It's about time.......

[lappinitup 629]

.....The footballing authorities did away with this "added time" nonsense. In these days of goal-line technology and VAR, surely it's not too difficult to give referees a stop/start button which stops the stadium clocks whenever there's a break in play.

The clock would be stopped whenever.........

* A player goes down injured.

* A player trundles off when substituted.

* A goal is scored and the players have a love in near the corner flag.

* the ball goes out of play and until the kick is taken (if it's obvious the keeper is wasting time).

* players surounding the ref when a decision is disputed.

* And any other games players play to waste time.

Simple and inexpensive to employ but designed to stop time wasting and cheating, but easy for players and fans alike to know exactly how much time is left in the game.

Those stupid added minutes boards can be done away with but more importantly, so could the referee's need for a watch. as a hooter sounds to end the game/half time.

 

[Badger 2,741]

Agree completely - we may have to change match length to 30 minutes per half or something, but it has to be the way forward. ATM the situation is ridiculous!

[Platonic 1]

I think it's more complicated than that. 

The reason, i think , this hasn't happened is that it would cause the game to flow less. I doubt the ref would be able to manage the constant necessity of pressing the stop and start button on top of their other duties - it would be a massive drain on their concentration. Therefore, if another person is managing it, say a 5th official or something, the ref would have to slow down things such as throw ins/corners to allow the button pusher sufficient time to catch up with the action.

 

Also, I recall a podcast where they were discussing this (and where they were discussing trials of it), and essentially, over the course of 90+ minutes, it's actually very easy for someone stopping and starting a stopwatch to get mixed up and forget to press the button at the correct time. 

 

Finally, in my opinion, if you give advertisers any sniff of stop/starts that are in any way similar to those within American Football, they'll be clamoring to put 5 second adverts within them, and its not as if money hasn't won arguments within the premier league before.

[Woodman 92]

I think the premise of this argument is that the ref isn't in control of the timing - it's done by a 'man in the stand' as VAR is.  I do tend to agree, if all parties knew the watch would be stopped for lots of different situations, it might help.

Millwall did a bit of it - mainly the keeper, but I've seen a lot worse over the years.  Boro were terrible at it when they beat us at home in the season we went up, mind you we got our own back there too!

I saw something about a prem game where the ball was only in play for under 50 minutes, that's just ridiculous.

[king canary 8,383]

It would involve a fundemental change in the structure of matches- I think the average game has about 55 minutes of actual play so if we stopped the clock a game would take nearer 3 hours to get a full 90 minutes. So two 30 minutes halves would be needed. 

[lappinitup 629]

I think once players realised there would be no gain by time wasting they'd get on with it meaning more flowing football.

Everyone wins.

[shefcanary 2,854]

I agree with this but that the control is off the field of play.  All the ref needs to do is call "time off" and "time on".  It happens in other sports.  No need to play around with a watch - he uses his voice which leaves him to concentrate on matters on the pitch!  If the match clock is visible and he is miked up then transparency for all.  It ain't difficult and well overdue.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Time wasting and sh ithousery is all part of the game. Leave it as it is.

[Daz Sparks 1,538]

4 minutes ago, Hoola Han Solo said:

Time wasting and sh ithousery is all part of the game. Leave it as it is.

Gotta agree with that, when the 6 minutes were announced Saturday, I kinda agreed with that, and justice was served 7 minutes into it . 

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

11 minutes ago, Daz Sparks said:

Gotta agree with that, when the 6 minutes were announced Saturday, I kinda agreed with that, and justice was served 7 minutes into it . 

There’s nothing more exciting than an injury time winner - with this proposed time idea everybody would know the game ended exactly on 90 minutes and it would take part of the excitement away. I think football would be eminently duller if it was refereed perfectly - it’s the moments of controversy that create debating points and what make the sport such a fun one.

[ricardo 7,821]

It happens in other field sports without a problem. Football always last to take up sensible improvements.

[Branston Pickle 4,059]

It's not a bad idea, everyone would know what's what and what they can/can't get away with, as it seems to vary enormously the way it currently is. The one thing it does do in Rugby is make you realise what they do/don't pause for - scrums can take an age, I've seen it take 6 minutes to finally get one that didn't collapse, and all with the clock ticking-on.  I think the 6 mins injury time on Saturday was reasonable - no one seemed to complain about that -  there'd been several stoppages (mostly their players) and 5(?) subs + some time-wasting; that a further 35 seconds was added was also fine by most as the keeper was being booked.   

[Bill 1,788]

nope

it would cause far more problems that what you think it might solve - the ref should always be the final arbiter

what might be deemed a meaningless act...City 4-0 up at Sheff Weds may be viewed as a blatant time wasting act v Millwall

removing the refs power of discretion/judgement would cause constant argument as to why one act was time wasting and one was not

'get away' with one minor infringement (time wasting) and the ref could not penalise that same act again even if he deems it to then be deliberate

each game has so many variables that there cannot be some guide line that defines what is and is not acceptable

leave it as it is

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,196]

And of course when the board goes up it is a "minimum of x minutes", not a fixed period of time. Given there was a goal scored in those minimum of six minutes on Saturday and given that the Millwall keeper was time wasting in the same time period, there was nothing wrong with the timing of the goal. Our winning goal was shown as being scored at "90+7" minutes which is correct, the actual timing of the goal was probably 96 mins and 30 seconds, which would tie in with the time added on for the goal and time wasting by Millwall.....

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

So in reality, just over 60% football is played whereas there is no more than 12% added on in total meaning there is about 27% of the game taken up with inaction.

Something does need to be done although it is difficult to see why the referee should be responsible for time keeping. The game is quicker and the "cheating" more frequent so the less the referee has to do in "admin" the better. Someone in the stand can do it.

[Bill 1,788]

26 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

So in reality, just over 60% football is played whereas there is no more than 12% added on in total meaning there is about 27% of the game taken up with inaction.

Something does need to be done although it is difficult to see why the referee should be responsible for time keeping. The game is quicker and the "cheating" more frequent so the less the referee has to do in "admin" the better. Someone in the stand can do it.

And if that 'someone in the stand ' does it then he will have to stick rigidly to some set rules as to what is and isn't time wasting

Where at the moment the ref is is close to the action can judge.

And having some clock with the fans chanting out some countdown would merely degrade the game further

For my part I welcome the more rigorous approach referees are taking with the now wording of a minimum of X minutes

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

44 minutes ago, Bill said:

nope

it would cause far more problems that what you think it might solve - the ref should always be the final arbiter

what might be deemed a meaningless act...City 4-0 up at Sheff Weds may be viewed as a blatant time wasting act v Millwall

removing the refs power of discretion/judgement would cause constant argument as to why one act was time wasting and one was not

'get away' with one minor infringement (time wasting) and the ref could not penalise that same act again even if he deems it to then be deliberate

each game has so many variables that there cannot be some guide line that defines what is and is not acceptable

leave it as it is

I feel dirty. I agree with you.

[Mason 47 1,778]

In the same way that VAR removes the ref's discretion of judgement as to whether the ball crossed the line? Bill misses the point entirely,  what being argued is that if the ball is not in play, the clock doesn't move.  There is no grey area of 'getting away with it'.

I'd be all for (at least) some research done into this. 

The reason that we now announce 'there will be a minimum' of added time is to take the finality and responsibility away from the ref, so twarts like Harris can't tap on their watch and say it was wrong. Sometimes this works in our favour, sometimes it does. 

 

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,399]

Rugby has managed to do this for a very long time, it wouldn’t be hard to implement. The clock would stop between the time a ref whistles for the ball going out of play and the time it takes for the ball to return into play - American football also manages it pretty easily. 

Whether or not it would be a good or bad thing is harder to say - it would probably lead to their being less upsets in games and the better teams winning more often. Which in my book probably makes it something that would be detremental to the game. 

[GenerationA47 822]

54 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

it would probably lead to their being less upsets in games and the better teams winning more often. Which in my book probably makes it something that would be detremental to the game. 

Don’t disagree with the last sentence, but curious why you think that (better teams winning more often) would be a consequence ?

[SwindonCanary 457]

The ref should stop his watch to add extra time and that watch should also be on the main scoreboard

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

11 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

The ref should stop his watch to add extra time and that watch should also be on the main scoreboard

If he stopped his watch, why would he need to add extra time?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,399]

52 minutes ago, GenerationA47 said:

Don’t disagree with the last sentence, but curious why you think that (better teams winning more often) would be a consequence ?

The more the ball is in play, the more the better team has a chance to make their quality count. You often see in games where the underdog wins that with ball was in play only around 50 mins. 

[Woodman 92]

Interesting that in the whole 45 minutes of the second half on Saturday, the ref deemed that 'only' a (minimum of) an extra 6 minutes should be played.  Fair play to him for adding an extra one 1 in those 6 minutes!  30 secs of that would be for Rhodes' equlaiser and another 30 for the keeper's antics.

[nutty nigel 7,816]

The longer the second half the more goals we score so I'm for adding on more time 🙃

[Daz Sparks 1,538]

20 hours ago, Bill said:

nope

it would cause far more problems that what you think it might solve - the ref should always be the final arbiter

what might be deemed a meaningless act...City 4-0 up at Sheff Weds may be viewed as a blatant time wasting act v Millwall

removing the refs power of discretion/judgement would cause constant argument as to why one act was time wasting and one was not

'get away' with one minor infringement (time wasting) and the ref could not penalise that same act again even if he deems it to then be deliberate

each game has so many variables that there cannot be some guide line that defines what is and is not acceptable

leave it as it is

I'm with Hoola on this one, I also agree with you Bill.

[Daz Sparks 1,538]

Just to add to this thread, I would hate to see the game like American Football or Rugby, the idea alone sends a chill down my spine. Any rule changes should be subtle and thought about long and hard before implementing.

VAR doesn't really sit right with me either.

[Capt. Pants 4,773]

Whilst time wasting frustrates me when other teams do it, it's part and parcel of the game and shouldn't be changed. The VAR point is an interesting one as potentially the elapsed time of an actual game could be considerably longer. We saw in the World Cup some of the VAR decisions took an age and coupled with time wasting, or perceived time wasting, the duration of a match could run to 2.25 hours. Some of the early leavers might miss most of the second half!

[First Wazzock 971]

For me the most frustrating thing is the fact that the Referees seem to ignore all the blatant time wasting, because they are the ones who have the power to stop it. The number of Refs who are not even looking at the keeper when he is about to take a goalkick. Last Saturday was an exceptional piece of timewsting by the Millwall keeper - after placing the ball to be kicked, picking it up and slowly walking across to the other side of the 6 yard box, was always going to get a card. But there are many Refs who have a tendancy to ignore all of that. If Refs dished the cards out sending a message that it will not be tolerated we may hopefully see games that flow better. And as someone mentioned earlier in the thread the home game against Middlesborough in the promotion season was a disgrace, their keeper should have had about 5 cards that night! Another ploy keepers seem to be using is, taking an easy ball, falling on the floor allowing them to hold the ball for an age - this is another one that need stamping out.

[kick it off 2,033]

Something needs to be done but I don't think the stop/start timer thing works if I'm honest.

I'm a big NFL fan and one of the most frustrating things about it, is the fact that a 60 minute match kicks off at 6pm and doesn't finish until 9-9:30pm.

Much of that time is taken up by advert breaks in between almost every play of the game.

Football would immediately exploit this kind of stop/start control to add in additional advert breaks etc.

I'm in favour of a crackdown. Start dishing out additional yellows until players get the message that it won't be tolerated, but giving the money men chance to exploit the game's stoppages is a recipe for disaster imo