LONGER IN­TER­VAL IS IDEA WORTH DE­BATE

The Football League Paper - - GRAHAM WESTLEY -

AS golf con­sid­ers mak­ing the putting hole big­ger, I was asked this week how I felt about half time be­ing ex­tended.

My in­stinc­tive re­ac­tion was to say ‘I’d love it’. In­vari­ably, by the time the lads are in, have used the loo, done their talk­ing, seen the doc and physio, got their fu­els on board, the amount of time to de­brief the first half and brief them on the sec­ond half can be very rushed. I am of­ten left feel­ing that some ex­tra time would be good.

I was then asked about the phys­i­ol­ogy of the 15 min­utes and told that leading sports sci­en­tists were against an ex­ten­sion of the break.

Per­son­ally, I don’t see that. As an ath­lete, I would feel com­fort­able with my abil­ity to hold my men­tal state to­gether dur­ing an ex­tended break of 25 or 30 min­utes. With the fa­cil­i­ties gen­er­ally avail­able, I do not see the dif­fi­cul­ties here. Even though I am will­ing to hear a de­cent counter ar­gu­ment.

It was then put to me that an ex­tended break could make a big dif­fer­ence to sta­dium in­comes, on pitch en­ter­tain­ment for the crowd and the en­tire spec­ta­tor ex­pe­ri­ence.

I have to say, as a fan, the ex­tra time would bore me un­less what was go­ing on went up a notch.

I would def­i­nitely en­joy some time to use the fa­cil­i­ties with­out the big crush, to get a cof­fee with­out the long queue and to read my pro­gramme.

But I’m not sure I like an ex­tra 15 min­utes even so. Too of­ten, as it is, from a fans’ point of view, I just want the game back on.

If this is a se­ri­ous con­sid­er­a­tion, then I am sure that it will be a lengthy de­bate.

I can see all sides of the ar­gu­ment. But it will take a lot of thought to get it right.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.