I agree completely with your assessment of the water breaks, but the games were extremely entertaining and I watched as much as I could.

Of all the things wrong with the World Cup, the most inconsequential ones - hydration breaks and the final half-time show - have attracted the most griping.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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_...

The VAR calls 5 minutes after the fact were the most bothersome thing to me

Good thing you don’t watch Premier League. The World Cup VAR was snappy in comparison.

… and the 9+’ stoppage for every match.

I don't mean to be disrespectful but this is a dumb statement. Do you think splitting each half in 2 quarters doesn't have an impact on how the game is played?

Everything has an impact on how the game is played. For example Mexico played their games at 6000 feet above sea level, giving them a big advantage. Even the ball moves differently in thinner air.

At least with hydration breaks, everyone got them and they were the same for everyone. I know sports fans don't like change. If everything else about this WC was perfect I'd say "Fine, go ahead, complain". But this is the tiniest, most meaningless thing to moan about nearly 3 weeks after the tournament is done.

Introducing a break for the sole purpose of more advertising time and therefore trying to extract more value from me as a consumer, is a huge issue. Probably no.1 systemic issue of our time, where on every corner and for every breathing moment someone is optimizing to extract ever more value from others. It is incessant and never stopping.

It's exactly what enshitification is, people accepting these type of small changes and thinking it's not a big deal.

So no, it's not a tiny issue. Compared to this Balogun red card is a tiny issue.

> Introducing a break for the sole purpose of more advertising time... trying to extract more value from me as a consumer

So turn your TV off. Cancel your subscription. Support your local league team in person.

> Compared to this Balogun red card is a tiny issue.

Strong disagree. The Balogun red card strikes at the very heart of fair competition within the game.

> So turn your TV off. Cancel your subscription. Support your local league team in person.

First of all I support my local team and go to almost every home game and a couple of away games each season.

But don't you see what you're providing as possible alternatives?

1. Stop following your national team which gave you huge joy in the past, and just not have that as part of your life. Why? Because of greed of others.

2. Go to live games, where ticket prices are gouged and the same extraction process happens. And hell even there you don't get to skip the hydration breaks magically.

In this case, my experience and something I care for is becoming shittier. And this is just a small example. It's happening in pretty much every facet of our environment. And why is it happening? Because of our economic system that rewards incessant greed and sociopathic behaviour.

> the most inconsequential ones

This is like saying “customers aren’t worried enough about the corporate process - they only care about the end product!”

the mandatory ad breaks were usa-level bullshit that never happened before, not even when they were playing in the fucking desert (and that world cup should have been boycotted too, but for different reasons.)

a few years ago when the momentum was moving towards tennis, some european clubs proposed a "super league" comprising of only the elite teams, the purpose was again to maximize ad profits (and i should go back to check who actually proposed it, who they were affiliated with). That time they were suggested not to proceed, or else they would be boycotted from all other events, the players too. That was also a good decision.

football (not handegg) it already corrupt enough as it is, and too much money is flowing into it, it's incredible and heart warming that there is still some dignity left in the associations.

There was extensive coverage and discussion of Trump getting the Balogun red card overturned.

Thank you! An actual problem!

Disrupting the pace of the game twice as many times, oftenly during critical moments is inconsequential to you? You don't sound like quite a sports person.

By this reasoning, are regular football fans really "sports people?" They tolerate wildly inconsistent officiating and diving (and other forms of unsportsmanlike conduct) that occur at every level of the game. Disrupting the pace would be the least of my worries.

I don't know one single non american who enjoyed that ludicrous display of a half time show. And don't get me started on mr scientology giving a stupid speech. oh my god.

Why would non-fans even care? It was a 3 minute break, non-fans would not have any idea that you were going for 2 halves to 4 "quarters". I think this is the kind of thing purists care about but most people don't, most don't even know it is new.

I'm most certainly not a football fan, but I definitely know that a match consists of two 45 minute (and then some) halves. It's pretty much equivalent to a non motor enthusiast knowing that there are usually four wheels on a car.

I'd say this is very, very common knowledge in huge parts of the world. It's not something only enthusiasts and purists know.

Sure, but they aren't leaving the field. There are plenty of stoppages in game already which take as much time. In that sense it's nothing new. Do non-fans view it as changing to 4 "quarters"? I'm not sure most people would care. This is what I mean it's the kind of thing that football purists care about but it's a very small thing.

The breaks change the game more than you’d think, especially when the coach gets to have a strategy session with the whole team. Completely changed the momentum in several games.

I don't know... I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're from a country where football isn't very popular. I don't think you realize just how many fans there are. How utterly ingrained it is in the culture of many countries. "non-fans" make up a minuscule minority of the population of at least Europe, and as far as I understand it South America and parts of Africa too. Not sure about Asia (varies wildly between countries, I suppose), but according to [0] it's estimated that about 3.5 billion people are considered football fans.

This is certainly something many people I know have cared a lot about - and again, I'm not a football enthusiast myself, but still the vast majority of the people I know are, because, not being one really is an outlier.

[0] https://www.topendsports.com/world/lists/popular-sport/fans....

> There are plenty of stoppages in game already which take as much time.

Well. Not really. And those "stoppages" are part of the game. Actually watching the players quarrel with the referee and whatnot is something football fans want to do. It's not comparable.

“I’m not sure what the big deal about tripling the number of tire changes in the race is.”

Why would anyone be in favour of more ad breaks?

I'm not arguing for ad breaks, I'm saying non-fans would not even be aware this is something new.

This is the thing that is too much? I just don't get it. The entire thing is a spectacle to sell ads.

Europe is full of people who are not fans, but will still hear all about the games when their country plays, because it's basically impossible to avoid. Chat groups, work banter, waiting rooms, everybody will be talking about it ALL THE TIME. There is a base level of knowledge for the sport everybody shares. Maybe it's the same with American Football in the US? As a European, I still have no idea what that is even remotely about.

A game having two main uninterrupted halves is one of those foundational facts. Players train for being able to play for that long without getting too thirsty to continue.

In almost every part of the world, all people know some basic things about football (and I do mean the one where you kick a ball with the foot), like it has two halves of 45 minutes.

On the other hand, it gives a chance for fans to turn off the TV when the game isn’t great

No one really gives a shit what Americans who don't follow football think, though.

The original post mentioned people that weren't fans, though. Who are we talking about that are "football people" but not fans. I'm not trying to be dense, I just don't know which audience this is.

USA is the exception here. In most countries, even people who are not football fans are pretty aware of how it works.

I don't often watch football outside the world cup. I don't support any teams. But I know how football is meant to be played, and I was definitely annoyed about the hydration breaks.

Does USA have people that don't follow american football but will watch the Superbowl? Would those people notice if there were three times as many breaks as usual?

> Does USA have people that don't follow american football but will watch the Superbowl? Would those people notice if there were three times as many breaks as usual?

Well...many if not most of the people who don't follow NFL and watch the Super Bowl are watching it for the half time show and ads, so more breaks would make them happy, heh.

[delayed]

> non-fans would not have any idea that you were going for 2 halves to 4 "quarters"

… By non-fans do you mean people who have literally never heard of football, or something? I’m very far from a fan, no interest at all. But, I mean, I know there are two halves. Everybody knows that.

There still are 2 halves. Framing it as quarters is the entire thing. There are numerous things throughout a game which will cause the game to be paused just as long, which is why there is stoppage time.

There aren’t usually numerous 5-minutes pauses in a football match, no.

except during that time players aren’t huddling around the manager and the rest of the coaching staff. all of whom have their ipads out to discuss stats breakdowns and instruct players on changing tactics and strategies.

that’s what effectively made the hydration breaks turn it into a game of four quarters. lost count of the number of times teams completely changed their strategy after the breaks and went on to score goals etc.

you make the players drink the water from the centre of the field with no coaching staff present then it would have less of an impact. but there’s still an impact as all players can huddle together and discuss things together in a way they normally wouldn’t be able to without a severe stoppage ie a delay going on 5-10+ minutes, which is usually rare.

I think by non fans they just mean americans, it’s almost impossiible to not be aware of the basic rules outside of there.

I didn't know there were two halves or how long they are. I'm over 40 and the first actual soccer match I've seen was in the latest world cup.

Most football non-fans absolutely know that a football match is supposed to be two halves.

It's still two halves there is just another short stoppage time in which players stay on the field, the same as every foul, goal, and variety of other timing based decisions in football.

I wouldn’t know, I haven’t watched a single football match since 2018. As for short stoppage time, football use to have much less than, say, rugby. Was it different this year?

Yes. Very much so. They added in so called hydration breaks in the middle of the halves for extra revenue.

Rugby stoppages are beginning to get ridiculous but they aren't doing them for advertising yet.

This would only be true if they did not allow the hydration breaks to be used as a group coaching opportunity.

Why don't you just say: I know nothing about football ( and I dont care much), please enlighten me?

- Football is not a game of easy scoring, often you have to build momentum, by relentlessly putting pressure on the other team. It's more important than in other sports, because in football a weaker team can easily earn a draw against a stronger team if the later fails to do just that.

Your attacks ( and defense efforts) must compound. It's almost like building a narrative inside the head of the players and inside the head of the spectators before a goal gives everyone a release one way or the other. Moreso than in other sports where you have a lot of scoring happening. Football is closer to watching an epic drama.

Now it's true that dynamics can change on a dime. But you often have to earn that change ( like by having a skilled player who attracts fouls ). Having regular breaks makes it almost like watching another sport.

- In most of Europe and South America even people who don't watch regular league games have an intuitive expectation of how a game should be played. And they care.

Especially when it comes to national teams because it's often a big part of the national lore. ( It's like the offside rule. Even people who despise the game end up being experts )