The water breaks break up momentum—they’re three minutes long from whistle to whistle—but I thought they would have a bigger impact. I like the fact that every match, regardless of where it’s played, has those breaks. It makes each game feel more equal.

The issue is that they were going to happen whether we wanted them to or not, due to the heat. If one match had them and another didn’t, the rhythm of the tournament would feel off. It helps teams settle into a rhythm when everything is standardized, when every match is played the same way.

When Curaçao equalized to make it 1-1 against Germany, you could sense the change in momentum after the break. Germany were able to settle themselves. Maybe they don’t get their second goal before halftime without it.

Everything evens out with all the rules they’ve added to speed up throw-ins, free kicks, and goal kicks. When you don’t try to keep the ball in play, like in the Champions League final, and you have water breaks, it becomes almost unwatchable.

The coach gets, what, two minutes and thirty seconds to yell instructions at the players. The resulting drop ball or free kick seems to have a negligible impact. I wouldn’t want this to become the norm for every competition, every match, but I find it silly when people compare a three-minute stoppage to a fifteen-minute halftime. It’s no longer than the break between quarters in an NFL game, and possession doesn’t change—they don’t switch to playing on the other half of the field.

If they switched ends of the field between quarters, then I’d have a problem with it, because that’s the difference between attacking the away end or the home end. In domestic league matches and tournaments, teams water the pitch depending on which end they’re attacking. That would have a bigger impact on the game.