[Football] Injury Time Yesterday

[Creaky]

I'd certainly vote for this. Technology would not be expensive, and the game would have to be changed to 30 minutes each way - 30 minutes with the ball actually and actively in play. Clock stops ticking instantly play stops, be it for a throw in, goal kick, free kick, goal, injury, substitution or whatever. No excuses, no time-wasting, no arguments.


Bring it on!

Another and much simpler option is for the ref to “stop the clock”, (the clock would restart when play commenced), instead of trying to estimate, (guess), how many minutes to add on at the end of each half.

This would have a couple of advantages over the current system, the fans and the players would know exactly when each half was due to end, no more accusations of “Fergie time”, and it would stop arguments over time wasting.

 

[Peter Grummit]

No player is allowed inside the box until the ball leaves the area on a goal kick for. This is what the referee clearly signalled.

However it is my assumption that this was highlighted by VAR as it was so long after the Goal Kick was taken. VAR may have been consulted for the Handball and foul which we were all expected to be given and in the run up to that it was highlighted about the goal kick. Regardless the Goal Kick was retaken and the Referee clearly signled this to be the reason why.

I was puzzled by this decision, but then also concluded that it was because a Brighton player entered the box before the ball left it - because leave it it certainly did. However, that issue is not eligible for VAR (red cards; goals; pens only) so one of the on-field officials must have spotted it.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Are you advocating a large clock displayed that stops when the ball is not in play or when a player goes down injured, which could be operated by the 4th official. There would then be no confusion and everybody would know when the clock has been stopped.

He could also stop it when the sub board is raised and restart when play restarts so nothing gained by players taking ages to walk across the pitch to be subbed.

A running / stopping clock works well in basketball and would stop time wasting my concern would be that ninety minutes could last three hours. I'm sure I read somewhere that in a standard game of ninety minutes the ball is only in play for sixty five minutes.

There may be something in that you suggest. Certainly in this day and age with modern technology at his dsposal, there may well be some way of the referee stopping the clock on display when he stops his own watch. That way there would never be any dispute.

Thumbs up for BG here.

An obvious and sensible solution to a perennial problem that both codes of rugby have been using for years.

You needn't have additional clocks (like in rugby) either - straightforward to link the clock control device, to the stadium screens (need to add seconds, to the clock layout, of course). In fact, if you want to spend a bit you can even link it up (already in use for high level basket-ball) whereby each blast on the referee's whistle, automatically stops the clock (he restarts it using a button on his belt-pack).

 

[GT49er]

I do not think that is feasible for many reasons the foremost being travel home after the games. It would however work with the clock being stopped when play is topped due to an incident ie injury, substitution the ball not being returned by fans behind the goals etc.

Did you not understand the bit about 30 minutes play each way, instead of the current 45? The average match now has on average 65 minutes out of the 90 minutes with the ball actually in play, so the idea that people wouldn't be able to travel home in pretty much the same way as they do now, and at pretty much the same time, is nonsense. They might, on average, even be five minutes earlier!

 

[GT49er]

You needn't have additional clocks (like in rugby) either - straightforward to link the clock control device, to the stadium screens (need to add seconds, to the clock layout, of course). In fact, if you want to spend a bit you can even link it up (already in use for high level basket-ball) whereby each blast on the referee's whistle, automatically stops the clock (he restarts it using a button on his belt-pack).

Of course you can. Technologically a piece of very, very soft Victoria Sponge compared to the cost of VAR.


And as for the suggestion that people wouldn't be able to get home ...............................

 

[Acker79]

So, just so I've understood this, you're saying it can be that actually less than 90 mins of in-play football is allowable by the ref? I did not know that.

Yeah. As someone else mentioned, the ball is in play for significantly less than the 90mins. A couple of minutes added on doesn't really compensate for it. This article is a little old (from Aug 2017) but gives an idea of how bad it can be. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40993250

 

[BensGrandad]

Did you not understand the bit about 30 minutes play each way, instead of the current 45? The average match now has on average 65 minutes out of the 90 minutes with the ball actually in play, so the idea that people wouldn't be able to travel home in pretty much the same way as they do now, and at pretty much the same time, is nonsense. They might, on average, even be five minutes earlier!

whether it be 30 mins in play or 45 is immaterial as it is impossible to legislate and plan the time the game will finish in order to arrange travel home

 

[GT49er]

whether it be 30 mins in play or 45 is immaterial as it is impossible to legislate and plan the time the game will finish in order to arrange travel home

So you don't agree that games now usually have about 65 minutes playing time? So, playing two 30 all-action halves would take up the same time. There's unlikely to be much variation - a few minutes here or there wouldn't matter.

 

[BensGrandad]

So you don't agree that games now usually have about 65 minutes playing time? So, playing two 30 all-action halves would take up the same time. There's unlikely to be much variation - a few minutes here or there wouldn't matter.

Using 30 mins each way a game kicking off at 3pm could finish at any time between 4.15pm and 6pm or even later how can you plan for that whereas now you know at the worst it will finish by 5pm the same would happen, give or take a few minutes, with my idea of stopping the clock when there is an incident.

 

[Acker79]

So you don't agree that games now usually have about 65 minutes playing time? So, playing two 30 all-action halves would take up the same time. There's unlikely to be much variation - a few minutes here or there wouldn't matter.

Using 30 mins each way a game kicking off at 3pm could finish at any time between 4.15pm and 6pm or even later how can you plan for that whereas now you know at the worst it will finish by 5pm the same would happen, give or take a few minutes, with my idea of stopping the clock when there is an incident.

I'm struggling with this a bit.

Currently, the ball is typically out of play for between 20-40 minutes out of 90. If we make the game 60 minutes, and the 20-40 minutes added back in brings it out within the same sort of time range as a typical match as we currently stand. Somehow you've added an extra 60 minutes to the game without any explanation for it. Why does 90 = 60 (in play) + 30 (out of play) suddenly become 60 (in play) + 105 (out of play)? If the clock is stopped, what is the point in taking your time over a goalkick when you have a slender lead and want to avoid conceding late? If anything, surely the time taken at set pieces will reduce because there is no advantage to delaying them?

Why, if you think playing 30min halves where the clock stops when the ball is out of play will make the game run 180mins (including 15min half time), do you think this won't be an issue if we follow your suggestion of... stopping the clock for injuries (we're all plenty cynical about how genuine many of these are) and substitutions?

If you're suggesting we only stop the clock for certain incidents where there is a notable delay (i.e. not every time it goes out of play), how is that different to how things stand at the moment?

 

[GT49er]

Using 30 mins each way a game kicking off at 3pm could finish at any time between 4.15pm and 6pm or even later how can you plan for that whereas now you know at the worst it will finish by 5pm the same would happen, give or take a few minutes, with my idea of stopping the clock when there is an incident.

So, 60 minutes of actual play (that's the total of 30 minutes each way) takes from 3pm to 6pm? Sigh.......

Over to you, #alwaysmusthavethelastword.

 

[Mellotron]

Yeah. As someone else mentioned, the ball is in play for significantly less than the 90mins. A couple of minutes added on doesn't really compensate for it. This article is a little old (from Aug 2017) but gives an idea of how bad it can be. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40993250

That's incredible.

Probably a dumb question, but why don't we have the ref stop the clock every time the ball is not in play? Thus timewasting becomes far less effective, and therefore we would slowly lose a lot of those very annoying little things that players do to waste 5 seconds here, 11 seconds there.

I appreciate the answer is probably "because then we'd have 16 minutes of stoppage at the end of each half".

EDIT - Have now read your discussion with BensGranded. Understood, perhaps the 60 mins plus stopping the clock every time could work.