They should also not be used an excuse for teams to be coached as a group.

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.

The breaks change the game more than you’d think, especially when the coach gets to have a strategy session with the whole team. Completely changed the momentum in several games.

I don't know... I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're from a country where football isn't very popular. I don't think you realize just how many fans there are. How utterly ingrained it is in the culture of many countries. "non-fans" make up a minuscule minority of the population of at least Europe, and as far as I understand it South America and parts of Africa too. Not sure about Asia (varies wildly between countries, I suppose), but according to [0] it's estimated that about 3.5 billion people are considered football fans.

This is certainly something many people I know have cared a lot about - and again, I'm not a football enthusiast myself, but still the vast majority of the people I know are, because, not being one really is an outlier.

[0] https://www.topendsports.com/world/lists/popular-sport/fans....

> There are plenty of stoppages in game already which take as much time.

Well. Not really. And those "stoppages" are part of the game. Actually watching the players quarrel with the referee and whatnot is something football fans want to do. It's not comparable.

“I’m not sure what the big deal about tripling the number of tire changes in the race is.”

There aren’t usually numerous 5-minutes pauses in a football match, no.

except during that time players aren’t huddling around the manager and the rest of the coaching staff. all of whom have their ipads out to discuss stats breakdowns and instruct players on changing tactics and strategies.

that’s what effectively made the hydration breaks turn it into a game of four quarters. lost count of the number of times teams completely changed their strategy after the breaks and went on to score goals etc.

you make the players drink the water from the centre of the field with no coaching staff present then it would have less of an impact. but there’s still an impact as all players can huddle together and discuss things together in a way they normally wouldn’t be able to without a severe stoppage ie a delay going on 5-10+ minutes, which is usually rare.

Europe is full of people who are not fans, but will still hear all about the games when their country plays, because it's basically impossible to avoid. Chat groups, work banter, waiting rooms, everybody will be talking about it ALL THE TIME. There is a base level of knowledge for the sport everybody shares. Maybe it's the same with American Football in the US? As a European, I still have no idea what that is even remotely about.

A game having two main uninterrupted halves is one of those foundational facts. Players train for being able to play for that long without getting too thirsty to continue.

In almost every part of the world, all people know some basic things about football (and I do mean the one where you kick a ball with the foot), like it has two halves of 45 minutes.

On the other hand, it gives a chance for fans to turn off the TV when the game isn’t great

No one really gives a shit what Americans who don't follow football think, though.

I wouldn’t know, I haven’t watched a single football match since 2018. As for short stoppage time, football use to have much less than, say, rugby. Was it different this year?

This would only be true if they did not allow the hydration breaks to be used as a group coaching opportunity.