Game Time Clock

[Lancet Fluke]

The ball's only in play for 60-65 mins per match so there would be some very long matches if they had to play 90mins with the ball in play.

In rugby league they do have official timekeepers who stop the clock, but only when the ref tells them to and only for extended breaks in play. For example if the time between a try being scored and the subsequent kick off to restart the game drags on for more than one minute they stop the clock. I would like to see that system intoduced in football, it would certainly add to the drama at the end of a game if the clock ticking down was visible to everyone. But it wouldnt prevent goalkeepers from wasting a few seconds every time they receive the ball.

I don't think anyone thinks it should be 90 mins ball in play but it is bonkers imo that in this day and age you have some prem matches with 70+ mins ball in play and some with about 50. Time wasting seems to be seen as a legitimate tactic whereas I think it should be viewed as cheating. Only ball in play timing and stopping the clock would cut out time wasting. I know it will never happen (which depresses me because if there was one rule I could change it would be that) but I'm surprised they won't consider it. I doubt teams like Stoke taking a minute to take a goal kick right from the start of the game is very good for their "brand".

 

[BlueTG]

Not allowed to carry on. Added time is only a minimum amount, so have to stop it at 45 and 90 respectively. It would be good if you could carry it on so you know where you're at.

It's a minimum amount if City are winning but we hardly make it to the minimum added time if the opposition are winning.

 

[Bill]

Under normal circumstances, I don't think they are allowed to have it carry on after 90.

agreed. ikkle mickey owen could not have hit that winner if it was there for all to see.

 

[Dubai Blue]

Correct. I don't think people realise just how much of the 90 minutes is "dead time". If you had a timekeeper in the stands who stopped the clock every time the ball wasn't in play,(throw ins, corners, free kicks, restarts after goals, substitions, timewasting etc etc), I think 100 minute matches would become commonplace. 3 or 4 minutes injury time is almost the norm now; it wouldn't be hard to come up with another 5 or 6 minutes if you want to have 90 minutes of actual "play". Are people prepared to accept that? You see the stink that all that added time on saturday caused on here at the time.

I don't think the advocates expect it to stay at 90 mins. They'd have to reduce it to, say, 70 mins. This would have wider implications for the game though, as you'd have 70-min games where there's a timekeeper and 90 mins for games where there's not.

 

[MadchesterCity]

Correct. I don't think people realise just how much of the 90 minutes is "dead time". If you had a timekeeper in the stands who stopped the clock every time the ball wasn't in play,(throw ins, corners, free kicks, restarts after goals, substitions, timewasting etc etc), I think 100 minute matches would become commonplace. 3 or 4 minutes injury time is almost the norm now; it wouldn't be hard to come up with another 5 or 6 minutes if you want to have 90 minutes of actual "play". Are people prepared to accept that? You see the stink that all that added time on saturday caused on here at the time.

Much better value for money, would love it Andrew the benefit would go to the attacking team

 

[bluereid]

It wasn't the usual clock on the big screens.For some reason there was a clock on the Family Stand !st tier advertising hoarding, with a live camera pointing at it.
We thought it was too good to be true. Needless to say it was, they both disappeared after a couple of minutes.

 

[Bluemoon dan]

I don't think anyone thinks it should be 90 mins ball in play but it is bonkers imo that in this day and age you have some prem matches with 70+ mins ball in play and some with about 50. Time wasting seems to be seen as a legitimate tactic whereas I think it should be viewed as cheating. Only ball in play timing and stopping the clock would cut out time wasting. I know it will never happen (which depresses me because if there was one rule I could change it would be that) but I'm surprised they won't consider it. I doubt teams like Stoke taking a minute to take a goal kick right from the start of the game is very good for their "brand".

I'm sure the tv companies won't mind. It's probably only a matter of time before the ball goes out for a goal kick and some tv executive thinks 'we've got time for a quick advert for a betting company before the ball is back in play!

 

[Lancet Fluke]

I'm sure the tv companies won't mind. It's probably only a matter of time before the ball goes out for a goal kick and some tv executive thinks 'we've got time for a quick advert for a betting company before the ball is back in play!

Well they would definitely have had time at some of our home matches this season. Could have probably got 2 or 3 ads in every goal kick during the Southampton home match this season.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Well they would definitely have had time at some of our home matches this season. Could have probably got 2 or 3 ads in every goal kick during the Southampton home match this season.

Doesn't help having the slowest (or fewest?) ball boys in world football. One of my many bugbears.

 

[Father Paul]

Seven minutes yesterday was risible. Leicester wasted six of 'em. Every time we looked as though we were on the march, a Fox's arse hit the deck.

We need a separate timekeeper who presses a button when the ball is in play. It won't be rocket science to work out for how long a football match should take. Ball in play and it cuts out all the fuckin' about by goalkeepers to waste as much as they can, knowing that the Whistling Wanker is never gonna send 'em off for timewasting.

What incentive had they to time waste since they were chasing the game?