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.

▲

HelloMcFly 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

	▲	jen20 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They should also not be used an excuse for teams to be coached as a group.

▲

xmprt 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

orangedog 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How does it violate the laws of the game?

Every single break time decision in football is arbitrary already.

	▲	nwbt 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.