Added time

[Platt Lane 59]

Just stop the clock like they do in rugby league, the solution is so simple.

Also do it in other team sports such as Rugby Union.
Takes the responsibility away from the ref, who has to put up with a lot of on-field shenanigans.
But, as everyone is now suspicious of the VAR officials, who would administer it ?
Perhaps a 5th official, attending the match ?

 

[Cityfan1977]

It just horse shit normal added time should have been 5 min 7 min was to much they would not have scored if there was 5 min . and 2 min on top of the 7 was just well I am speech less.
And on Anfield 3 min . 1 goal 5 subs 4 yellow card . There is something fishy going on

 

[Bluemanc100]

As mentioned they should play to a hooter.. the clock stops automatically when the ball is dead… Zero room for error or ref’s being partisan then..

 

[mancboy]

As mentioned they should play to a hooter.. the clock stops automatically when the ball is dead… Zero room for error or ref’s being partisan then..

can we amend the type of hooter depending on who is playing? Like can it be a clown horn when the rags are playing and a police siren when the dippers are?

 

[Gaz76]

can we amend the type of hooter depending on who is playing? Like can it be a clown horn when the rags are playing and a police siren when the dippers are?

Ooh ooh and flashing lights as well? Maybe a firework display to go off at full time?

 

[AK45]

I was expecting 6 mins, there were a lot of subs and a couple of stoppages. 7 wasn't unreasonable. Our game wasn't the issue, the Liverpool one which had 3 minutes was.

It was unreasonable in a half with little action, minimal stoppages, no goals or VAR checks. 7 Is absolutely mental and just because Liverpools was wrong doesn't make ours right.

 

[mancboy]

Ooh ooh and flashing lights as well? Maybe a firework display to go off at full time?

as long as we can shoot the scousers out of a cannon then im all for that

 

[Newman Noggs]

Agreed - 60 minutes matches, clock starts when the ball is in play and every team plays exactly the same amount of time.

You do realise that by shearing 30 minutes of football from the game, you've done the time-wasters' job for them. The whole point of time-wasting is to avoid playing the full 45 minutes against a better team. The fact that they are allowed to get away with it is the problem, not the length of the game.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

That’s all well and good but it’s not consistent and why was there another 2 mins on top of 7?
Until we get a system of ball in play with a stadium clock it will always be open to manipulation

And it is the lack of consistency that in some games turns added time into a fixture that has been manipulated.

 

[mattcity5]

You do realise that by shearing 30 minutes of football from the game, you've done the time-wasters' job for them. The whole point of time-wasting is to avoid playing the full 45 minutes against a better team. The fact that they are allowed to get away with it is the problem, not the length of the game.

The ball has never been in play for 90 minutes though regardless.

 

[Newman Noggs]

The ball has never been in play for 90 minutes though regardless.

And that's the fault of the referees and why we need a separate time-keeper. The game, was, is and always should be 45 minutes each way. It shouldn't be changed to accommodate the cheats.

 

[bluesmith]

You do realise that by shearing 30 minutes of football from the game, you've done the time-wasters' job for them. The whole point of time-wasting is to avoid playing the full 45 minutes against a better team. The fact that they are allowed to get away with it is the problem, not the length of the game.

Clearly you don't realise that the majority of matches don't have the ball in play for 60 minutes so my suggestion actually increases the amount of football played. As an example 9 out of the 10 matches this weekend didnt have 60 minutes of ball in play.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Clearly you don't realise that the majority of matches don't have the ball in play for 60 minutes so my suggestion actually increases the amount of football played. As an example 9 out of the 10 matches this weekend didnt have 60 minutes of ball in play.

I understand very well. I've been watching and playing football for 55 years.

What you are suggesting capitulation to the cheats and doing their job for them.

A rugby match lasts just 5 minutes less each half than a football match. There is a separate time-keeper who ensures that 40 minutes of rugby is actually played. They haven't reduced the halves in case someone wastes time. It's an idiotic suggestion.

 

[mattcity5]

And that's the fault of the referees and why we need a separate time-keeper. The game, was, is and always should be 45 minutes each way. It shouldn't be changed to accommodate the cheats.

It's nothing to do with cheating. Even without cheating time is lost for throw-ins, goal-kicks, free-kicks, corners. Even if the players take them quickly, time is lost. It's just how it is.

That's why if the clock stopped every single time the ball is dead, you would need to reduce the playing time. Otherwise evening matches would go until about 10.30pm. Below is from a couple of seasons ago, but contains examples etc.

How long each PL game lasted this weekend & how long the ball was in play under the new rules

New rules have been introduced - but did they make a difference? ⏱

www.givemesport.com

 

[bluesmith]

I understand very well. I've been watching and playing football for 55 years.

What you are suggesting capitulation to the cheats and doing their job for them.

A rugby match lasts just 5 minutes less each half than a football match. There is a separate time-keeper who ensures that 40 minutes of rugby is actually played. They haven't reduced the halves in case someone wastes time. It's an idiotic suggestion.

It isn't idiotic at all, a game with no timewasting at all will have the ball in play for approx 60 minutes, you aren't shaving any time off, as proven you are adding time to the game in most cases. And every team get identical time instantly stopping timewasting.

The current method is far more illogical as it ends up with some games getting 20 minutes more ball in play - now that's idiotic.

 

[mattcity5]

I understand very well. I've been watching and playing football for 55 years.

What you are suggesting capitulation to the cheats and doing their job for them.

A rugby match lasts just 5 minutes less each half than a football match. There is a separate time-keeper who ensures that 40 minutes of rugby is actually played. They haven't reduced the halves in case someone wastes time. It's an idiotic suggestion.

But that rugby timekeeper doesn't stop the clock whenever the ball is dead. They just make note of any time they feel needs adding for unnecessarily lost time and injuries etc. They don't stop it when waiting for throws or penalties to be taken.

That's what is being suggested here and why the reduction in playing time would be needed also.

 

[cyan]

But that rugby timekeeper doesn't stop the clock whenever the ball is dead. They just make note of any time they feel needs adding for unnecessarily lost time and injuries etc. They don't stop it when waiting for throws or penalties to be taken.

That's what is being suggested here and why the reduction in playing time would be needed also.

But what they do is also specify the time it takes to put the ball back into play - 30 secs for a scrum, 1 minute for a penalty, 90 secs for a conversion. Otherwise the clock still runs and of course it keeps running after the clock gets to 80 minutes until the ball goes out of play, so the referee can not suddenly whistle as a ball is played into an attacking area.

If teams fail to keep to time then a free kick is awarded (or kick is disallowed).

The clock stops for substitutions, TMO, injuries or if the referee decides to stop the clock because they need to deal with an incident. So players are not playing for 80 minutes. The various attempts to speed the game up have moved them from 28 minutes ball in play time at the 1987 World Cup to 34 in 2023 (source: https://www.statsperform.com/resour...istical-analysis-on-how-the-game-has-evolved/) which is still not half the game!

So football could work on a similar basis - and a free kick instead of a booking would certainly speed things up! But as with anything it needs to be consistent. And one way to be consistent is for the official clock to be shown on a screen where possible - or where both benches can see it where it is not (Anfield, OT and lower leagues). It would be good to get to a consistent 60 minutes in play - more if it can be managed.

 

[mattcity5]

But what they do is also specify the time it takes to put the ball back into play - 30 secs for a scrum, 1 minute for a penalty, 90 secs for a conversion. Otherwise the clock still runs and of course it keeps running after the clock gets to 80 minutes until the ball goes out of play, so the referee can not suddenly whistle as a ball is played into an attacking area.

If teams fail to keep to time then a free kick is awarded (or kick is disallowed).

The clock stops for substitutions, TMO, injuries or if the referee decides to stop the clock because they need to deal with an incident. So players are not playing for 80 minutes. The various attempts to speed the game up have moved them from 28 minutes ball in play time at the 1987 World Cup to 34 in 2023 (source: https://www.statsperform.com/resour...istical-analysis-on-how-the-game-has-evolved/) which is still not half the game!

So football could work on a similar basis - and a free kick instead of a booking would certainly speed things up! But as with anything it needs to be consistent. And one way to be consistent is for the official clock to be shown on a screen where possible - or where both benches can see it where it is not (Anfield, OT and lower leagues). It would be good to get to a consistent 60 minutes in play - more if it can be managed.

Being a bit more specific about things could definitely be useful and would help with consistency.

Also interesting to note that the ball in play time that we see for football is often around 60%, but for rugby its below 50%....

 

[No.8]

personally I like how in other sports the time is stopped when we have breaks in play.

football should do it

You don’t have the excuse of being new to football!! : )))

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

The ball has never been in play for 90 minutes though regardless.

The amount of time the ball is in play makes the notion of two equal 45 mintues halves nothing else but a mockery! it's laughable.

Time for 76 mins (38mins each half0 ball in play with me in charge of the Etihad count down clock. And I wouldn't start the clock until the hooligans in the South Stand started singing!