Stoppage Time

[jammie82uk]

4 hours ago, filthyfox said:

Stop/start clock is the way forward.

 

That will surely only make the game even longer then it is already 

[jammie82uk]

36 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

players will stop time wasting after a few games

There wasn’t any time wasting that was obvious to me in our game yesterday, no physio was on the pitch all game, 1 min added on 1st half and 9 mins added for 3 goals & 3 breaks of play for substitutions in the second half 

[st albans fox]

3 hours ago, CosbehFox said:

I understand this is pretty much a stop/start clock now. That's how the injury time is being calculated. 

On subs, injury stoppages and goal celebrations 

 

the rest is down to the ref and imo, teams will be able to time waste even more under this system than previously.  The fans will undoubtedly see more playing time but I can’t see a ref checking with his fourth official after 89 mins what is to be added for the second half stoppages  (goals = 4 mins/ subs = 5 mins / injuries = 2 mins ) and then hearing that he’d also noted 4 mins for time wasting. He’s not going to put up 15 mins added time. He’d probably cut that to two max (if any) so the time wasting will likely go unpunished on the clock 

[David Lowe]

46 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

On subs, injury stoppages and goal celebrations 

 

the rest is down to the ref and imo, teams will be able to time waste even more under this system than previously.  The fans will undoubtedly see more playing time but I can’t see a ref checking with his fourth official after 89 mins what is to be added for the second half stoppages  (goals = 4 mins/ subs = 5 mins / injuries = 2 mins ) and then hearing that he’d also noted 4 mins for time wasting. He’s not going to put up 15 mins added time. He’d probably cut that to two max (if any) so the time wasting will likely go unpunished on the clock 

Don’t they have 2 watches running? The refs will now be stopping one watch for all of those things and will know what to add at 90 minutes. If it’s 15 mins that what will be given as in an EFL game at the weekend.

[David Lowe]

1 hour ago, Chrysalis said:

How long do you think a 90 minute match should last for then?

It’s impossible to say but if you really want 90 minutes of play I would say that could take 2 1/2 hours in the Premier League. That will be fine for some but others won’t want to be in the ground for that long particularly those with children at evening matches.

[st albans fox]

17 minutes ago, David Lowe said:

Don’t they have 2 watches running? The refs will now be stopping one watch for all of those things and will know what to add at 90 minutes. If it’s 15 mins that what will be given as in an EFL game at the weekend.

I think that refs will come under pressure from broadcasters and managers to limit added time below 12 mins. 
 

I think that in some games, clever coaches like Howe will alert their players to exploit this if the score is in their favour 

[Daggers]

21 hours ago, FoxInTheBirstallBox said:

Will an extra 10 mins really make any difference 

@Raj's wife tells me it definitely does.

[oxford blue]

I think a game should end as soon after 90 minutes as possible. No-one (I think) wants to see time wasting, nor excessive goal celebrations even if that time gets added on at end.  (I also think some injuries can be treated by player going off pitch - depending on proximity to touchline and nature of injury). There is scope within laws:

 

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

 

for referees to to act on incidents I have mentioned. It would be better if the did, rather than excessively extended games.

[David Lowe]

13 minutes ago, oxford blue said:

I think a game should end as soon after 90 minutes as possible. No-one (I think) wants to see time wasting, nor excessive goal celebrations even if that time gets added on at end.  (I also think some injuries can be treated by player going off pitch - depending on proximity to touchline and nature of injury). There is scope within laws:

 

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

 

for referees to to act on incidents I have mentioned. It would be better if the did, rather than excessively extended games.

I agree that as much as possible should be done (such as multi ball) to get the game moving during the 90 minutes rather than keep adding more time on. The difficulty is that there are so many things such as VAR, player/manager brawls and oil protestors where you just can’t carry on.

[Jimmy]

3 hours ago, jammie82uk said:

There wasn’t any time wasting that was obvious to me in our game yesterday, no physio was on the pitch all game, 1 min added on 1st half and 9 mins added for 3 goals & 3 breaks of play for substitutions in the second half 

really you didn't notice them taking a minute to take every goal kick or corner? 

 

Also they used to add on 30 secs for every goal celebration or sub and sometimes both would take nearly 2mins to see play restart

[jammie82uk]

1 hour ago, Jimmy said:

really you didn't notice them taking a minute to take every goal kick or corner?

That happens nearly every game by nearly every team so no I didn’t see it as anything unusual, also there was 7 corners in the first half and 6 in the second with vastly different added on time 

[StanSP]

15 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

That happens nearly every game by nearly every team

Yep, precisely. And that's why it's now being addressed & recognised properly with longer additional time. Instead of it just being ignored. 

[Chrysalis]

3 hours ago, David Lowe said:

It’s impossible to say but if you really want 90 minutes of play I would say that could take 2 1/2 hours in the Premier League. That will be fine for some but others won’t want to be in the ground for that long particularly those with children at evening matches.

Should last 90 in my opinion or at least very close to it, players will soon stop time wasting as I expect they dont want 2 hour games, and for those in the ground, if you dont like it, its as simple as tough luck really. 

[jammie82uk]

11 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Yep, precisely. And that's why it's now being addressed & recognised properly with longer additional time. Instead of it just being ignored. 

Well that makes sense how 1 minute was added in the first half for 7 corners then 🙄

[blaaklint]

1 hour ago, Jimmy said:

really you didn't notice them taking a minute to take every goal kick or corner? 

 

Also they used to add on 30 secs for every goal celebration or sub and sometimes both would take nearly 2mins to see play restart

Average goal celebrations in the PL last year were above 60 seconds for every team. We were at nearly 90

[David Lowe]

23 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

Should last 90 in my opinion or at least very close to it, players will soon stop time wasting as I expect they dont want 2 hour games, and for those in the ground, if you dont like it, its as simple as tough luck really. 

Well if players stop time wasting and the time comes down a bit then that will be good but there’s no guarantee it will happen. 

As for your second point, I think they need to careful if bringing in initiatives that may drive people away from the sport. Football is in good health crowd wise so there obviously hasn’t been an issue with supporters thinking they are not seeing enough play.

[Ecdysiast]

I massively support the new "interpretation".

I would go further...I would have a separate timing official that stops the watch every time the ball goes dead and then starts it again when play resumes, like they do for US grid-iron. This is even more applicable, given the extra substitutes allowed today.

The part of Rugby Union I dislike most, is the time taken by goal-kickers to "line-up" their kick, meditate, visualize, bend-over like your doing a huge 60 second fart, before actually kicking. If there are 10 penalties in a game this can take 30 minutes out of an 80 minute game...not to mention re-set scrums, line-outs etc.

Of course, it's the needs of TV schedules that will dictate, however if it means that 10 minutes of bulls*it punditry gets cut at the end of a show....that is an additional potential benefit. 

For the in the ground fans, matches should be scheduled for more suitable times regardless, but nobody considers them anyway.

 

 

[cambridgefox]

25 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

Well that makes sense how 1 minute was added in the first half for 7 corners then 🙄

Did you see how slowly the Coventry players were walking to the corners when winning.

Although. because of their time wasting a large amount was added which could have gone against us when we were ahead.

[iancognito]

Ridiculous for players like Varane or even the PFA itself to be moaning about this. We're well used to seeing 4 to 6 minutes added time, so 9 minutes is just an extra 3-5 minutes play. They can get all emotional about 100 minute games (because it's an eye-catching figure) but it's literally 5 minutes on top of a normal game. On top of that we now have five subs from huge squads (as requested by top clubs) that are constantly rotated. None of these f***ers are moaning about trips to Singapore or America pre-season or mid-season. They're all fine with the Nations League. But a few extra minutes in the Prem? Too much.

 

 

[Clever Fox]

1 hour ago, blaaklint said:

Average goal celebrations in the PL last year were above 60 seconds for every team. We were at nearly 90

That's because we've too many slow players, there's no pace in our team.

[Cincinnati Fox]

It’s a massive change but 60 minute stop clock is the way to go.

will never happen

[Super_horns]

21 minutes ago, iancognito said:

Ridiculous for players like Varane or even the PFA itself to be moaning about this. We're well used to seeing 4 to 6 minutes added time, so 9 minutes is just an extra 3-5 minutes play. They can get all emotional about 100 minute games (because it's an eye-catching figure) but it's literally 5 minutes on top of a normal game. On top of that we now have five subs from huge squads (as requested by top clubs) that are constantly rotated. None of these f***ers are moaning about trips to Singapore or America pre-season or mid-season. They're all fine with the Nations League. But a few extra minutes in the Prem? Too much.

 

 

I’d have more sympathy with the lower league teams when it comes to that tbh who have smaller squads and less quality than big teams .

I mean Man U won't care how many games they play if they win a trophy or two plus reaching the latter stages in Europe...

Compared to if they crashed out of the cups early and Europe by Christmas.

 

I guess managers and players do need to adjust and not doubt there will be complaints about well he wasn't booked there or that game had less injury time...

 

Presume the idea is for players to stop time wasting and using dissent whilst stopping too many people in the technical area has been a thing for a while tbh.

 

Did hear the Barnsley keeper was booked for time wasting though at 6-0 up which seems crazy!

Edited 7 August 2023 by Super_horns

[David Lowe]

2 hours ago, Ecdysiast said:

I massively support the new "interpretation".

I would go further...I would have a separate timing official that stops the watch every time the ball goes dead and then starts it again when play resumes, like they do for US grid-iron. This is even more applicable, given the extra substitutes allowed today.

The part of Rugby Union I dislike most, is the time taken by goal-kickers to "line-up" their kick, meditate, visualize, bend-over like your doing a huge 60 second fart, before actually kicking. If there are 10 penalties in a game this can take 30 minutes out of an 80 minute game...not to mention re-set scrums, line-outs etc.

Of course, it's the needs of TV schedules that will dictate, however if it means that 10 minutes of bulls*it punditry gets cut at the end of a show....that is an additional potential benefit. 

For the in the ground fans, matches should be scheduled for more suitable times regardless, but nobody considers them anyway.

 

 

I don’t understand stopping the clock. The ref is stopping his watch anyway so you will still get the same amount of play and it will not have an impact on the amount of time wasting. The only benefit may be that viewers can keep track of the time better rather than being in the dark until 90 minutes.

Edited 7 August 2023 by David Lowe

[Monk]

The whole thing is dumb - if we are going to play 90 minutes of the ball in play, then the visible stadium and TV clock should stop when play stops and should end on 90 minutes. The clock the fans see should sync with the clock the ref has on his arm. Otherwise constantly adding 15-20% onto the end of each half is a joke.

[trugerkem]

If players don’t want the extra 10/20 minutes.. then stop whining at every opportunity stop feigning injuries stop kicking the ball away stop standing in front of the ball at free kicks and stop taking so long at throw ins goal kicks and corners … simple really