O/T:- Added on time

[sidders]

One of the good things that emerged from the World Cup was a more realistic attitude by referees towards added-on time for stoppages through injury, refreshment, subs, etc but I fear that now we are 'back to normal' added-on time in most English games is ridiculously understated.
I've actually used my stopwatch on a number of televised games as a guide to what value the referee should be according games and in most cases it's woefully short.
What this means is that it pays teams to waste time if they are in a winning position or even drawing against the odds. It pays to make last minute substitutions or delay throw-ins and free kicks by precious seconds.
I have often thought that football should learn from a number of other sports that give the job of time-keeping to other than match officials.

[OP67]

Didn't Hardy suggest that games should be 60 minutes long but the clock stopped everytime there was a stoppage in play? He said that most games have less than 60 minutes of play anyway.

[uysapie]

Didn't Hardy suggest that games should be 60 minutes long but the clock stopped everytime there was a stoppage in play? He said that most games have less than 60 minutes of play anyway.

Interesting stats

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

[Ex_Southwell_Magpie]

Didn't Hardy suggest that games should be 60 minutes long but the clock stopped everytime there was a stoppage in play? He said that most games have less than 60 minutes of play anyway.

It was one of the few things he ever said that made sense. Purists (like me) hate the idea, but can see the benefits. The only thing though is that if Prem games average 55 minutes play currently, for some clubs, fans might not get out of the stadium till 6 O’clock on a Saturday!

[Elite_Pie]

One of the good things that emerged from the World Cup was a more realistic attitude by referees towards added-on time for stoppages through injury, refreshment, subs, etc but I fear that now we are 'back to normal' added-on time in most English games is ridiculously understated.
I've actually used my stopwatch on a number of televised games as a guide to what value the referee should be according games and in most cases it's woefully short.
What this means is that it pays teams to waste time if they are in a winning position or even drawing against the odds. It pays to make last minute substitutions or delay throw-ins and free kicks by precious seconds.
I have often thought that football should learn from a number of other sports that give the job of time-keeping to other than match officials.

Can only partly agree. Deliberate time wasting is one of my pet hates, but it's slowly (no pun intended) becoming part of the game. I have no problem with time added on for genuine injuries, but instead of adding it on for deliberate time wasting refs should be punishing the crime rather than adding extra time to compensate for it. The big problem is identifying it. We regularly see opposition players go down in apparent agony at Meadow Lane, but only when they are ahead or level. When the ref doesn't stop the game, they invariably make a miraculous recovery!

A few more cards for obvious examples (and there are many) and letting play continue when a player suddenly goes down with 'cramp' would be a small step in the right direction. I don't want games to last two hours like some did in the World Cup.

[LaxtonLad]

One of the good things that emerged from the World Cup was a more realistic attitude by referees towards added-on time for stoppages through injury, refreshment, subs, etc but I fear that now we are 'back to normal' added-on time in most English games is ridiculously understated.
I've actually used my stopwatch on a number of televised games as a guide to what value the referee should be according games and in most cases it's woefully short.
What this means is that it pays teams to waste time if they are in a winning position or even drawing against the odds. It pays to make last minute substitutions or delay throw-ins and free kicks by precious seconds.
I have often thought that football should learn from a number of other sports that give the job of time-keeping to other than match officials.

I can’t agree with you sidders. Some of the commentators at the World Cup wouldn’t either. Several times they talked about the 7,8,9 or 10 added minutes taking the whole game into an unnecessary lengthy farce.
Imagine missing the coach home because the driver has to keep to his timetable or your bus is only every hour.
The TV companies too have a schedule to keep to, can you imagine cutting short a broadcast game so as to show “Strictly” on time?

[LaxtonLad]

Elite, to me it’s ridiculous that a referee can stop a game just because a player has cramp. Let the poor sod sit there till he feels better or asks to leave the pitch. More likely though, when he sees everything carrying on, he’ll jump up and run away - ‘tis a miracle!

[Elite_Pie]

The TV companies too have a schedule to keep to, can you imagine cutting short a broadcast game so as to show “Strictly” on time?

I'm glad you mentioned "Strictly" and not me! It's probably a generational thing, when I started watching footy in 1970 the game kicked off at 3pm, half time took 10 minutes, and the final whistle blew no later than 4:45pm. Deliberate time wasting just didn't happen. Can you imagine Jimmy Sirrel saying to Stubbsy "Brian, if we're a goal ahead on 89 minutes lie down and pretend you've got cramp"!

[the_anticlough]

One of the good things that emerged from the World Cup was a more realistic attitude by referees towards added-on time for stoppages through injury, refreshment, subs, etc but I fear that now we are 'back to normal' added-on time in most English games is ridiculously understated.
I've actually used my stopwatch on a number of televised games as a guide to what value the referee should be according games and in most cases it's woefully short.
What this means is that it pays teams to waste time if they are in a winning position or even drawing against the odds. It pays to make last minute substitutions or delay throw-ins and free kicks by precious seconds.
I have often thought that football should learn from a number of other sports that give the job of time-keeping to other than match officials.

Agree completely.
The World Cup solution is one way of removing the advantage from cheating, although some advantage still remains in 'breaking up the game'. Moving to 100+ minute games though is not ideal though, entertainment-wise, and bakes in the cheating. The NBA for example has timekeepers that stop the clock and punish 'delay of game' on top of that. This is the way football has to go.
Fake injuries, only for teams that are winning (or want to draw) is intolerable, and has to be eradicated from the sport one way or the other.

[ncfcog]

Have to agree with Elite on this one, although imagine we take a goal lead at Wrexham with 20 mins to go. Slocombe starts taking ages over his goal kicks, Nemane and Chicks somehow struggle to find a ball, or a man for that matter for a throw-in and our players start to feign injuries just to waste precious seconds. If it worked and won us the league title we would be absolutely loving it.

[queenslandpie]

Adding to the clock won't actually stop the cheating in my opinion. As above it will get "baked in". Perhaps if the cheats were sent off for time wasting instead then it would stamp it out. Or points were deducted from the winning team on a post match review based on certain criteria! ( amount of time wasting). It might make the end of games super exciting as well! Although the application of all of that might be a challenge! Just some broad considerations.

[ncfcog]

Is it not just a case of needing better/stronger officials? There is already a provision for booking someone for blatant time wasting. The refs need to be braver in making those decisions. Also, I suppose there is an ethical argument to players going down with an injury, if there was obvious contact then the game will be stopped anyway, if its someone pulling up with cramp or pulling a hammy then the game continues and more often than not a player will kick the ball out so they can get treatment if they need it. In this case there just needs to be clarification that if the ref hasn't stopped the game then play to the whistle. if it's an obvious head injury they will stop the game anyway. Finally, knowing it happens, opposing teams need to know how to manage it, get the ball back as quickly as possible and put them back under pressure.

[BigFatPie]

It’s possible to punish time wasters AND add on the extra time. Fans are effectively swindled out of watching football by players rolling around/cramp/impromptu team talks/goalkeepers with fake head injuries and substitutions that take minutes rather than seconds.

I thought the World Cup was a step in the right direction in adding on the appropriate time, and I’m surprised it hasn't caught on in club football. An independent timekeeper would be a great idea, the ref just adding on whatever he feels like is daft, why is there ALWAYS more time added on at the end of the second half than the first? Also, the final whistle should only be blown when the ball has gone out of play. Save the disputes goals scored on the whistle and refs blowing up when a team is attacking. Rugby can teach football a lot about timekeeping.

[Observerpie]

It is a case of needing stronger officials, there's lots of things allowed to go these days that weren't in the past. It starts with something minor like stealing a yard at a throw in or free kick where as now they steal several yards unchecked. Speaking of throw ins, when were foul throws legalised? Why does a goalkeeper never get booked for time wasting before the 89th minute and why is he allowed to lie on the ground for several seconds after catching a routine ball? Why isn't preventing a quick free kick penalised? (I know Dallas was carded for it but it's an exception)
All these may seem trivial things but they symbolise a lack of control by the officials and the more that they give, the more that players will take.
Rant over.

[OP67]

Wasn't one of our own players carded for time wasting with 20 minutes to go and we were losing? XD I'm all for brandishing the cards for obvious time wasting like kicking the ball away although that seems to depend how obvious you make it look.

[the_anticlough]

Watch an NBA game and you'll realise that a sport is capable of totally eliminating time-wasting - it'd be a revelation to many.

That governing body has put so much effort in over the years to get its product right for the watching audience, in the arenas and on screen.

Imagine the process in reverse, with time-wasting being introduced into basketball with timekeeping removed - there would be pandemonium, fans would think their sport had been wrecked.

And it's not something specific to basketball, rugby - a much similar sport to football - does the same.

I'd love to see the clock stopped every time there's a stoppage in football. Plus 'delay of game' rules. Slow with a throw-in? It goes to the other team. Ditto for free-kicks. Slow with a goal-kick? It becomes a corner. 5 'delay of game warnings'? Penalty to the other team!

[51Magpie]

It is a case of needing stronger officials, there's lots of things allowed to go these days that weren't in the past.

I'm slightly O/T here but I honestly don't know the answer. I'm sure that there was a time when the award of a penalty was the only thing that would put off the final whistle when time was up. Nowadays, if a corner (or a free-kick in a promising position) is awarded, the attacking team seem always to be allowed to take all the time in the world with their prep, and after the kick is eventually taken, the ref still won't blow until either a goal is scored or the ensuing pinball session has finished. Have the laws/rules changed?

[since41]

The trouble is telling whether a player is genuinely injured perhaps a mandatory 5 minute rest on the sidelines would stop the play acting.

[the_anticlough]

The trouble is telling whether a player is genuinely injured perhaps a mandatory 5 minute rest on the sidelines would stop the play acting.

I'm for anything that works - trouble is the solution can't be anything that gives a team an incentive to nobble their opponents

[BigFatPie]

Watch an NBA game and you'll realise that a sport is capable of totally eliminating time-wasting - it'd be a revelation to many.

That governing body has put so much effort in over the years to get its product right for the watching audience, in the arenas and on screen.

Imagine the process in reverse, with time-wasting being introduced into basketball with timekeeping removed - there would be pandemonium, fans would think their sport had been wrecked.

And it's not something specific to basketball, rugby - a much similar sport to football - does the same.

I'd love to see the clock stopped every time there's a stoppage in football. Plus 'delay of game' rules. Slow with a throw-in? It goes to the other team. Ditto for free-kicks. Slow with a goal-kick? It becomes a corner. 5 'delay of game warnings'? Penalty to the other team!

Football moves at a glacial pace when it comes to changing/getting rid of daft laws and bringing in better ones. I guess it’s the inherently conservative nature of both authorities and fans. If you watch the highlights of a game from the 70s and early 80s it’s hard to believe that the back pass to the keeper was allowed for so long when it slowed the game down as much as it did.

Sooner or later timekeeping at matches will be changed and future generations will similarly wonder why we did it like we do now.

[LaxtonLad]

I'm slightly O/T here but I honestly don't know the answer. I'm sure that there was a time when the award of a penalty was the only thing that would put off the final whistle when time was up. Nowadays, if a corner (or a free-kick in a promising position) is awarded, the attacking team seem always to be allowed to take all the time in the world with their prep, and after the kick is eventually taken, the ref still won't blow until either a goal is scored or the ensuing pinball session has finished. Have the laws/rules changed?

My memory might be at fault here but not so long ago wasn't a law introduced where an opposing player must immediately retreat ten(?) yards from where a free-kick is being taken? If I am right can anybody tell me the last time they saw this rule enforced? Referees seem to be either unaware of it or ignore it so what would happen if the player taking the kick quickly booted it into an enemy player who hadn't retreated? My bet is that in a lower league game the ignorant lower league ref would say the kicker should have politely waited.

[the_anticlough]

Sooner or later timekeeping at matches will be changed and future generations will similarly wonder why we did it like we do now.

Yeah, inevitable.
And another thing factoring into that is that the modern spectator has less and less patience, shorter attention spans, and many other things to do with their time. Football will be forced into improving its product or face losing out to other sports or other pastimes.

[LaxtonLad]

I'm for anything that works - trouble is the solution can't be anything that gives a team an incentive to nobble their opponents

There are already rules punishing anyone nobbling opponents. The incentive is there to not go looking for a booking.

[nw6pie]

Just to play devil's advocate, do we really need games going on for 110 minutes? (Most of my years watching Notts have been spent imploring the ref to blow for full-time!) Yes, teams time waste, but every single club does it when it suits them - it's just part of the game. And given the athleticism in the modern game, aren't we just going to tire players out quicker and risk more injuries by making them play, say, 20 minutes more per game?

If we were to make fundamental changes to the game, I'd prefer something that encourages teams to score more goals - like with the points system in rugby union where you're awarded more points for the more points you score in a game. That said, I'm fine with the game as it is - especially as we don't need to worry about VAR at our level.

[upthemaggies]

Just to play devil's advocate, do we really need games going on for 110 minutes?.

If young people have shorter attention spans these days and the average age of spectators is increasing, then probably not.

Unless the ref has blown for a foul or to stop play over a clash of heads/a nasty accident, it's very rare that a player is going to be injured badly enough to not be able to get himself off the pitch to get treatment, so I think there needs to be an incentive for players to do just that and a more meaningful forfeit for those that go down pretending or exaggerating.

If a player goes down or stays down of his own accord then he should be immediately stretchered off, receive treatment off the pitch and then not be allowed back on for 5 minutes. If he's genuinely injured then he can be subbed straight away.
With that rule, there would be some injustices, but overall you'd wipe out a lot of the timewasting for the good of the game.

[sidders]

Yeah, inevitable.
And another thing factoring into that is that the modern spectator has less and less patience, shorter attention spans, and many other things to do with their time. Football will be forced into improving its product or face losing out to other sports or other pastimes.

Oh anticlough, normally one of my favourite posters but your labelling a football match as 'a product' is an Americanisation of the most repulsive type. It's an attitude that brings in yankee and Middle Eastern investment.
A product is something you make with intent towards achieving something that people buy. The entire product is shaped and styled towards an intended conclusion.
Football is an art form that cannot be controlled in that way ... unless the result was planned from the outset.

[the_anticlough]

Oh anticlough, normally one of my favourite posters but your labelling a football match as 'a product' is an Americanisation of the most repulsive type. It's an attitude that brings in yankee and Middle Eastern investment.
A product is something you make with intent towards achieving something that people buy. The entire product is shaped and styled towards an intended conclusion.
Football is an art form that cannot be controlled in that way ... unless the result was planned from the outset.

I don't share your kneejerk automatic dislike of things 'american', I'll take each case on its merits...

You will know perfectly well what I mean - product in the sense of end result, 'offering', when you pay to watch a 'professional' game of football. Clue is in the 'professional' there. As for 'art form', we don't often see that, but we're doing the best job in years this season.

I know too many people who used to like football but lost interest completely, not because of the 'commercialisation' but because 'the product' wasn't interesting enough for them - too much of the dark arts, not enough art.
All that aside, please continue to think of me as a favourite poster, you'll be about the only one that does ;)

[MAD_MAGPIE]

Interesting stats

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

Based on this article the ball is actually in play for 55 minutes in a 90 minute game. Therefore what should be trialed first and foremost is 30 minute halves. The clock is then stopped each time the ball is out of play. The reality is that the half will end up finishing around the 45 min mark from the time of kick off based on the data.

It's the same as now but different psychologically. The key thing is there would be no benefit in wasting time because the 30 minutes in game play is guaranteed for each halve. No more no less.

The in play game time data is clearly there so it could form the basis of any future trials.

[Robertomac]

Ever noticed that refs normally add 1-2 mins in the first half, but always a minimum of 4 in the second. It seems to have little bearing on what has actually happened during the game.

A pet hate of mine is goalkeepers time-wasting throughout a game, but refs always waiting until right at the end to book them. Book them early and give them something to think about.

[the_anticlough]

Ever noticed that refs normally add 1-2 mins in the first half, but always a minimum of 4 in the second. It seems to have little bearing on what has actually happened during the game.

A pet hate of mine is goalkeepers time-wasting throughout a game, but refs always waiting until right at the end to book them. Book them early and give them something to think about.

Good examples, both correct and proving there is no accurate timekeeping or code to follow - just make it up as you go along

[ncfcog]

Ever noticed that refs normally add 1-2 mins in the first half, but always a minimum of 4 in the second. It seems to have little bearing on what has actually happened during the game.

A pet hate of mine is goalkeepers time-wasting throughout a game, but refs always waiting until right at the end to book them. Book them early and give them something to think about.

I think the extra minutes second half are increased because they add 30 seconds for every substitution?

[magpie_mania]

Based on this article the ball is actually in play for 55 minutes in a 90 minute game. Therefore what should be trialed first and foremost is 30 minute halves. The clock is then stopped each time the ball is out of play. The reality is that the half will end up finishing around the 45 min mark from the time of kick off based on the data.

It's the same as now but different psychologically. The key thing is there would be no benefit in wasting time because the 30 minutes in game play is guaranteed for each halve. No more no less.

The in play game time data is clearly there so it could form the basis of any future trials.

No point in that really though is there? Play 30 minute halfs which will take 45 minutes - may as well carry on as we are.

I would much rather they look at things like dives, trying to get players red-carded etc. Whatever was done with time it wouldn't really change the amount of time the ball is in play if halves were shorter.

Every team manages the game when they are winning close to the end - leave it as it is.

[Elite_Pie]

The trouble is telling whether a player is genuinely injured.

That's the big problem. If a player rolls around in apparent agony, it must be hard for a ref to ignore it. But there are clues - if it's fake it's usually late on in the game where the offending team are ahead or desperate to hold on to a point. It's here that refs have to earn their wage. If it's off the ball, they should play on because if they do play on in 99% of cases the player gets up, limps for a couple of steps, then makes a miraculous recovery if they have a pass to chase. I'm sure time wasting has it's own special slot for some clubs in training now, because a lot of teams are really good at it, maybe including us. A few classics are:

The keeper decides he needs a drink when the ball goes out of play for a goal kick.
The keeper pretends he wants to play the goal kick short when he's played it long all game, and then spends a few seconds looking around before ushering his team up the pitch playing it long.
A free kick is deliberately taken from the wrong place with the taker knowing he will be sent back to take it in the correct place. Job done, he's wasted several seconds which the ref won't add on.
A throw in is deliberately taken from the wrong place with the taker knowing he will be sent back to take it in the correct place. Job done, he's wasted several seconds which the ref won't add on.

And don't get me started on Tozer's towels. The ball goes out of play, he strolls up the pitch to take it, waits for the ball boy to bring him a towel, carefully dries the ball and 40 seconds after it went out of play he throws it back in. This would normally take 10 seconds. If this happens just 10 times in a game it means 5 minutes of the game have been lost. But refs and the rules allow it to happen.

[uysapie]

That's the big problem. If a player rolls around in apparent agony, it must be hard for a ref to ignore it. But there are clues - if it's fake it's usually late on in the game where the offending team are ahead or desperate to hold on to a point. It's here that refs have to earn their wage. If it's off the ball, they should play on because if they do play on in 99% of cases the player gets up, limps for a couple of steps, then makes a miraculous recovery if they have a pass to chase. I'm sure time wasting has it's own special slot for some clubs in training now, because a lot of teams are really good at it, maybe including us. A few classics are:

The keeper decides he needs a drink when the ball goes out of play for a goal kick.
The keeper pretends he wants to play the goal kick short when he's played it long all game, and then spends a few seconds looking around before ushering his team up the pitch playing it long.
A free kick is deliberately taken from the wrong place with the taker knowing he will be sent back to take it in the correct place. Job done, he's wasted several seconds which the ref won't add on.
A throw in is deliberately taken from the wrong place with the taker knowing he will be sent back to take it in the correct place. Job done, he's wasted several seconds which the ref won't add on.

And don't get me started on Tozer's towels. The ball goes out of play, he strolls up the pitch to take it, waits for the ball boy to bring him a towel, carefully dries the ball and 40 seconds after it went out of play he throws it back in. This would normally take 10 seconds. If this happens just 10 times in a game it means 5 minutes of the game have been lost. But refs and the rules allow it to happen.

On throw ins, players never seem to be sent back to where the ball actually went out of play. Seems like gaining 5 yds is the norm

[Wedgie_pie]

[QUOTE=Elite_Pie;40209386]
[I]The keeper decides he needs a drink when the ball goes out of play for a goal kick.
The keeper pretends he wants to play the goal kick short when he's played it long all game, and then spends a few seconds looking around before ushering his team up the pitch playing it long.















Our own Roy Carroll was master at wasting time used to infuriate me...

[magpie_mania]

[QUOTE=Wedgie_pie;40209656][QUOTE=Elite_Pie;40209386]
[I]The keeper decides he needs a drink when the ball goes out of play for a goal kick.
The keeper pretends he wants to play the goal kick short when he's played it long all game, and then spends a few seconds looking around before ushering his team up the pitch playing it long.

Don't forget that he needs to adjust his socks and kick the post a few times to clean his boots first.

[51Magpie]

I'm slightly O/T here but I honestly don't know the answer. I'm sure that there was a time when the award of a penalty was the only thing that would put off the final whistle when time was up. Nowadays, if a corner (or a free-kick in a promising position) is awarded, the attacking team seem always to be allowed to take all the time in the world with their prep, and after the kick is eventually taken, the ref still won't blow until either a goal is scored or the ensuing pinball session has finished. Have the laws/rules changed?

In the end I found this was an easy one to check and, AAMOI, it seems that the rules haven't changed. Law 7, Rule 4 is just as it was, and a penalty is the only exception that may cause the match to be extended. [4. Penalty kick. If a penalty kick has to be taken or retaken, the half is extended until the penalty kick is completed.]

Also, I vaguely recall an unusual case of a ref's reaction to a time-wasting substition. We made a substitution in injury time and the player going off was so slow the ref showed him a second yellow and a red. So he still went off but the sub couldn't come on. I never saw that happen before or since. Anyone remember what match it was?

[upthemaggies]

Also, I vaguely recall an unusual case of a ref's reaction to a time-wasting substition. We made a substitution in injury time and the player going off was so slow the ref showed him a second yellow and a red. So he still went off but the sub couldn't come on. I never saw that happen before or since. Anyone remember what match it was?

What era/decade are we talking?

Back in the day, there was only one match ball and the crowd wouldn't always give it back until it had been passed around for a bit. Players would kick the ball away at free kicks, strikers would carry on after a whistle for offside and put the ball into the net, defenders would pass back to the keeper over and over and yet games very rarely went on for more than a minute over the 90. We also had half-time breaks less than 15 minutes, sometimes 10 with the 2nd half kicking off at 3:55 and you'd be out of the ground before 4:45.

[GEZMAN]

Maybe there's a couple of things football could learn from rugby. Injured players are tended to, but the game goes on around them. Funny in a game where physical contact is part of the game, you don't see a lot of injuries. Also if you have a free kick awarded against you, & you don't retire 10m immediately, the free kick is moved forward 10m. Could be interesting approaching the penalty area!

[Observerpie]

Maybe there's a couple of things football could learn from rugby. Injured players are tended to, but the game goes on around them. Funny in a game where physical contact is part of the game, you don't see a lot of injuries. Also if you have a free kick awarded against you, & you don't retire 10m immediately, the free kick is moved forward 10m. Could be interesting approaching the penalty area!

The free kick thing was tried and then shelved as was awarding the throw in to the opposition if you took it from the wrong place.

[upthemaggies]

Maybe there's a couple of things football could learn from rugby. Injured players are tended to, but the game goes on around them.!

Nice idea, but how would it work in football? What happens if the physio blocks a goal bound shot or impedes the opposition keeper?
If you left it to the refs discretion whether or not to stop the game depending on where the player has gone down - ie carry on if the injured player isn't in or near either box - you can bet players would make their way into the nearest penalty area before collapsing.

Fans have always screamed "GET HIM OFF THE PITCH!" and I think that is what needs to happen straight away. No club physio allowed on, just medical staff to get them straight onto a stretcher and off with no fuss and then they're not allowed back on for 5 minutes "to give them enough time recover for their own safety", that would soon put a stop to play acting.