Effective Playing Time

Discussion in 'Football Forum' started by Rossa, Sep 10, 2018.

  1. Sep 10, 2018
    #1

    Rossa Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    7,563
    Location:
    Looking over my shoulder.
    In the aftermath of Norway's defeat to Bulgaria, the Norwegian coach Lagerbäck voiced his concerns over effective playing time. In the second half against Bulgaria, only 24 minutes were counted as effective playing time. The rest is time wasted by players rolling on the floor etc. He also argued that players should be carried off the pitch when they are "clearly" that injured. To add to the point, the ref added five minutes to those 24 minutes lost of playing time.

    Does he have a point? Should football do like handball and ice hockey where they freeze the clock when the ball is out of play or there's an injury? It would perhaps take away the theatrical lying on the floor looking like a Howitzer blew off both your knee caps.

    I think I somewhat agree with him. If a team is up, you can see most teams time wasting after 60 minutes, but when did ever a referee give a yellow for time wasting that early on? There are so many simple things the refs could do to get rid of these time wasters, but it only gets worse.
  2. Sep 10, 2018
    #2

    OnlyTwoDaSilvas Gullible

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    Messages:
    15,942
    Location:
    The Mathews Bridge
    Clock should definitely stop for injuries and subs, as that's were the most time is lost, and it's mostly manufactured. Though goalkeepers seem to take an age to take goalkicks now too. If it means knocking the game down to 80 minutes or whatever, then do it. Timewasting is the most frustrating spectacle of the game. Even when teams waste time against Liverpool or City, I still find it frustrating to watch.

    This one might be a bit too tinfoil-hat, but at away games when the away team is pressing to score, ball boys seem to either go missing, or not respond, and you often see goalkeepers having to run down near the corner flag to retrieve the ball for a goal kick or something. Yet if the home team need a goal, the opposite happens, and the ball is instantly retrieved. I've often assumed ball boys are coached to react differently to the home and away teams, especially after that incident at Swansea with Hazard, but I don't know how true that is overall.
  3. Sep 10, 2018
    #3

    Keeps It tidy Hates Messi

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2013
    Messages:
    15,191
    Location:
    New York
  4. Sep 10, 2018
    #4

    Rossa Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    7,563
    Location:
    Looking over my shoulder.
    Agree with this. There have been complaints made by teams that ball boys are not quick enough to deliver. I also find that players who kick the ball away from a free kick or a throw in is just so frustrating. Touch the ball in hand ball after the whistle is blown and you receive a yellow card. Do that in football, and they quickly cut it out.
  5. Sep 10, 2018
    #5

    roonster09 Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    11,883
  6. Sep 10, 2018
    #6

    Gio 6 times Redcafe Draft Winner

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2001
    Messages:
    15,433
    Location:
    Bonnie Scotland
    If the ref does his or her job, there shouldn't be a problem. The ref can add on as much time as is felt necessary and has the tools to punish time-wasting. They just need a push from FIFA/IFAB to feel empowered to add on 5-10 minutes if that is what is fair and proportionate.

    Moving to a stop clock doesn't really solve the issue of momentum-killing tactics and creates some new issues of using the stopped clock to rest or turn it into a set-piece game.
  7. Sep 10, 2018
    #7

    11101 Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2014
    Messages:
    6,845
    I do think some sort of clock stoppage should be brought in when time is being wasted. Time wasting has become an art like diving.

    On the other hand if you make games a full 90 minutes of playing time the football itself will have to slow down, as the constant pauses are vital for players' recovery. They can't do 90 full minutes every week at the current pace.
  8. Sep 10, 2018
    #8

    Sarni nice guy, unassuming, objective United fan.

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    48,296
    Location:
    Kraków, Polska
    This. The standard 3-4 minutes don’t work anymore, in fact I think 3 minutes is absolutely ridiculous in every game it is given and 4 is still on the low side.

    Games should have 6-8 minutes added at minimum and first half should also have at least 3 instead of usual 1.
  9. Sep 10, 2018
    #9

    Rozay Not good at posting fixture lists

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    11,350
    Location:
    #SmallingPlusOne
    Sad thing is in the modern game I’m not sure it’s always as cynical as players staying down due to time-wasting. I think, especially the creative prima-donna types often stay down purely for attention seeking purposes. Sometimes a player gets caught and the red waves play on. Even after two minutes of play, the brat of a player, now lying on the floor at the other end of the pitch, has still refused to get up until he’s acknowledged. He just wants his knee rubbed and everyone to say ‘aww, poor baby’.
  10. Sep 10, 2018
    #10

    Physiocrat Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,818
    I think stopping it for injuries, subs and goals wouldn't turn it into a set-piece game. Stopping at each foul, corner or throw-in it could well do but limited to these situations I don't think it would. Rather, it would make time keeping more transparent. Also I like the idea of the game ending when the ball next legitimately goes out of play when you reach 90 mins as it would add excitement that this is the last chance to equalise - it would also stop the game ending when a side is about launch an attack.
  11. Sep 10, 2018
    #11

    Crashoutcassius Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    Messages:
    5,394
    Location:
    playa del carmen
    I think refs should get very strict on time wasters and see what happens. Kick the ball away 5 feet and it's a yellow card
  12. Sep 10, 2018
    #12

    Pogue Mahone Poster of the year 2008

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    95,949
    Location:
    "like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
    I would love for this to happen. Don’t see why it can’t be done. Works fine in other sports.
  13. Sep 10, 2018
    #13

    shaky Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,536
    Something certainly needs to be done to address all the time that isn't getting added on for when the ball is out of play. They say that effective play time is about 30 mins in each half, but as per your example yesterday, the ball is often only in play for 24 mins or less. This is literally 20% less game time than usual for the attacking team to score, which is a huge amount and it really makes time wasting an absolutely essential tactic for teams who are trying to not concede.
  14. Sep 10, 2018
    #14

    Annihilate Now! ...or later, I'm not fussy Scout

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2010
    Messages:
    32,994
    Location:
    This Space Is For Sale
    In terms of playing time... I do think it has to be done, but i don't like the idea of constantly time stopping... because this would be difficult for the ref to do alone AND concentrate on the game.

    I think stopping the clock completely for injuries, subs and goals and attacking set-plays (penalties and free kicks namely) works for me. Throw-Ins, corners and little fouls just keep the watch going.

    Not sure how long you'd need to make the game then though... maybe 75 minutes?

    I would hate that... I mean what if the team that is behind get a corner? This would be taking away all the drama that comes with that. The game ending the way it is works for me... and the ref should obviously know better then to blow for full time when a team is on the attack.
  15. Sep 10, 2018
    #15

    el3mel Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2016
    Messages:
    20,615
    Location:
    Egypt
    Injured players should be carried out immediately and resume the play. Time stop won't work because it will be abused to hell with the losing team instead, a player faking injury every few minutes to stop the clock and gives his teammates more time.

    Just carry the injuried player out of th pitch and let the play resume.
  16. Sep 10, 2018
    #16

    Pogue Mahone Poster of the year 2008

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    95,949
    Location:
    "like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
    Why will this be abused more than the current system, where players can fake injuries to waste time that the opposition doesn’t necessarily get back?
  17. Sep 10, 2018
    #17

    sunama Baghdad Bob

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2014
    Messages:
    12,885
    Well, if the effective playing time for the 2nd half of the Norway game was 26 minutes, they'd need 19 minutes added on. Would any referee have the balls to do this? I mean, this would surely be a World record time added on.

    Personally, if a player starts rolling on the floor, the stretcher shoudl immediately come on, to pick the player up and take him off the field. This will bring his team down to 10 men until he comes back on. Knowing this, if players are faking it, they'll soon stop as they realise their team will be playing with 10 men, if/when they do the multiple rolls on the ground.
  18. Sep 10, 2018
    #18

    BeforeKeanetherewasRobson Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    4,374
    Location:
    Behind the right goal post as "Whiteside shoots!"
    Better clock management, better refs (with clear backing and all clubs advised pre season). If a player goes down and doesnt get straight off, say they HAVE TO go off field of play... hopefully get us to real injuries only (where being looked at, off field is right place anyway).

    I don't think full clock management would move us to a set play (NFL) style sport. Some common sense would sort it but needs players buy-in too.... then get football close to rugby union where it's the norm that players don't arse about BUT ref can stop clock if needs to.

    More yellow cards too... time wasting, arguing the toss with the ref, kicking the ball away. All the annoying things players do that also eat up time... fine, do that and get booked EVERY TIME. It'll either improve it or players will get yellow, red, fines, bans... fine by me.
  19. Sep 10, 2018
    #19

    el3mel Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2016
    Messages:
    20,615
    Location:
    Egypt
    That's point. The current system is abused by the winning team, so you shouldn't replace it with a system that will be abused by the losing one, instead find a more fair approach.
  20. Sep 10, 2018
    #20

    SadlerMUFC Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2017
    Messages:
    770
    Location:
    Niagara Falls, Canada
    Sure, let's bring in a stop clock. And while we're at it, we might as well have commercial breaks too...
  21. Sep 10, 2018
    #21

    esmufc07 Elvis has theft the building Scout

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    30,413
    No I'd hate the whistle to go after 90 minutes when the ball goes out. Nothing quite like hearing a crowd roar when 4 minutes of added time goes on the board and you're losing by a goal, or need a goal to progress etc. But then I am a sentimental twat.

    The rest I agree with.
  22. Sep 10, 2018
    #22

    el3mel Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2016
    Messages:
    20,615
    Location:
    Egypt
    Thinking about it, if they add cheerleaders, maybe I will approve the idea.
  23. Sep 10, 2018
    #23

    Gio 6 times Redcafe Draft Winner

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2001
    Messages:
    15,433
    Location:
    Bonnie Scotland
    Ball is usually only in play for 27-30 minutes on average in a half, so if the Norway game second half was 26 minutes, it should have needed somewhere around 3-6 minutes added on to bring it up to the average.
  24. Sep 10, 2018
    #24

    Annihilate Now! ...or later, I'm not fussy Scout

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2010
    Messages:
    32,994
    Location:
    This Space Is For Sale
    I've always thought that if a player goes down injured and receives treatment, then they have to stay off the field for the same (or maybe even double?) the amount of time they stayed down for.

    I mean, if a player goes down injured and gets 5 minutes treatment, then they're probably going to need 5 minutes on the side to get more treatment if the injury is legit.
  25. Sep 10, 2018
    #25

    VeevaVee despite the protests, wears Ugg boots

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,923
    This would make for a great scrap at 88 mins if the winning team has the ball.
  26. Sep 10, 2018
    #26

    Adisa likes to take afvanadva wothowi doubt Scouse Lover

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    29,191
    Location:
    Birmingham
    The thing is that refs are under pressure not to add to much playing time..
    TV money.
    Imagine if majority of games went over 100 minutes? There would be a lot of TV schedule disruption.
  27. Sep 10, 2018
    #27

    limerickcitykid There once was a kid from Toronto...

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2012
    Messages:
    10,542
    Location:
    East end / Oot and aboot
    That pretty much makes no sense and you are rewarding injuring opponents.
  28. Sep 10, 2018
    #28

    Annihilate Now! ...or later, I'm not fussy Scout

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2010
    Messages:
    32,994
    Location:
    This Space Is For Sale
    How? If a player goes out to injure an opponent then they'll most likely get a red card.

    and like I said, if a player actually gets injured, then they'll need the treatment time anyway or - more likely - they'll be subbed.
  29. Sep 10, 2018
    #29

    limerickcitykid There once was a kid from Toronto...

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2012
    Messages:
    10,542
    Location:
    East end / Oot and aboot
    If a player needs 5 minutes treatment then they must actually need 10 minutes treatment. That is what you said, there is no logic to it at all.

    There is also plenty of ways to injure people without it being a red card. It's a terrible idea.
  30. Sep 10, 2018
    #30

    Annihilate Now! ...or later, I'm not fussy Scout

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2010
    Messages:
    32,994
    Location:
    This Space Is For Sale
    How?

    And no, what i said is if they need 5 minutes on pitch treatment, they need 5 minutes off pitch treatment. So they'd miss 5 minutes of the game, not 10.

    I said "(maybe even double?)" as an off thought, but no - its the same amount of time?
  31. Sep 10, 2018
    #31

    Physiocrat Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,818
    I hadn't consider. You could change it to when the team who currently has the ball loses possession where corners and throw-ins for the side constitute retaining possession. That said in the circumstance your describe they are essentially having time over and above what they should have but it would be a little anti-climatic not having the corner.
  32. Sep 10, 2018
    #32

    Physiocrat Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,818
    True, but not much different than playing it into the corner
  33. Sep 10, 2018
    #33

    VeevaVee despite the protests, wears Ugg boots

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,923
    I actually like the sound of it, but think it'd be deemed as changing the dynamic of the game too much for it to happen, even if it only actually changes the very end.
  34. Sep 10, 2018
    #34

    Physiocrat Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,818
    Well if we can have a few minute stops for VAR we can go for a clock. VAR really does slow the pace of the game - not that I'm against VAR
  35. Sep 10, 2018
    #35

    Trizy Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2014
    Messages:
    10,507
    OP has a point but surely that is an extreme example?

    I'd love to see a statistic of how much time is wasted vs how much is added on (excl. corners, throw-in and goal kicks).

    I doubt there is much of a difference than what the ref's give in the PL.

    2003 UEFA Cup Final, Porto vs Celtic always comes to mind. That was hilarious.
  36. Sep 10, 2018
    #36

    Beachryan More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    6,916
    There's no sensible reason not to use a stop watch approach. Would fix so much of what is unfair in football.

    But, I can't see it ever happening.

    Pep iin particular would be fecked, his Barca teams stopped playing after about 60 minutes in favour of getting nonstop injuries and cramps.
  37. Sep 10, 2018
    #37

    BeforeKeanetherewasRobson Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    4,374
    Location:
    Behind the right goal post as "Whiteside shoots!"
    News to me. I think it's just as long as needed.

    My issue is more about players who roll/stay down but get up as soon as the ref has given a freekick, rub their "injury", make a pained face then start sprinting again.... like 4-year olds. If they roll over and stay down, looking at a ref then the rules should say they have to leave the field of play and be medically checked ... and stay off until the next break in play.

    A bug bear of mine. Used to get kicked to shit in Sunday league football but no-one stayed down unless really injured.
  38. Sep 10, 2018
    #38

    Annihilate Now! ...or later, I'm not fussy Scout

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2010
    Messages:
    32,994
    Location:
    This Space Is For Sale
    Oh no, that's not the rule - i'm suggesting that as a rule.

    Just think if a player knew he'd be off the pitch for a minute if he spends a minute rolling around on the floor feigning something then he might think twice about doing so.
  39. Sep 10, 2018
    #39

    do.ob Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2010
    Messages:
    5,766
    Location:
    Germany
    I think effective playing time is long overdue and it's introduction is only a matter of time. There is simply no way to tell how much pain a player feels or to fairly judge how much time is appropriate for a sub, corner or throw-in, let alone punish excesses when the only tool at a refs disposal are yellow cards.
    Effective playing time would be way easier to implement than VAR and it would instantly get rid of like half the unsportsmanlike conduct. They "only" have to figure out how to adjust the playing time.
  40. Sep 10, 2018
    #40

    Pogue Mahone Poster of the year 2008

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    95,949
    Location:
    "like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
    Aye, that's the tricky bit. They need to get it bang on, for TV schedules. Tonnes of data out there for them to analyse before they make a decision, though.