'Are we moving towards a situation where we all but eliminate the upset?'

Ben Meakin, BladesPod

Are the new laws around added time bad for the game?

Let me be clear here - this is not sour grapes. I fundamentally oppose time-wasting in football. It’s one of my biggest bugbears. I pay to watch two teams play the sport, not wipe the ball on shirts, line up free-kicks, or show miraculous powers of recovery by virtue of having a physio kneel on the ground near them.

I also want to say that yes, Tottenham deserved to beat us on Saturday – but that’s also my point. The extended allocations of added time are just one more tilt of the field towards the better teams. Is that good or bad?

A big part of the reason why football is such a great sport is that it’s low-scoring, meaning there’s a nice dose of randomness and jeopardy.

The best teams typically finish higher in the league – that’s the point of playing a season – but for every 90 minutes, there’s the dream that your team can upset the odds. It doesn’t happen often, but when it does, I’d hazard a guess that’s what 90% of us go to football for. The other 10% are lucky enough to support clubs who have a chance of winning trophies.

If we reduce the risk of an upset – an undeserved result – is that bad for the game?

The top teams have the best players, often the best managers, and the deepest pockets. VAR is arguably advantageous to those teams, with more time in the opposition box meaning that every tired trip or inadvertent handball gets picked up and penalised.

Five substitutes plays into the hands of those with the biggest squads, able to unleash tens of millions of pounds worth of talent on to weary legs and minds – something that’s exacerbated by the new time-keeping rules.

Again, I don’t want to endorse or excuse time-wasting. But is asking players to play an extra 15-plus minutes per game the answer, or are we just moving towards a situation where we all but eliminate the upset?

Get the latest Sheffield United news and analysis straight to your device