Thoughts on the increased stoppage time?

What do you think of the increased stoppage time at the World Cup?

  • In favour

    Votes: 176 87.6%
  • Not in favour

    Votes: 22 10.9%
  • What increased stoppage time?!

    Votes: 3 1.5%

  • Total voters
    201

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,253
I would go further and say that if a player is booked for time wasting throw an extra two minutes on.
 

Telsim

Full Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2021
Messages
4,682
I get the need to address time wasting, but the added time has been getting ridiculous
What constitutes a ridiculous or logical added time, though? This argument seems kind of arbitrary to me. If 14 minutes were wasted, what's the issue of having 14 minutes added?

I'm all for this. Just needs to be made a bit clearer how much time was wasted and how much was added as a result.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,253
It's great but then if you're adding injury time on injury time, they either need to update the timer because it creates confusion and no one knows how much the ref is playing until.
That was the way it always used to be. It adds to the tension not knowing. That’s the main reason I’d be against stopping the clock.
 

Fenomeno9

Full Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
1,241
Location
USA
That doesn't really fit the mentality out there though I reckon. Stop yourselves from building up momentum so you can have more time to start the process over?
I see it more so if you know there is a minute or less left and the team leading has a goal kick. The team trailing has a player all of a sudden going down for cramps just to possible get an extra minute.
 

Big Ben Foster

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
12,455
Location
BR -> MI -> TX
Supports
Also support Vasco da Gama
What constitutes a ridiculous or logical added time, though? This argument seems kind of arbitrary to me. If 14 minutes were wasted, what's the issue of having 14 minutes added?

I'm all for this. Just needs to be made a bit clearer how much time was wasted and how much was added as a result.
I addressed this in an earlier post, basically saying what the second half of your post says.
 

Desert Eagle

Punjabi Dude
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Messages
16,778
What constitutes a ridiculous or logical added time, though? This argument seems kind of arbitrary to me. If 14 minutes were wasted, what's the issue of having 14 minutes added?

I'm all for this. Just needs to be made a bit clearer how much time was wasted and how much was added as a result.
Agreed
 

NewGlory

United make me feel dirty. And not in a sexy way.
Joined
Jul 13, 2019
Messages
4,239
Stoppage time has always been too short. We've seen from the studies that the ball is only in play for 50 odd minutes and they don't add on 30+

I agree though that the real solution is to stop the clock when the ball is out of play and end it dead on 90 mins.

Although that in itself could create issues. Players are conditioned to play about 60 minutes per match. Making them play a full 90 would cause major fatigue and injury problems.
Ok then:

1. Change to in-play clock and 12-minute-long 4 quarters
2. Introduce unlimited substitutions
3. Install hoops on the field and allow players to score by throwing ball into the hoops.

Congratulations, y'all have reinvented basketball! :D
 

Chief123

Full Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
12,789
Although I think it’ll help, I don’t think it will stop time wasting. Simply because the time wasted isn’t getting added on like for like. They are just adding on slightly more than normal.

The only true way to stop time wasting will be to stop the clock system.

Before you might have got 1 minute for every 5 wasted. Now it’s maybe 2 minute for every 5. It’s better but it won’t eradicate time wasting.
 

RedRonaldo

Wishes to be oppressed.
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
18,996
It’s ridiculous to have stoppage time lasting as long as extra time.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
50,138
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
It's excellent.

I'd prefer more transparency and don't think the on pitch ref should be in charge but it's better than players wasting time for 20 minutes per half and only 2 mins added on.
 

lefty_jakobz

I ❤️ moses
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
3,648
So much time wasting so its good to see the refs adding extra time. Crazy stat that theres been over a half of football worth of added on time already
 

kouroux

45k posts to finally achieve this tagline
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
95,709
Location
Djibouti (La terre des braves)
In-play clock will lead to excessive media timeouts, like you see in American sports. I realize it's the most obvious solution, but be careful what you wish for. We know all the governing bodies are greedy and will pounce on the opportunity for an additional revenue stream.
Very soon we'll have time outs and pom pom girl dancing too
 

Beachryan

More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
11,551
If only there were some way we could keep track of the time the actual football match was going on, instead of relying on the whims of the referee. Some kind of time-measuring device that could both begin and pause.

Ah well, maybe get Elon on it once Twitter is gone?
 

Mr Pigeon

Illiterate Flying Rat
Scout
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
26,107
Location
bin
I’m just waiting for the first player to say, without a hint of self awareness, that it’s unfair to expect them to play for so long in such hot conditions.
 

Dansk

Full Member
Joined
May 7, 2017
Messages
1,377
I wonder what it'll mean for the players. They'll be playing considerably more actual football than usual. Games are effectively ~10-15 minutes longer now than before, which is a gigantic change. I have no particular opinion on the "ethics" of it, for lack of a better term; but from a purely practical perspective, it seems like it'll have a huge impact on the sport. Players will have to be much more mindful of their energy levels, and it changes the strategy around substitutions.

It'll be awkward for the fans, too. In case of extra time, a match could easily end up being upwards of 150 minutes long. If there's a penalty shootout at the end, we could be approaching three hours. If it's also in a climate that requires water breaks, the length of a football match can become completely absurd under certain circumstances. If we assume an hour total of travel time and half an hour to get into the stadium and find your seats, it'll end up taking half a day to go see even a home game sometimes.
 
Last edited:

OnlyTwoDaSilvas

Gullible
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
21,623
Location
The Mathews Bridge
In favour. Stoppage time is rarely, if ever, adequate. A stopped clock and shorter halves would be preferable, and this should probably lead to that, but it's good to see the proper amount of time for the actual stoppages getting added on to games at least.

I just wonder if this is just for the world cup, or if it is the standard now. It would be hilarious when the Champions League and Europa League starts back up, and they immediately revert back to the standard 2 minutes and blowing up 10 seconds before the end, as the CL refs are wont to do.
 

Raw

Full Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
25,399
Location
Manchester, UK
I'm all for it. Ridiculous to trial it in a World Cup in the middle of an already hectic season. Maybe their reasoning is that the players are already match fit so they can handle it.
 

Sly

Hang Ten
Scout
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
12,255
Location
Lisbon
Supports
Sporting Clube Portugal
Imagine a Portugal vs Spain added time with all the theatrics and time wasting. They will be playing ad aeternum :lol:
 

macheda14

Full Member
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
4,614
Location
London
I prefer this than a stop clock. There's a bit more discretion given to the referee with added time. If it's a stopped clock and the time has gone, there's one more play until the ball goes out, if it goes out for a corner then that's game over. But with this there's still the chance for that one last corner to be taken, or that last throw in that's high up the pitch. There's a slight bit of uncertainty that still adds to the drama.
 

Strootman's Finger

New Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
1,661
These players have played 2 games a week all season to accomodate the world cup. They will play 2 games a week for the rest of the season to accomodate the world cup. Now they've travelled across the world midseason so play in the world cup. And now they want to tack an extra15-25 mins stoppage time per game of extra playing. If a team makes the final of the world cup they could have played between one or two additional games just through all the extra added time.

Seems ridiculous and expect our players to come back exhausted and getting injured in the near future.
 

Strootman's Finger

New Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
1,661
Imagine a Portugal vs Spain added time with all the theatrics and time wasting. They will be playing ad aeternum :lol:
Hahaha, did they purposefully wait till Italy wasn't in the world cup, because it would become a perpetual game, waste time, add time on, waste time in added time, add more time, waste more time... it would be like mid Feb and the Qataris would be like, alright lads, time to get going.
 

RedDevilRoshi

Full Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
13,180
Like it a lot. Hope it gets implemented into the Premier League and European competitions.
 

Koldbeer2021

Full Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2021
Messages
153
Supports
West Ham
I wonder what it'll mean for the players. They'll be playing considerably more actual football than usual. Games are effectively ~10-15 minutes longer now than before, which is a gigantic change.
I suppose the increase of subs to 5 somewhat balances that out. Just means squad depth is probably more vital than its ever been. Its why its good that England was able to bring on the quality of players they have on the bench at the moment. It really will be a squad game given that extra length.
 

Stadjer

Full Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2013
Messages
7,296
Location
The Netherlands
They should communicate the time added on in injury time - hold up the board again and change the TV graphic, at least, for transparency.

The KSA injury near the end of the game took about 3 minutes to clear up - no idea where the 6 minutes came from to take us from 8 added minutes to 14.
Why? What is shown is minimum added time. Not total added time. The ref can always add more. I think its transparent enough because you never know what a ref will add as extra to the game. There were goalkicks, throw ins and other things that took the ball out of active play. Looks like the ref decided to add extra time for that too.
 

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
57,228
Location
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
I like it in the sense that it does reduce the impact of timewasting and is something a lot have been clamouring for, for ages...But can't say I want every match to be a 102-124 minute epic.
Plus the world cup is played at shit times for many countries, so it makes it even more difficult to watch for hundreds of millions of fans.
 

redcucumber

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2022
Messages
3,165
I like it in the sense that it does reduce the impact of timewasting and is something a lot have been clamouring for, for ages...But can't say I want every match to be a 102-124 minute epic.
Plus the world cup is played at shit times for many countries, so it makes it even more difficult to watch for hundreds of millions of fans.
They don't feel unnecessarily long or epic to me. I'm actually much preferring the experience of watching matches, safe in the knowledge that the proper and legislated amount of time is being played. It feels right. Games like the Newcastle one (using that as it's the most commonly referenced at the moment) are hard to enjoy when you know only 55-60 minutes of actual football has been played.
 

redcucumber

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2022
Messages
3,165
I prefer this than a stop clock. There's a bit more discretion given to the referee with added time. If it's a stopped clock and the time has gone, there's one more play until the ball goes out, if it goes out for a corner then that's game over. But with this there's still the chance for that one last corner to be taken, or that last throw in that's high up the pitch. There's a slight bit of uncertainty that still adds to the drama.
Agreed. Much more interesting than clinically stopping the clock whenever the ball goes out or a player goes down.
 

mav_9me

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
12,400
It's better than before, but hopefully they will soon realise this is a bit of madness as well and they need to switch to 2x30' with time stoppages.
Huge yay and I think it'll lead eventually to an in-play clock.
Finally, the next step is an actual stopping clock
Although I think it’ll help, I don’t think it will stop time wasting. Simply because the time wasted isn’t getting added on like for like. They are just adding on slightly more than normal.

The only true way to stop time wasting will be to stop the clock system.

Before you might have got 1 minute for every 5 wasted. Now it’s maybe 2 minute for every 5. It’s better but it won’t eradicate time wasting.
Great, but a stopwatch would make all this far simpler, though.
Could not agree more. In play clock is inevitable.
 

Carl

has permanently erect nipples
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
45,327
Should make it dynamic. So if team A is the team responsible for all the time wasting, but its Team A that would benefit from adding time on, it should be wiped.

Scenario
Team A have accumulated 10 mins of added time whilst either winning or drawing. But then Team B score and are leading at the end of the 90mins, then that 10mins is not added on. However, if Team A are winning or drawing then the time is added on.