Additional time

[swinton blue]

Why would a keeper be worried 10 minutes into the game if 11 minutes will be added on at the end. His team might be 3 nil up come the additional time.
Would a keeper be worried if he got booked after 10 mins for time wasting ? You bet he would
So what's more of a deterrent?

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

Don’t disagree, but if the ball has to be in play for 90 minutes, games will take 2 hours plus.

How long should players have to get the ball back in play?

Zero seems impossible as they have to retrieve the ball/catch the replacement.

20 seconds? Who counts that and is it an automatic yellow card if going over?

How do you prove player feigning injury?

How ever it’s implemented, fans will moan. It’s sadly how football is these days. Fans tend only to think about how it could affect their team, not how it affects the game as a whole.

All reasonable questions but I think possible to solve.

I think the 90 minutes will inevitably need to be reduced to 70 or 80 minutes if you had a stop clock. You’re right, people would moan about that.

There can be guidelines on what type of stoppage leads to stopping the clock. Throw ins, corners and goal kicks shouldn’t need to stop the clock but there should be a sensible 15-20 second time limit for taking them at which point the clock stops automatically (like an NBA shot clock). Free kicks the team can choose to take quick or elect to stop the clock, penalties the clock should stop, subs stop the clock.

All injuries lead to a stopped clock, feigned or not.

But this is just me making things up in my head on the fly. I think there needs to be a systematised manual with guidance like this that is very precise in its execution. It can be owned by official timekeepers who know exactly how to stop the clock, and they can be independently spot checked when needed for accuracy. This is pretty much how it works in Rugby.

I know fans would moan initially as they always do, but I would hope eventually they would see the benefit (less play acting, more predictable game length vs. current system as teams get used to the rules).

 

[Chi-town blues]

Why would a keeper be worried 10 minutes into the game if 11 minutes will be added on at the end. His team might be 3 nil up come the additional time.
Would a keeper be worried if he got booked after 10 mins for time wasting ? You bet he would
So what's more of a deterrent?

If you keep adding minutes on top of minutes for time wasting instead of no nonsense card , this sport will turn into test cricket match.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

How often do we see City going full tilt till the 98th minute when we are 4 nil up at half time.

Many a game I have watched when we've been winning by 3 or 4 the second half turns in to a "training session" ...

These new added time rules just give the shithouses time to be more Shittery.

Waste time in the hope they are still in the game around the 90 minute mark. Then clap with glee when they see another 8 minutes appear on the board.

Then watch the team that have been wasting time for the full 90 suddenly sprint after every ball in the added time.

If you think that if say, Luton Town, had been bus parking and time wasting all game and had gotten to the 90th minute at 0-0 would be happy to then see that they have to defend out another 10 minutes… then I don’t know what to tell you but you can’t have watched much football. When have you ever seen a team defending for their lives happy with more added time? Am I living in a parallel universe?

 

[dadnlad]

loads if teams play 10 minute football against us even arsenal admitted yesterday the plan was to nullify us to get frustrated and chances will come
now teams will just go for it in injury time

it's up to refs to mange the game thats what their there for keep game moving within 90 minutes

 

[ZanteWeatherman]

Oh I do agree that there should be an independent time keeper who stops the clock when the ball is out of play, and when the clock hits 90:00 the game is finished.

That would mean kick off at 8pm, final whistle circa midnight

 

[swinton blue]

Most teams that come to our place will waste time at 0-0
What should happen if they do this and we score they shoulnt have the time they have wasted added on it should revert to the 3 or 4 they always put up

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

All reasonable questions but I think possible to solve.

I think the 90 minutes will inevitably need to be reduced to 70 or 80 minutes if you had a stop clock. You’re right, people would moan about that.

There can be guidelines on what type of stoppage leads to stopping the clock. Throw ins, corners and goal kicks shouldn’t need to stop the clock but there should be a sensible 15-20 second time limit for taking them at which point the clock stops automatically (like an NBA shot clock). Free kicks the team can choose to take quick or elect to stop the clock, penalties the clock should stop, subs stop the clock.

All injuries lead to a stopped clock, feigned or not.

But this is just me making things up in my head on the fly. I think there needs to be a systematised manual with guidance like this that is very precise in its execution. It can be owned by official timekeepers who know exactly how to stop the clock, and they can be independently spot checked when needed for accuracy. This is pretty much how it works in Rugby.

I know fans would moan initially as they always do, but I would hope eventually they would see the benefit (less play acting, more predictable game length vs. current system as teams get used to the rules).

I think what is happening in general is that footballing minutiae are being scrutinised more and more, meaning we need more detailed laws of the game, otherwise fans will jump on any deemed inconsistencies against their teams and cry foul 24/7, whether it’s about timekeeping, handball or offside etc.

This already happens in the VAR/ref threads. It will only get worse unless as much as possible is spelled out in the laws of the game.

 

[Barcon]

If you keep adding minutes on top of minutes for time wasting instead of no nonsense card , this sport will turn into test cricket match.

we had both yesterday. Two yellows for kicking the ball away. Not sure where they came up with 10 mins though.
What pisses me off is when the ref makes teams wait for his whistle at every free kick then gives our goalie a yellow card for not releasing the ball as he deems fit.

 

[Bigga]

While I have sympathy for the idea of working out time wasted by each team, I don’t like it because I think it’s got several really severe problems.

For me the ideal scenario is a stop clock. Stop it when the ball is dead. Game lasts 90 minutes. Simple. That’s transparent.

The problems with calculating time wasting by each team are:
1. Who decides what is time wasting and what is a genuine stoppage (for an injury say)? The referee or time keeper? I’d rather not give them that power.
2. What about neutral stoppages? Both teams make a sub. Pitch invader etc.
3. What if a team wastes time all game and the opposition scores to make it 1-0, in the 90th minute. They void the time wasted by the other team so there is now only 1 minute added on. The other team makes it 1-1 in the 91st minute. Now the team subjected to the time wasting has been screwed over and only has <30 seconds to get a winner. This might seem unlikely but it only needs to happen once in a big game for it to be seen as a massive injustice.

For me, the biggest issue is that this two timekeepers tracking time wasted is gamefying time wasting in a way that some teams might see as “worth the gamble”. I don’t want time wasting to be an aspect of the game at all, I want it to be stamped out.

So just have a flat stop clock that ends at 90 minutes. That is the most equitable way.

What do you class as "time wasting" and why can't that be rectified with cards being dished out...?