> I always considered match events being given in the timing they occured. A goal is scored when a goal is scored
Well, "scored" literally means to be marked on the scoreboard, i.e. "counted" or "tallied" or "chalked" etc. I assume you meant the moment when the ball crossed the line. I don't mean to play word games though, only to say my point is still the same. What is a goal? A goal doesn't exist until the referee awards it. Regardless of when the ball crossed the line, or whether it did so at all.
The ball crossing the line is neither sufficient nor necessary to constitute a goal. The referee's final decision is.
For example, there are many familiar scenarios where a goal was awarded (by the referee) and counted in the result, but replays show the ball never crossed the line at all. In that case the "match event" never occurred. Only the referee's decision did.
> I would agree if we had access to referee match reports and could be consistent but that is not the case.
We have videos for most matches nowadays. We can at least be consistent within a given tournament, say.
> if the ref or VAR take 3 minutes to validate a goal, that does not make 3 minutes of playing time
Fair, but it is the same situation as when a spectator runs on the pitch or throws a flare, or a floodlight fails etc. There can be 3 minutes or more of lost playing time while we wait for the game to resume, but typically the clock is not stopped. Or, it is stopped by the TV company but not the referee, or vice versa...
> is it important that a goal is scored in the 56 of 57th minute? I do not care....
Right, why are we spending time collecting all this useless data! Is it important if Belgium won or lost vs Netherlands in 1922*? Who cares!
* of course, I have deliberately chosen a year in which Belgium won, to avoid further enraging Piet :-)
It is quite arbitrary to use minutes, it just comes from the old days of long-winded chronological match reports; a journalist and his stopwatch.
Nowadays we could use minutes and seconds. Or we could changed to an ordinal system, and just number the match events as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc regardless of the times they occur.
> Back to topic; one of the proposals is to cut the game time to 60 minutes. Cynical me (as I am) assume it's just a way to play more games with more time given to advertising?
I'm sure you're right. Although stopping the clock when the ball is out of play is not necessarily conducive to ad-breaks, as there would be short and variable length interruptions. They could fix that by enforcing a minimum interval before restarts of say 20 seconds, to fit adverts.
And at least the stopped clock rule would solve the goal timing problem being discussed here.
They say it's about cutting down time wasting, but time wasting comes in many forms and for many reasons. It is not always done just to bring the final whistle closer and help a team preserve a 1-0 lead. It can be done to break the opponent's momentum, preserve energy, regain tactical position, drink water, coaching instructions etc. Also it is perfectly possible to waste time while the ball is in play, e.g. holding the ball in the corner as mentioned above, or goalkeeper dithering.
And how about free-kicks? Nowadays these are the most boring events in football, waiting for the referee to mark out 10 yards, spray a line, explain to the wall that they shouldn't use their hands (as if these players are complete beginners at football), reprimanding jostlers, going back to his vantage point, gesturing authoritatively, etc, this is the biggest waste of all and I don't see how this rule will affect it. It just means that all the tedium is taking place with the clock stopped, which if anything will encourage more tedium.
Anyway we know what will happen. This new rule will be suddenly enforced, with no previous trials, in a major competition.