Biggest issue with "on the clock" playing is you drasticly change the last 5 min of play and coult potential break off an attack-to-goal play just cause the time ran out.

 

Can adjustments and refinements be made to the sport? Sure. But I don't think changing timekeeping is a way forward.

 

 

Biggest issue with "on the clock" playing is you drasticly change the last 5 min of play and coult potential break off an attack-to-goal play just cause the time ran out.  

 

Let's say we change the format from 90 minutes to 60 minutes. Everybody knows the match is 60 min, no more no less. If you can't score in the time that you've been given, why bitch about that when everybody knows that's how long the game is supposed to be. How would that look in other sports? For example in F1 you know the Grand Prix is let's say 50 laps. Teams strategize around that given fact and drivers drive their cars for that specific numbers, as fuel and tires are limited. This number is set, no matter if there is a safety car, yellow flag whatever the number stays the same. You were going to attack the last 10 laps, but you would only manage to get past on the 11th? Though luck, because you know you had so many laps to do it and to me this same should apply to football in case we do actually go to actual play time. You had 60 minutes to score, so why would you do it in a potential 61'. 

I feels for Croatia, overall they played better than France and showed just how hungry they were for the win. Unfortunately despite not giving up the whole game they just couldn't recoup from the 2 unlucky goals against them in that first half. That's sports for you though, without the ups and downs it just wouldn't be any fun to watch

@Yehom: About the penalty: some think it is a penalty and some don’t, the referee interprets in real time it wasn’t. When the VAR looks at this they cannot intervene unless it is a clear error (which it definitly isn’t as there’s still discussion after seeing the film 100 times + the ref had to look at it like 10 times), so NO clear error and the VAR shouldn’t have intervened...

When the VAR looks at this they cannot intervene unless it is a clear error

That's not how it works though. The VAR can intervene in 4 specific moment: 1) supposed mistakes which occur before a goal (offside, fouls etc), 2) supposed penalty (goes both ways), 3) red cards, 4) referee punishes the wrong player. Nowhere is stated that the VAR can only intervene in case of a clear error. If the VAR deems it that a penalty moment should be revised again by the referee, than that is their call, however the referee is still the person that makes the final call. The VAR can only bring up the moment for the referee to judge, because ultimately he is still the person who has the last say in the matter, for example the hand ball moment during Argentina - Nigeria, Cakir (the referee) was made aware that their was a hand ball moment by the VAR, the referee deemed that it wasn't a hand ball, just like Pitana deemed that it was a hand ball in this match 

About the time, I recall a match on this WC were the ref made the ovettime last more the double the first alloted time due to the various time delaying effects/efforts (not all malicious), so it can be done if you brief the refs about it. Think it was South Korea 2-0 Germany.

 

Probably personal but I just don't like seeing a hard target (time). I feel the thinking about for instance races with fixed laps fals more into the golden goal fiasco.

 

As for the penalty, it was. Any touch from hand/arm inside the 16 which alters the ball's trajectory is a penalty. basically in the 16 the players should be like this. Offcurse yellow/red can be awarded for malicious intent.

About the 'rules of the VAR' : "The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are made in conjunction with the award or non-award of a penalty kick."

So this clearly wasn't an occassion the VAR shouldn't have intervened as said earlier people are still discussing and it's still 50/50... So NO clearly wrong decision...

 

To me it really wasn't a penalty, because Matuidi hit the ball at very close range from Perisic. If Perisic would've hit the ball himself and it would've hit his arm after, it isn't a penalty... (like in one of the previous games) So why should it be a penalty if another player hits it from this close and it hits your arm? Do we really want to go the way that players will only be able to jump in the air when their arms are on their back?

Besides that if pushing/shuving/holding/grabbing/... is all allowed in the box (the VAR never intervenes on these things, why? Because it's probably no clear error either or it's normal ), why is an UNINTENTIONAL handball punished this hard?