Will they ever introduce a stop clock in football?

sugar_kane

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
3,483
It's been discussed a in various threads on this forum but I truly believe this could be the single biggest improvement that could be made to the game, reducing time wasting significantly and increasing fans enjoyment of the sport, ensuring that positive football is rewarded.

The average 'effective time in play' normally is 55 minutes in the Premier League, the idea would be that this would be set at 60 minutes rather than working to 90 + 'stoppage time' and every time the ball is out of play eg. set piece, player injured etc. the clock would stop and only resume once play restarts.

There's an article on the BBC below about it, which is fairly recent and has some interesting stats, but I've not heard much about a genuine desire from the football authorities to implement this. I can only see support for it from fans and teams (apart from maybe the shithouse ones who thrive on it...)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61342349

Some shocking stats in the above by the way, eg. the West Ham / Brentford game only clocking in at 41 minutes... and Stoke had four games under 45 minutes including one clocking in at 39 minutes. I'd be interested especially to see some of the stats for certain Champions League games, although the overall average is higher according to the BBC article it feels like some games are completely ruined by time wasting.
 

MUFC OK

New Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
7,216
They really should. Our 2nd leg against Atletico was a disgrace in terms of how long the ball was actually in play. Obviously you want to avoid 3 hour games but I think a lot of the time wasting would stop if the clock stopped and so it might only add an extra 20 mins or so. Get it done asap - and no, shortening matches to less than 90 mins shouldn't be an option; if rugby players can manage minimum 80 mins of in play time, football should remain at 90 mins.
 

RoyH1

Full Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2014
Messages
5,945
Location
DKNY
Bring in a stop clock and mic up the referees and VAR rooms and you'd have massive immediate improvements in the game. Shithousing teams would hate it with every fibre of their being though.
 

RobinLFC

Cries when Liverpool doesn't get praised
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
20,910
Location
Belgium
Supports
Liverpool
This would be the single biggest improvement they could bring to the game that would make me interested in watching games again. That, and yellow cards for everyone bar the captains who argue with the ref or invade his personal space.
 

Cloud7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
12,815
sugar_kane said:
Some shocking stats in the above by the way, eg. the West Ham / Brentford game only clocking in at 41 minutes... and Stoke had four games under 45 minutes including one clocking in at 39 minutes
Click to expand...
This is a travesty.

In before someone says this is just a part of the game and doesn’t need fixing though.
 

SteveTheRed

Full Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
2,586
Yes absolutely. It's a joke really and it's only getting worse.

In this season's Premier League, the average 'ball in play' time is 55 minutes and three seconds - the lowest it has been in over a decade.
Click to expand...
 

DixieDean

Everton Fan
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
5,297
Location
Liverpool
Supports
Everton
Hope so. Only downside is commercials filling in any decent length breaks.
 

Red Shorts

Forrest Gimp
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
12,424
Location
Location, Location
Players would burn out much sooner into the season. good idea on paper, and would probably work if 90 minutes got reduced to 80
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
14,334
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
DixieDean said:
Hope so. Only downside is commercials filling in any decent length breaks.
Click to expand...
Exaclty what I was thinking. But at least, in football, there would be enormous opposition to added commercial breaks, and there has been a tendency to only make changes that can be applied to all levels (and adding such breaks really changes the dynamic of a game). Those two combined might stop that commercial nonsense from happening.
 

Bosws87

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
3,718
You would hope so, nothing worse then going to the stadium and within 3 minutes the tone is set that the opposition keeper is going to take 5 minutes to waste time at every opportunity they get.

Its infuriating, i can't imagine how annoying it is to be actually on the pitch.
 

Herculean

Odds winner of 'Odds or Evens 2023/2024'
Newbie
Joined
Apr 15, 2022
Messages
153
DixieDean said:
Hope so. Only downside is commercials filling in any decent length breaks.
Click to expand...
You just know the "powers-that-be" would take advantage of these breaks and flood us with ads.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,285
It could be fixed by just asking refs to do their job. If they started dishing out yellow cards for it as soon as it starts players will have to adjust.
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
14,334
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
Red Shorts said:
Players would burn out much sooner into the season. good idea on paper, and would probably work if 90 minutes got reduced to 80
Click to expand...
More like reduced to 60, because from what I remember, the ball is in play on average only for about two thirds of a match. Cause otherwise, yes, total match time would increase significantly.
 

Oranges038

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Messages
12,049
While it might seem like a good idea.

There's no doubt the powers that be would find some way of making an absolute balls of it.
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
49,879
Location
W.Yorks
Red Shorts said:
Players would burn out much sooner into the season. good idea on paper, and would probably work if 90 minutes got reduced to 80
Click to expand...
It would need to be 60 (thats how long most of games of football are) - 80 would be too long.

Personally not a fan of the idea though - I like the drama of injury time, however I do believe refs need to become better at managing time and time wasting.

A comprimise would be that some machine in Stockley park times how long the ball is in play for, and then the injury time gets added to that so it would equal 60 minutes (so in most games that would be at least 5 minutes)
 

Red Shorts

Forrest Gimp
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
12,424
Location
Location, Location
Cheimoon said:
More like reduced to 60, because from what I remember, the ball is in play on average only for about two thirds of a match. Cause otherwise, yes, total match time would increase significantly.
Click to expand...
Annihilate Now! said:
It would need to be 60 (thats how long most of games of football are) - 80 would be too long
Click to expand...

Yeah 60's more sensible for, just plucked a lower number out of thin air.

Another alternative to a stop clock is that the ref adds on delays when the ball is out of play. Say if a team gets a goal kick, and hasnt kicked it after 10 seconds of the ball going out then add on the time between then and to when he kicks it. Keeps the traditional 90 but adds on delayed time instead of just injuries and subs.
 

Rake

Full Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
4,348
Location
Moon's Spawn
Cheimoon said:
More like reduced to 60, because from what I remember, the ball is in play on average only for about two thirds of a match. Cause otherwise, yes, total match time would increase significantly.
Click to expand...
Quite so. On average the football match is around 65 minutes. Also, 90 minutes of playtime could cause logistical issues, particularly for later games.

Maybe stricter added time is the way to go. Make the teams play actual 6-8 minutes extra
 

Moby

Dick
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
51,356
Location
Barcelona, Catalunya
sugar_kane said:
It's been discussed a in various threads on this forum but I truly believe this could be the single biggest improvement that could be made to the game, reducing time wasting significantly and increasing fans enjoyment of the sport, ensuring that positive football is rewarded.

The average 'effective time in play' normally is 55 minutes in the Premier League, the idea would be that this would be set at 60 minutes rather than working to 90 + 'stoppage time' and every time the ball is out of play eg. set piece, player injured etc. the clock would stop and only resume once play restarts.

There's an article on the BBC below about it, which is fairly recent and has some interesting stats, but I've not heard much about a genuine desire from the football authorities to implement this. I can only see support for it from fans and teams (apart from maybe the shithouse ones who thrive on it...)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61342349

Some shocking stats in the above by the way, eg. the West Ham / Brentford game only clocking in at 41 minutes... and Stoke had four games under 45 minutes including one clocking in at 39 minutes. I'd be interested especially to see some of the stats for certain Champions League games, although the overall average is higher according to the BBC article it feels like some games are completely ruined by time wasting.
Click to expand...
It's the absolute basic thing and baffling that people still debate on this. Most of it is reluctance from moving on from something that people have experienced for ages but who cares about that when the change being discussed is so bleeding obvious.
 

Wilt

Full Member
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
6,668
RoyH1 said:
Bring in a stop clock and mic up the referees and VAR rooms and you'd have massive immediate improvements in the game. Shithousing teams would hate it with every fibre of their being though.
Click to expand...
Pretty much this
 

Abizzz

Full Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
7,634
Would hate to see some long range effort not count because the ball was just in front of the line when the time ran out... Also the actual breaks during the game would become even longer. Boring games would become an even more drawn out affair. I disapprove.
 

dannyrhinos89

OMG socks and sandals lol!
Joined
Nov 24, 2013
Messages
14,419
It only needs to be implemented for certain situations.

If the ball goes out for a throw in/corner/goal kick there's no need to stop time.

The only situation the clock needs to be stopped is when players go down "injured" in the 85th+ minute or when managers start making subs in that same time.
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
14,334
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
Annihilate Now! said:
It would need to be 60 (thats how long most of games of football are) - 80 would be too long.

Personally not a fan of the idea though - I like the drama of injury time, however I do believe refs need to become better at managing time and time wasting.

A comprimise would be that some machine in Stockley park times how long the ball is in play for, and then the injury time gets added to that so it would equal 60 minutes (so in most games that would be at least 5 minutes)
Click to expand...
I don't particularly like injury time since it's so arbitrary, both how much time is added, and then when the ref ends the game. (Not while a game is in full flow, but that's a debatable issue. And how much time do they add within injury time? It's all very messy.)

I like how a stop clock would remove the use of time wasting (no time is actually gained), but then I suppose there could be a new dynamic, where a team slows things down so players can get something to drink or just rest. So there would still need to be rules around that and refs would need to enforce them - which they already aren't doing enough for time wasting now that it really matters (since time is actually lost).
 

Red Shorts

Forrest Gimp
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
12,424
Location
Location, Location
Abizzz said:
Would hate to see some long range effort not count because the ball was just in front of the line when the time ran out... Also the actual breaks during the game would become even longer. Boring games would become an even more drawn out affair. I disapprove.
Click to expand...
Could introduce the rugby-style extra time, where the game will finish after normal time if the ball goes out of play, yet can still continue after if there's a foul?
 

Red Shorts

Forrest Gimp
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
12,424
Location
Location, Location
dannyrhinos89 said:
It only needs to be implemented for certain situations.

If the ball goes out for a throw in/corner/goal kick there's no need to stop time.

The only situation the clock needs to be stopped is when players go down "injured" in the 85th+ minute or when managers start making subs in that same time.
Click to expand...
So... do what we do nowadays?
 

youmeletsfly

New Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2018
Messages
2,528
I think they now play for about 70 minutes out of the 90, if I'm not mistaken.

20 minutes more per game for 50 games would mean an extra of 10-12 games, which is a bit much for such a cramped schedule anyway. I think it will take a toll on the players.

If the 5 sub rule will stand in all competitions, introducing the stop clock won't have that big of an effect.
 

90 + 5min

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
5,163
Stopclock would mean a game starting 16.00 will end about 20.30. Lets go!
 

Bilbo

TeaBaggins
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
14,250
I generally only support rule changes if they can be implemented all the way down to grass roots football. Not sure if this could be.
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
49,879
Location
W.Yorks
Cheimoon said:
I don't particularly like injury time since it's so arbitrary, both how much time is added, and then when the ref ends the game. (Not while a game is in full flow, but that's a debatable issue. And how much time do they add within injury time? It's all very messy.)

I like how a stop clock would remove the use of time wasting (no time is actually gained), but then I suppose there could be a new dynamic, where a team slows things down so players can get something to drink or just rest. So there would still need to be rules around that and refs would need to enforce them - which they already aren't doing enough for time wasting now that it really matters (since time is actually lost).
Click to expand...
Yeah that is the downside to it - why refs should be better (and perhaps better equipped?) to actually add some sort of accurate injury time as opposed to just plucking a number out of thin air (which they say they don't, but they almost definitely do). A system that tells the ref exactly how long the ball has been in play for and how much more is needed for it to equal 60 minutes would solve that I think - and then it keeps the magic of injury time where you don't know when it'll will end and that exclamation/relief when he does blow up - much prefer that ending to what inevitably would be a crowd counting down the last 20 seconds of a game!
 

dannyrhinos89

OMG socks and sandals lol!
Joined
Nov 24, 2013
Messages
14,419
Red Shorts said:
So... do what we do nowadays?
Click to expand...
It's not is it because its never accurate. Players spend all game rolling around time wasting stop the clock when they do that and at least you can't feel cheated on time added on.
 

OnlyTwoDaSilvas

Gullible
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
21,649
Location
The Mathews Bridge
They have to. It has significantly worsened during my lifetime. 60minute game, stop clock for all stoppages, timewasting is immediately eradicated.

Fake injuries are the main culprit, when a player gets treatment on the pitch (even if he's a yard from the touchline), limps slowly off the pitch by the longest possible route, and then immediately sprints back on, do referees not feel stupid for falling for it over and over? And even throw-ins have gotten worse, with players picking the ball up to take a throw, only to put it down and a player from 30 yards away walking over to take it instead.

Substitutions are the same, hard to believe that the clock keeps rolling whilst a player walks as slowly as possible off the pitch from the opposite corner flag, and the rule of exiting by the nearest touchline is barely ever enforced. If they're going to persist with the rolling clock, then subs should happen like in rugby, where you don't even see them happen, as the onus is on the players to get off and on as quickly as possible.

But a stopped clock solves all of that.
 
Last edited:

Anustart89

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
15,940
DixieDean said:
Hope so. Only downside is commercials filling in any decent length breaks.
Click to expand...
What’s stopping them from going to commercials when an Atletico Madrid player goes down “injured” in the 83rd minute when they’re 1-0 up? They could do that right now, the only difference would be that the clock’s wouldn’t be ticking, which would make the break shorter, if anything.

I’ve been advocating this for a long time here, I think it’d massively improve the experience for those watching and it’d reduce the frustration of having Jordan Pickford take sixteen 50-second goal kicks in a game only to have four minutes added at the end of the game, during which he takes another two of those and the ref stops play to book him before blowing for full time on 94:13
 

dannyrhinos89

OMG socks and sandals lol!
Joined
Nov 24, 2013
Messages
14,419
Red Shorts said:
More visibility on added time during the game would be useful for sure
Click to expand...
Yeah. I've watched games when teams have made all subs had the "injuries" where the medics run on then run off again because the player is up.and running miraculously and the ref is just like yeaaah add on 3 mins.

I'm sure every fan of every team in football has seen extra time go up and gone is that it? surely should be more?

At least this way it would be Accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.