Discuss, this would be like the nba without the shot clock. It could also shorten the match to 30 min halves
Last edited:
Football should have proper added time (Stop time when ball is out of play)
- Thread starter Ajr
- Start date
Thread creators should have proper writing time when creating a thread. If it's needed, then stop time, while the thread is being written.
Discuss
Discuss
I agree. I'd go further and stop the clock every time there is a dead ball. If the game is 90 mins, I'd like to see 90 mins of action and not let the clock run while the keeper is taking his sweet time to line up a free kick.
With time wasting being such a rampant issue it's long overdue. Only thing to sort out is how to adjust the play time and whether you want to end the game mid-attack if the time runs out.
You do realise there would be about 35 added minutes in that case? And another 15 added minutes to make up for the ball being out of play during the regular added time.
Regarding the actual topic, I think if you wanted that to happen, then the game time needs to be shortened to something like 70 minutes or so. No way can footballers do their current schedules with actual 120 mins+ (for a 90 minute clock time) of top level football every 3 days, unless the teams adapt and play more energy conserving styles.
Could not agree more. In fact I was thinking of starting a thread on this myself.
I would go as far as saying that the failure to adequately compensate for stoppages is currently the biggest problem within football, now that VAR has exacerbated what was already a big problem. The more you look at it the more you realise it's an absolute farce.
And the funny thing is, unlike other problems such as diving, this is a problem that the authorities could solve instantly if they could be bothered. All they'd have to do is change the game to two halves of 30 minutes, and stop the clock each time play stops.
I would go as far as saying that the failure to adequately compensate for stoppages is currently the biggest problem within football, now that VAR has exacerbated what was already a big problem. The more you look at it the more you realise it's an absolute farce.
And the funny thing is, unlike other problems such as diving, this is a problem that the authorities could solve instantly if they could be bothered. All they'd have to do is change the game to two halves of 30 minutes, and stop the clock each time play stops.
Shorten games and stop the clock when ball is dead. At least needs to be trialled by FIFA somewhere.
Tactical time wasting so annoying, and hopefully can be totally removed.
Tactical time wasting so annoying, and hopefully can be totally removed.
I agree. Added time is just as a way to give games more drama.
dead game = barely any
Small club leading big club = 5+ minutes
it seems like they are almost storyline devices more than they are actual added time.
dead game = barely any
Small club leading big club = 5+ minutes
it seems like they are almost storyline devices more than they are actual added time.
Hence why it's better to just stop the clock, like they do in American sports.
Otherwise, in theory, you'd have numerous round of injury time (not just two) to keep adding on smaller and smaller amounts of injury time in order to properly compensate for stoppages in the previous rounds of injury time.
No, what we need are a standard rules that refs should be applying to instead of having the current situation where everything is left up to the individual refs to inteprate the rules and you're left with inconsistent decisions in every single game.
No...thread/
On a side note, does anyone else hate threads that have a title and then all that is written is "discuss"? Like, don't tell me what to do. And how about offering your opinion and then we may or may not reply to what you've had to say...
On a side note, does anyone else hate threads that have a title and then all that is written is "discuss"? Like, don't tell me what to do. And how about offering your opinion and then we may or may not reply to what you've had to say...
Tough day?
That was terrible mate
Regarding the subject, there’s no way it’d happen. It’s so blatant that time is added to suit the drama of the match quite often. I wouldn’t be surprised if the companies paying for the coverage ie Sky, BT etc even had a say in it.
Surely stopping the clock is much simpler and more accurate though?
What you're suggesting would certainly be an improvement over the status quo but how is it better than a stop clock?
You should probably try make an actual argument.
First thing, games would have to be shortened to about 60/70 minutes instead of 90.
First thing, games would have to be shortened to about 60/70 minutes instead of 90.
30 minute halves. What's the problem?
That was terrible mate
Regarding the subject, there’s no way it’d happen. It’s so blatant that time is added to suit the drama of the match quite often. I wouldn’t be surprised if the companies paying for the coverage ie Sky, BT etc even had a say in it.
I already feel bad about it tbf. I think work got to me today and I took the first place I could in order to vent. It's like when you can't recall a mail that you sent out that you're not particularly fond of. I can't just go through and delete it now.
Sorry for taking it off topic.
Refs also need to reinforce it more. Johnstone was told 2-3 times to do it quicker, just fecking book him already.
I'd love instant yellow for time wasting, no warnings. That'll stop it pretty quick.
I'd love instant yellow for time wasting, no warnings. That'll stop it pretty quick.
I don't think it resolves anything. Time-wasting is already dealt with by adding on time. It doesn't stop time-wasting when the ball is in play, such as keeping the ball in the corner, the goalkeeper turning a simple catch into a dive and roll around to soak up some time, or taking longer to kick it out of his/her hands. Nor does it stop time-wasting that is more about disrupting attacking momentum, which is what most time-wasting is actually about when a team is defending a lead under pressure.
90 minutes right now is about 60 minutes of actual football. To get 90 minutes of actual football, you're asking the players to work 50% more. With the schedules the way they currently are, I don't think that's realistic.
In order to get there, we'd need some pretty big changes. Larger squads, more subs, broadcasters would have to make changes to accommodate all this extra football (games would last for up to 45 minutes longer.)
I just don't see it happening.
In order to get there, we'd need some pretty big changes. Larger squads, more subs, broadcasters would have to make changes to accommodate all this extra football (games would last for up to 45 minutes longer.)
I just don't see it happening.
That's already the case and how added time works, the actual clock is the referee's not the one you see on your TV. What you could do is like in Rugby give the referee a microphone, then the referee tells the TMO when to stop the clock, that way there is more transparency.
That's what I had in mind. Even if you reduced the game to 60 minutes, you can't expect them to play 60 minutes at high or similar intensity.
Agree. Feck off the refs watch, have a digital clock that is started and stopped according to when the ball is in play.
The amount of extra goals this will provide would be considerable.
Not only that but time wasting before free kicks and goal kicks etc would be pointless and it would therefore improve the pace of the game.
Rather than do that though we will channel our efforts into measuring offsides to the last millimetre and not reviewing blatant fouls etc.
One condition though, I want Fergie controlling the stop clock in OT.
The amount of extra goals this will provide would be considerable.
Not only that but time wasting before free kicks and goal kicks etc would be pointless and it would therefore improve the pace of the game.
Rather than do that though we will channel our efforts into measuring offsides to the last millimetre and not reviewing blatant fouls etc.
One condition though, I want Fergie controlling the stop clock in OT.
Even if that's what the referee is supposed to be doing, we all know they're not doing it. I have never seen a single football match in which there is a 1:1 relationship between stoppages during the game and injury time added at the end of the game. They always add on less time, meaning there is always a massive incentive to time waste.
Your rugby suggestion is definitely an improvement but I think that managing the timing of the game should be removed from referees altogether. Their job is difficult enough as it is, and they make enough mistakes as it is, so why not give them one less thing to think about?
the whole issue of timekeeping is a shambles. Illustrated when that pox blew up when we were in a great counter attack the other day against the mighty WBA.
How about the anytime the ball goes out of play the clock is stopped and that the whistle for halftime or fulltime doesnt go until the ball goes dead or there is an infringement causing a foul. In this day an age timekeeping needs to be taken away from refs on the field.
How about the anytime the ball goes out of play the clock is stopped and that the whistle for halftime or fulltime doesnt go until the ball goes dead or there is an infringement causing a foul. In this day an age timekeeping needs to be taken away from refs on the field.
They already play for around 60 minutes, so yeah, they could.
Also OT - It's nice to see people acknowledge posts they're not proud of. Most seem to double up on themI already feel bad about it tbf. I think work got to me today and I took the first place I could in order to vent. It's like when you can't recall a mail that you sent out that you're not particularly fond of. I can't just go through and delete it now.
Sorry for taking it off topic.
They do it, the difference is that your idea of a stoppage doesn't match with actually is. Some phases are considered to be part of the game such as corners, free kicks, lineouts, the time isn't necessarily stopped because it's not supposed to.
This is 100% untrue because referees clearly add on less than 1 minute of injury time for every 1 minute of stoppage. Hence the incentive to time waste. The other incentive to time waste is to kill momentum/get a breather, like you said, but why not eliminate one of the incentives?
Time wasting when the ball is in play is fine as long as it's legal. However, this is another massive problem. Keepers are technically allowed to hold onto the ball for only 6 seconds, but they regularly hold onto it for 2, 3 or even 4 times as long at the end of the game. Yet I don't recall ever seeing this punished. I'd suggest changing the rule to 10 or 12 seconds and then actually enforcing it. Keepers would soon stop cheating if indirect free kicks in the box were given.
Assuming the end-product spanned roughly 45 mins per half.
That's precisely the problem.
Those phases shouldn't be considered part of the game because the ball is not in play and because there is an enormous variance in how long they take. Sometimes a corner takes five seconds, at other times it takes two minutes. Over the course of a whole game this variance is extremely significant.
It would, I believe. If I remember what I've read before on the topic correctly.
With 30+ minutes of rest mixed in those 60 minutes.
There's obviously a disparity between how much time is lost through injuries, cautions and out-of-play moments and how much is added to injury time at the end of each respective half. It's never 1:1. Always seems like if a player is down for 1:30 then the equivalent of 45 seconds or so is added into injury time.
Yep. It's not a big change. It just simplifies the time keeping.
That's your problem, not the problem. I'm happy with them being part of the game as are millions if not billions of people.
It's a massive change, the intensity of the remaining 60 minutes will have to drop without those 30 minutes of "rest".
You'd still be resting for those minutes though? The clock just wouldn't run. I don't understand what you're imagining.
Always crops up from time to time and I always lean towards no... I think the system in place is fine (and the fact that most games usually average around the same amount of game time shows that) it just needs to be managed better by the ref.
Also, if the timing becomes robotic to the second... what if a player has a one on one and time runs out? I don't think anyone wants to see that... and then if you say, oh it's like Rugby and it's until the ball goes out of play, then what if a team gets a corner? I think leaving when the game ends up to the ref's discretion is the best thing for keeping it exciting/entertaining.
Also a crowd counting down the last 10 seconds of a game would be bloody awful.
Also, if the timing becomes robotic to the second... what if a player has a one on one and time runs out? I don't think anyone wants to see that... and then if you say, oh it's like Rugby and it's until the ball goes out of play, then what if a team gets a corner? I think leaving when the game ends up to the ref's discretion is the best thing for keeping it exciting/entertaining.
Also a crowd counting down the last 10 seconds of a game would be bloody awful.