[Football] Added Time

[BBassic]

Honestly the rules we have now are probably fine they just need to be enforced more regularly. Yellow cards, without fail, for time wasting.

Which would of course involve the refs getting together and doing it right, consistently. Which is like asking for a Brexiteer and a Remainer to agree on anything so f**k all chance there.

But my word it would be delicious to see a goalkeeper sent off in the first twenty minutes of a game if he's been timewasting since the whistle.

 

[Perry's Tracksuit Bottoms]

Honestly the rules we have now are probably fine they just need to be enforced more regularly. Yellow cards, without fail, for time wasting.

Which would of course involve the refs getting together and doing it right, consistently. Which is like asking for a Brexiteer and a Remainer to agree on anything so f**k all chance there.

But my word it would be delicious to see a goalkeeper sent off in the first twenty minutes of a game if he's been timewasting since the whistle.

Trouble is, it's very hard to define 'time-wasting' as it's a matter of interpretation. Whereas if you stop the clock, it would remove a large element of it.

 

[seagull_si]

A lot of the time wasting is not to simply run down the clock, it is to stop the other team gaining momentum and the game being fluid. Simply stopping the clock when the ball is out of play is not the answer. It is part of the solution but nowhere near the whole solution.

 

[seagull_si]

Trouble is, it's very hard to define 'time-wasting' as it's a matter of interpretation. Whereas if you stop the clock, it would remove a large element of it.

But ref's have no problem deciding it is time wasting in the 85th minute and issuing a yellow card to the keeper where it will made no difference to the game at that point even though they have been doing the same thing for 45 minutes in some cases.

 

[Triggaaar]

I like the idea. It obliterates time wasting at a stroke. The argument against is that games would take all night, which they would at the moment. But there would be no need for substitutions to take hours etc, because the timewasting isn't achieving anything.

It wouldn't obliterate time wasting, because it would still be done to stop momentum and the flow of the game when the other team is on top. And also when a team is knackered and under the cosh they could use such stoppages to their advantage. If there's a clock that stops, then the ref isn't going to be handing out yellow cards to easily, so we'd end up with more time wasting than we have now.

No thanks. it would just slow everything down. No incentive to get on with it.

Indeed.

Equally no incentive to not get on with it.

As above, there are incentives not to get on with it.

 

[nickbrighton]

i think there should be a rule that no substitutions are allowed in the last 5 mins of a game.

Its mainly used as a ploy to just disrupt the opposing team, and blatantly time waste. Plenty of times we see teams getting absolutely battered and the only way it seems to prevent a goal is the subs coming on with 90 seconds of normal time left. I know refs add time on for subs, but its rarely anything like the actual time it takes for players to amble off the pitch, which eats into whatever stoppage time is added.

I can not recall the last time I saw an actual injury substitution after 85 mins so its not going to impact on team numbers , and if you allowed injury subs only, players would be going down even more than they do in the last few mins

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

The time "wasted" and then added on is not the problem. The problem is players deliberately stopping the game for as long as possible to interrupt the momentum of the opposing team. The longer the delays, the more difficult it is for the opposing side to reach the previous momentum.

Exactly this. Time wasting is a thing of course, but the majority of the time it's just to disrupt the flow of the game and the crowd noise surging. It works too.

I think a more important issue is to just not stop the game for an injured player.... ever. Unless he has to be stretchered off. Players going down with "cramp" and the whole game and millions of people around the world twiddling their thumbs. It's ridiculous.

 

[raymondo]

There seems to be little logic to this and I just wondered whether, or not, it's time to have a better process. For example whenever play stops the time stops, i.e. a sub wants to take two minutes walking off the pitch then crack on Son, the watch is stopped. When a goalie wants to take the ball on a sponsored walk prior to a goal kick then crack on. It's a bit like Rugby, I accept, but it would remove the random number popping up and remove any incentive to jog up and down the six yard box wondering where to take the kick from.

Calling @DrNo

Yes please...and I'm sure we've all noticed the refs wait for the current play to complete before blowing the final whistle, they believe has to be on the half way line +/- 5 yards before they blow for end of the match

 

[Acker79]

No thanks. it would just slow everything down. No incentive to get on with it.

Would we ever take a throw in? Opponents kick the ball out and Cucurella or Veltman line up for the throw and... nothing. Just constantly looking around for someone to make themselves available until everyone falls asleep.

 

[Titanic]

Copy rugby union, the clock is frozen straight away with every stop in play. The match isn’t over until, in rugby’s case the full 80 minutes have been played.

NOT when the football ref and his off pitch colleague randomly decide.

Also ends the chaos of time added on in stoppage time. Where some refs appear to add on a full minute per substitution or goal celebration, regardless of whether it took 20 seconds or were deliberately dragged out for eons.

Have they changed that in rugby? It only used to be when the ref indicated to stop the clock for decision reviews, disciplinary chats, injuries etc... not for scrums, line outs etc...

 

[Creaky]

Have they changed that in rugby? It only used to be when the ref indicated to stop the clock for decision reviews, disciplinary chats, injuries etc... not for scrums, line outs etc...

Certainly still the case in Rugby League.

 

[Creaky]

My biggest peeve about time wasting is that despite the ref pointing at his watch and/or issuing yellow cards for time wasting the actual number of “wasted” minutes never seem to get added in full.

Rather than having a stopping clock, (that ultimately would end up being used tactically by one side or another), do things the opposite way round - when the ref decides time is being wasted then make a signal to the 4th official and the time will start being added to a separate clock and would only be stopped when play resumes - likewise with injuries and VAR - as soon as play is delayed for either, time would be added to the second clock.

This system would still allow the ref to punish for deliberate time wasting and would negate any potential advantage for “making the most” of an injury.

At the end of each half then the actual added time could be played out with the 4th official advising of any further time to be added for delays during the period of added time.

At the moment the length of added time seems to be a purely subjective decision by the referee and is just a further task for them to keep track of.

 

[The Wookiee]

Edit to add: I am not the first person to suggest this, obviously.

I hope we'll get there one day, but I'd like it to end up like Rugby where there is an independently managed clock which stops whenever play does, so there is no 'stoppage' time.

I'm sure analysis has been performed as to the actual playing time on average, and they can set the playing time to a realistic value, say 70 minutes of ACTUAL football.

https://talksport.com/football/3159...r-league-side-201718-season-171127263506/amp/

 

[Bodian]

Never understood why players can't be treated on the pitch whilst play continues as in rugby. That would cut out quite a bit of play-acting to waste time.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Never understood why players can't be treated on the pitch whilst play continues as in rugby. That would cut out quite a bit of play-acting to waste time.

In rugby, they allow treatment on the pitch when the injured man is not in a pl;ace where the ball is likely to go. In League, that means behind the play. If he is in front of the play then play stops because he is likely to be run over by the other players.

In football, the ball moves about much more randomly and you can never say the treatment is in a part of the pitch where players are not likely to go.

 

[Weststander]

Have they changed that in rugby? It only used to be when the ref indicated to stop the clock for decision reviews, disciplinary chats, injuries etc... not for scrums, line outs etc...

In my experience refs tend to indicate straight away.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Exactly this. Time wasting is a thing of course, but the majority of the time it's just to disrupt the flow of the game and the crowd noise surging. It works too.

I think a more important issue is to just not stop the game for an injured player.... ever. Unless he has to be stretchered off. Players going down with "cramp" and the whole game and millions of people around the world twiddling their thumbs. It's ridiculous.

For injured players, when the ref asks them if they need treatment, the answer can only be "Yes" in which case they go off until the next break in play, or "No" which means play can restart immediately. What happens now is that the player has fallen over and hurt himself, and while writhing in agony manages to self-diagnose to say that he doesn't need treatment, and then slowly climbs to his feet in 30-second increments before sprinting into position. Either he is fit to carry on or he needs treatment, let's not have half measures where they don't get treated but still manage to hold the play up.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

It wouldn't obliterate time wasting, because it would still be done to stop momentum and the flow of the game when the other team is on top. And also when a team is knackered and under the cosh they could use such stoppages to their advantage. If there's a clock that stops, then the ref isn't going to be handing out yellow cards to easily, so we'd end up with more time wasting than we have now.

Indeed.

As above, there are incentives not to get on with it.

Yet, I don't see that in rugby, basketball etc.

The ref can still dole out cards as he sees fit if he sees someone gaming the system. Or more realistically give the decision the other way if the team are taking an unduly long time

 

[amexer]

I think limit to when clock stops. But a few simple introductions would make sense. I would suggest stopped when goal scored and restarted on KO. so would not matter about time of celebrations. It would of course help if they told us how extra time is calculated. For eg is it x time for goals and x for subs. Do they time each visit by physio or is it guess work.

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

Yes please...and I'm sure we've all noticed the refs wait for the current play to complete before blowing the final whistle, they believe has to be on the half way line +/- 5 yards before they blow for end of the match

Or like Rugby, the next time it goes out of play or is a dead ball?