[Football] Trials to shorten football matches to 60 minutes with ball-in-play time keeping

[The Albion Roar]

The sanctions already exist to penalise players for time-wasting. The question that needs answering is why our referees don't impose those penalties to their fullest extent.

Start booking, and then sending off, players who timewaste and the penny won't take long to drop.

The fake head injuries would stop if there was a compulsory off field HIA check (akin to the egg chasing regime) and I would wager that avenue of cheating would stop pretty smartish too.

I think the time-keeping should be done independently of the referee who records when time is being wasted and for genuine and faked injuries and that official (not a bloody referee on a day off) determines the "added time".

No need to lose a third of the game if there are a couple of tweaks to the existing rules.

Fundamentally disagree. It should be at the discretion of one person - and that's the person closest to the action. Even in rugby, the referee tells the timekeeper when to stop the clock.

All of this, of course, would only ever be applicable to the Premier League as it requires dedicated offsite technology.

But the simple plain fact is - there's absolutely no justification to change the time-keeping rules now. Or ever.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Next stop: 15 minute quarters, coaches timeouts and additional advertising breaks. No thanks. Just apply the rules.

A quick google has shown me that on average, a corner kick takes around 45 seconds.

On average there are 11 corners per PL game. So that's over 8 minutes spent waiting for corners to be taken.

On average there are 17 goal kicks per PL game. 30 seconds average per goal kick. So thats another 8 minutes.

Just through corner kicks and goal kicks, we are losing over 15 minutes of 'football' waiting for the ball to be in play again.

These are not things the ref adds time for unless the players are taking the piss.

This is before we get into time spent to take throw ins and time before play resumes after a foul. Enough time for the player to run his knee a bit Sort the shin pad out. Stand up. little jog.

Yes we all love the tradition of 90 mins, but I'd rather watch more football for my money which clock stopping would do 100% as well as removing the benefit of time-wasting.

I think it's an absolute no brainer.

 

[Javeaseagull]

We see it all the time at throw-ins. The player advances up the line until the ref tells him to stop and go back. He still doesn’t throw it but advances again.
The ref should blow for foul throw and give it to the other side! That would be a laugh.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

We see it all the time at throw-ins. The player advances up the line until the ref tells him to stop and go back. He still doesn’t throw it but advances again.
The ref should blow for foul throw and give it to the other side! That would be a laugh.

On average, over 40 throw ins per game. Let's say they take on average 10 seconds (and that's a VERY conservative estimate in my opinion).

Over 6 minutes of watching players holding the ball above their head.

 

[jcdenton08]

Just a correction - some seem to be under the impression that the fourth official decides how much additional time is played.

This is not the case, the referee always indicates to the fourth official how much additional time he is setting, who then displays it on his board.

If you watch the referee, he used to visually signal with his fingers to the fourth official how many minutes around the 88 minute mark. Nowadays I believe they use their comms to communicate this.

.

 

[GT49er]

Trials to shorten football matches to 60 minutes with ball-in-play time keeping.

100% in favour - never mind trials, just do it.

No quibbles, no ifs and buts, 100% go for it!

 

[Swansman]

hmmm....

I think I am coming round, the only issue is my probably misconceived idea "our" game is being eroded.
However if i think about it, the game has been constantly evolving and has done ever since it's conception and most for the better. So I think I am sold actually, just one more question, how would extra time work ?

Good question... I dunno, 20 or 25 minutes effective time without a break in between (10x2 feels a bit jumpy)?

But the simple plain fact is - there's absolutely no justification to change the time-keeping rules now. Or ever.

Not a fact, just your opinion. In my opinion, being able to waste 45 minutes (which happened a lot in the Stoke days) preparing for a throw in or taking a very slow goal kick or rolling around pretending to be hurt are all good justifications to change the time-keeping rules.

In the second and third most popular team sports in Europe - basketball and handball - where they both use effective gam time, you see none of the injury feigning shit or taking 90 seconds to do a set piece.

55 minutes (and decreasing) of effective game time might not be the worst but it really wouldnt surprise me if that will go down closer to the level in Portugal (45.5 minutes) as the numbers of cheaters and "smart" players always seem to be on the rise.

 

[nickbrighton]

The single biggest problem with referees, 4th officials accounting for time wasting is that it is a subjective thing. There can be no definitive criteria for what is time wasting and what is reasonable preparation for taking a set piece, injury etc

At least having a system that starts and stops the clock whenever the ball is in play ensures that its no longer guess work and that everyone gets the full time allowance

How you work out what is the right amount of time to play for though is a bit of a mine field, I suppose by seeing how long the average games take over various leagues , but it does open the door later down the line for convenient ad breaks as in American Football. 60 min game taking over 4 hours to complete

I have also thought that there should be a rule that no tactical subs can be made after 85 mins, as often they are simply done to disrupt the flow of the game when a side is under the cosh and looking likely to concede

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Personally I'm against it. The game will go on for ever. I don't even think it will eliminate time wasting. If my team was getting battered I'd take all the time I wanted to get the ball back in play. Let my team get their breath, heads and organisation back. Disrupt the flow of the other team. Why wouldn't
I if there was no punishment at all?

I know NSC as a collective hates time wasting but I think you're over reacting to it. Is it any worse than at any previous time? I'm sure someone will have the stats.

 

[zefarelly]

I watched the last 10 mins of the Chelsea/Real game. Understandably so, Real used EVERY opportunity for players to go down and waste time. The ref made a point of showing he is adding time but there's not way its accurate and the last 10 mins are completely ruined as a spectacle.

Is that why you get mass evacuations of the Amex at 85 minutes?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Seeing this from the article

View attachment 146705

It would address the time wasting issue

The table shows 50-60% of the 90 minutes with the ball in play. That's roughly 45-55 minutes. This means that to play a 60 minute 'in play' game current matches will be 5-15 minutes shy. At the extreme end, a team that has the ball in play only 50% of the time will be 15 minutes shy of the 60 playing like they do now, and will waste 7.5 of the 15 extra minutes needed to complete the 60, and so on. That means that after the kick off, the following amount of time would need to pass before the timewasters complete 60 minutes of football:

60, + 15, +7.5, + 3.8 (approximately), + 1.9, + 1, +0.5 (we can stop there) = approximately 90 minutes!

A man Citeh game will be over after approximately 60, + 5, + 2, +1 = = 68 minutes.

That will be very interesting. I suspect time wasting may actually increase if it isn't penalized, given that it allows players to draw breath and disrupt the pattern of play. Penalize time wasting with cards and it would be a different story. It would hugely advantage the better clubs if time wasting were penalized, since they can quickly batter their opponents, steal the points and be down the pub with a pint and a fag while the shitty teams are still huffing and puffing on the pich.

 

[raymondo]

Great, crack on with it

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Personally I'm against it. The game will go on for ever. I don't even think it will eliminate time wasting. If my team was getting battered I'd take all the time I wanted to get the ball back in play. Let my team get their breath, heads and organisation back. Disrupt the flow of the other team. Why wouldn't
I if there was no punishment at all?

I know NSC as a collective hates time wasting but I think you're over reacting to it. Is it any worse than at any previous time? I'm sure someone will have the stats.

see my calculations above

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I don't even think it will eliminate time wasting. If my team was getting battered I'd take all the time I wanted to get the ball back in play. Let my team get their breath, heads and organisation back. Disrupt the flow of the other team. Why wouldn't
I if there was no punishment at all?.

That's not time wasting. The clock would be stopped.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

That's not time wasting. The clock would be stopped.

I couldn't think of a better word/description. Time dragging? Elongating?

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I couldn't think of a better word/description. Time dragging? Elongating?

Fair enough.

Flow disruption?

 

[schmunk]

Flow disruption?

We should all be practicing that, to strengthen our Kegels...

 

[Official Old Man]

If we have a 60 minute game with the clock stopping and starting, when does the clock stop and restart?
Throwins, would stop players kicking the ball away and then getting it only for the guy on the other side of the pitch to stroll over to take it.
Corners, same as above.
Free kicks, same again.
Goal kicks. Goalie calls over team mates for a short pass, only to then send them forwards.
No, the only really effective thing is for the ref to book someone.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Fundamentally disagree. It should be at the discretion of one person - and that's the person closest to the action. Even in rugby, the referee tells the timekeeper when to stop the clock.

All of this, of course, would only ever be applicable to the Premier League as it requires dedicated offsite technology.

Why would it need to involve any off-site technology?

I'll answer for you - it wouldn't.

The start/stop timekeeping for all Premiership Rugby, and Champions (Heineken) Cup matches, is via a simple console operated in the stands by the TMO. The feed from this console is duplicated and drives not only two (sometimes three) dedicated l.e.d countdown clocks around the pitch, but is also fed to the TV company so any on-screen clock graphic is absolutely synchronised with the pitch-side clocks. It can also be split further to provide a feed to ensure a synchronised clock on any stadium video screen and / or concourse and lounge screens.

No requirement for anything off-site at all, and the basic set up of the console and two high-visibilty l.e.d. clocks would cost less than £10k per set, so easily achievable at all levels of the professional game.

 

[NooBHA]

I like the idea. Although some matches you go to on a Tuesday and might not get home till the Friday