been cases of corrupted referees before, but violating the Laws of the Game in plain sight is an unprecedented attack on the sport.

View on HN

I think hydration breaks can be defensible as long as they are a) conditionally triggered by pre-existing criteria that is b) created by an honest assessment of player welfare independent of economic considerations.

I can't say I think the halftime show is a big deal at all though.

They should also not be used an excuse for teams to be coached as a group.

We have been playing footbal as 2x 45 min for ever. Make it 4x 22 min and it's not the same game at all.

Given how the world is heating up and weather is getting more extreme, I think there has to be space for player welfare. That doesn't mean there aren't options for how to implement these things, but I don't think adding 2x 3-minute hydration break (for instance) transforms football into some unrecognizable bastardized version of itself provided the impetus is health and safety vs. economics.

They already play at the evening, and or in cooled stadium. Beside it's the same condition for both team.

Adding 2 more pauses is actually bastardizing football.

How does it violate the laws of the game?

Every single break time decision in football is arbitrary already.

Every rule in sports is arbitrary, that's not an argument. If you want to do it properly, ask about the spirit of the game, not the laws - and there's clearly a conflict there.

The half time show did, however violate the letter of the rulebook. There is a maximum duration for half time breaks, which was exceeded easily.

The rulebook says the duration of half-time must be specified in competition rules and can be altered if the referee allows it.

"Players are entitled to an interval at half-time, not exceeding 15 minutes; a short drinks break (which should not exceed one minute) is permitted at the interval of half-time in extra time. Competition rules must state the duration of the half-time interval and it may be altered only with the referee’s permission."

You could argue that that this rule allows referees to extend the half-time break.

What would be the purpose of the clause "not exceeding 15 minutes" then? The rule is clear: the competition can choose an inverval duration between 0-15 minutes, the referee can alter it inside that range (I've only ever seen it extended beyond that span for unplanned force majeure reasons like a storm).

In any case it's clear that the WC referee had no role in the scheduling of those half-time antics.

> it's clear that the WC referee had no role in the scheduling of those half-time antics

Surely the ref had to rubber stamp it.

I can agree that it definitely makes it a different game/playstyle but I'm still not sure if it's guaranteed worse. Putting ads during the break is obviously bad and a cash grab but from a gameplay perspective, it's not clear that a short break during the half is necessarily worse.

Who gets to decide what “the Laws of the Gane” are in the FIFA World Cup?

The IFAB, just like in any other event. The Laws of the Game are codified, and FIFA has insufficent voting power to change them unilaterally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_the_Game_(association_...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com