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

[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?

[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?