[Football] Time Keeping

[nickjhs]

Let's be honest: if we had a penalty against us 20 seconds after extra time should have finished, there would be howls of outrage. It led me to think the game could benefit from timekeeping similar to Aussie rules. Whenever play is stopped the clock stops, therefore, no extra time is needed, the timekeeping is set and separate from the ref so it doesn't matter if there is a chance of scoring when the time is up the siren is blown. The only exceptions are (from Wikipedia) "The quarter or match ends when a field umpire hears the siren, with the exceptions that a score can result from a ball already in flight at the time of the siren, and that a player is allowed to kick for goal after the siren from a mark or free kick which was paid before the siren." I read an article on this where the author was saying if this type of timekeeping was introduced and the game was reduced to 60 mins we would get more time with the ball in play and time-wasting would become a non issue.

 

[WhingForPresident]

'There will be a minimum of x minutes'

Generally agree with the sentiment, but not based on what happened today.

 

[kevo]

Timekeeping is completely random, which is absurd when you think of the reasons why they have introduced VAR. But Fulham fans who are moaning should also thank the ref for giving them an extra 90 seconds to score an equaliser even after the penalty was scored.

I do think that there should be an automated way of calculating stoppages/subs to work out the exact added on time, which then also adds on any other stoppages. Then the game finishes when the exact time it is up - doesn't matter if a team us attacking or has a corner or whatever.

 

[nickjhs]

'There will be a minimum of x minutes'

Yes that is a nuance I completely missed. That aside are you saying you wouldn't have been calling foul when it went past 5 mins and the opponent gets a penalty?

 

[Uh_huh_him]

I don't think too many fans would be that incensed for a penalty decision 20 seconds after the minimum time is up?
It annoys me more when refs blow up exactly on the second of the allowed time.
as with many aspects of refereeing in the Prem, there is no consistency in how timekeeping is managed game by game.

The idea that no additional time has been lost within the extra time played is pretty unlikely.
Particularly in a closely fought game, where one side is holding on for the point(s) at the end of a game.

At present it is an inexact process, which is probably ripe for a major rule change to the game.

 

[Dirty Dave]

I was surprised when the board went up for as many as 5 minutes. It didn't feel like there were many stoppages in the second half. A couple of VAR checks for the offsides and substitutions but I was expecting 3, maybe 4 minutes added on.

 

[Flounce]

I was surprised when the board went up for as many as 5 minutes. It didn't feel like there were many stoppages in the second half. A couple of VAR checks for the offsides and substitutions but I was expecting 3, maybe 4 minutes added on.

I have long believed that 30 secs is allegedly added on for each substitution, is that actually in the laws? If so there would have been almost 5 mins just for the subs alone.

 

[ElectricNaz]

At least both sets of teams were still on the pitch when the penalty was awarded!!!!

 

[darkwolf666]

I have long believed that 30 secs is allegedly added on for each substitution, is that actually in the laws? If so there would have been almost 5 mins just for the subs alone.

No, there is nothing in the Laws of association football regarding stopping the watch for substitutions. The decision on how long is added is at the discretion of the referee.

I used to ref at County League level and always stopped my stop watch for substitutions, not that we had 10 in those days. I would also stop the watch when the ball disappeared into the Hollingbury allotments or other external hazzards
Occasionally I would forget to restart my stop watch, but had a second watch for the actual time, so could do an arbitrary calculation in such an event

 

[HeaviestTed]

On the basis that yesterday was absolutely fantastic, can we leave it as it is?


(Note to self: The next time this scenario goes against us come back and edit this to say I agree it definitely should happen)

 

[American Seagle]

Let's be honest: if we had a penalty against us 20 seconds after extra time should have finished, there would be howls of outrage. It led me to think the game could benefit from timekeeping similar to Aussie rules. Whenever play is stopped the clock stops, therefore, no extra time is needed, the timekeeping is set and separate from the ref so it doesn't matter if there is a chance of scoring when the time is up the siren is blown. The only exceptions are (from Wikipedia) "The quarter or match ends when a field umpire hears the siren, with the exceptions that a score can result from a ball already in flight at the time of the siren, and that a player is allowed to kick for goal after the siren from a mark or free kick which was paid before the siren." I read an article on this where the author was saying if this type of timekeeping was introduced and the game was reduced to 60 mins we would get more time with the ball in play and time-wasting would become a non issue.

I mean if it were the other way around I wouldn't be annoyed by the time it was given. We had the ball in and around their box for that 20s. You shouldn't end the game in such a dangerous scenario. I would have been annoyed if the ref blew for full time as well moved the ball into their box.
There is nothing controversial about the penalty or the time that it was awarded.

 

[darkwolf666]

On the basis that yesterday was absolutely fantastic, can we leave it as it is?


(Note to self: The next time this scenario goes against us come back and edit this to say I agree it definitely should happen)

I think, as the team who had a penalty given against them AFTER the full time whistle had been blown, we hold all the Aces when it comes to other teams moans about time-keeping!

 

[El Turi]

Fulham (as they always are) were slow to get the ball back into play throughout the game yesterday including in additional time so the extra seconds were justified. I was more surprised the referee carried on playing after we scored. It did seem like the whistle should have been blown as soon as they kicked off.

 

[darkwolf666]

I mean if it were the other way around I wouldn't be annoyed by the time it was given. We had the ball in and around their box for that 20s. You shouldn't end the game in such a dangerous scenario. I would have been annoyed if the ref blew for full time as well moved the ball into their box.
There is nothing controversial about the penalty or the time that it was awarded.

Totally agree the ball should go dead from any forward attacking motion, or you will get a repeat of this famous event, with Clive The Book...

 

[dazzer6666]

Let's be honest: if we had a penalty against us 20 seconds after extra time should have finished, there would be howls of outrage. It led me to think the game could benefit from timekeeping similar to Aussie rules. Whenever play is stopped the clock stops, therefore, no extra time is needed, the timekeeping is set and separate from the ref so it doesn't matter if there is a chance of scoring when the time is up the siren is blown. The only exceptions are (from Wikipedia) "The quarter or match ends when a field umpire hears the siren, with the exceptions that a score can result from a ball already in flight at the time of the siren, and that a player is allowed to kick for goal after the siren from a mark or free kick which was paid before the siren." I read an article on this where the author was saying if this type of timekeeping was introduced and the game was reduced to 60 mins we would get more time with the ball in play and time-wasting would become a non issue.

No, I wouldn’t. Refs hardly ever blow ‘mid move’, what happened yesterday was perfectly normal. Up to the ref how much time he adds (the board displays the minimum).

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I have long believed that 30 secs is allegedly added on for each substitution, is that actually in the laws? If so there would have been almost 5 mins just for the subs alone.

Referees use exact time i.e. they stop their watch and restart after subs are completed.

 

[bluenitsuj]

Let's be honest: if we had a penalty against us 20 seconds after extra time should have finished, there would be howls of outrage. It led me to think the game could benefit from timekeeping similar to Aussie rules. Whenever play is stopped the clock stops, therefore, no extra time is needed, the timekeeping is set and separate from the ref so it doesn't matter if there is a chance of scoring when the time is up the siren is blown. The only exceptions are (from Wikipedia) "The quarter or match ends when a field umpire hears the siren, with the exceptions that a score can result from a ball already in flight at the time of the siren, and that a player is allowed to kick for goal after the siren from a mark or free kick which was paid before the siren." I read an article on this where the author was saying if this type of timekeeping was introduced and the game was reduced to 60 mins we would get more time with the ball in play and time-wasting would become a non issue.

Its minimum added time. It's not rocket science.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Let's be honest: if we had a penalty against us 20 seconds after extra time should have finished, there would be howls of outrage. It led me to think the game could benefit from timekeeping similar to Aussie rules. Whenever play is stopped the clock stops, therefore, no extra time is needed, the timekeeping is set and separate from the ref so it doesn't matter if there is a chance of scoring when the time is up the siren is blown. The only exceptions are (from Wikipedia) "The quarter or match ends when a field umpire hears the siren, with the exceptions that a score can result from a ball already in flight at the time of the siren, and that a player is allowed to kick for goal after the siren from a mark or free kick which was paid before the siren." I read an article on this where the author was saying if this type of timekeeping was introduced and the game was reduced to 60 mins we would get more time with the ball in play and time-wasting would become a non issue.

We’ve had worse. The final whistle had actually been blown.

Manchester United penalty drama - Why Bruno Fernandes goal after final whistle stood

Bruno Fernandes scores 100th-minute winner from penalty spot after Neal Maupay handball; Referee Chris Kavanagh blew full-time whistle before VAR review spotted infringement; Brighton boss Graham Potter: I dont know where the extra time came from.

www.skysports.com

 

[nickjhs]

We’ve had worse. The final whistle had actually been blown.

Manchester United penalty drama - Why Bruno Fernandes goal after final whistle stood

Bruno Fernandes scores 100th-minute winner from penalty spot after Neal Maupay handball; Referee Chris Kavanagh blew full-time whistle before VAR review spotted infringement; Brighton boss Graham Potter: I dont know where the extra time came from.

www.skysports.com

Yep I remember that, Slabhead at his "best"

 

[The Optimist]

Its minimum added time. It's not rocket science.

This. I don’t understand why people find this so hard to understand. Say the ref thinks there should be 5 mins 30 seconds additional time the board is going to show 5 minutes. Also there might be a delay in additional time that results in more time.