LONGER INTERVAL IS IDEA WORTH DEBATE
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.