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.