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.