craigsteel said:The difference is the use of multi ball system, Why dont premier league employ this system, cuts down on time wasting. The uefa refs dont play extra last night first half 1 min inc 1 sub, second half 5 subs but only 3 mins.
Richard said:Certainly helps, especially when we are trying to up the tempo and really 'have a go' at teams.
Otherwise it is far to easy to teams to regain shape.
It may seem trivial, but if it helps us by 1%, its 1% worth having.
I've discussed this with my mates before. I think on average, during a 90 minute match, the ball is in play for about 60 minutes. There's half an hour of players rolling around, the ball being in the stand, referees talking to players, refs booking players, substitutions, players taking their time over free kicks and corners, goal celebrations, players swarming round the ref, injuries, etc, etc, etc. So i agree, a "ball-in-play" clock would be a good idea. Don't think it would be 90 minutes of ball in play though, as that would take 2 hours and 15 minutes!Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:There should be a minimum amount of time for a football match. We get the likes of Schwarzer and every bloody goalie who thinks that after two minutes they can go for a Guinness Book of Records entry for wastin' the most time. It's the one think that pisses me off as much as a Ginger Pig last minute winner - well, nearly as much!