Ref Watch

Ric said:
Not seen the stats, but do we average more than 60 minutes in play? Surprised if that’s the case.
Click to expand...

It’s too late to start searching for up to date stats now but I remember a table from a couple of years ago and it had City’s games as the second most minutes in play at an average of fractionally shy of 59 minutes. Can’t remember who was top. Possibly Chelsea.
 
Ric said:
Not seen the stats, but do we average more than 60 minutes in play? Surprised if that’s the case.
Click to expand...
Stephen230 said:
It’s too late to start searching for up to date stats now but I remember a table from a couple of years ago and it had City’s games as the second most minutes in play at an average of fractionally shy of 59 minutes. Can’t remember who was top. Possibly Chelsea.
Click to expand...
As of January, Opta had the average minutes the ball was in play in the Premier League stood at 54 minutes and 53 seconds, a 12 year low for the league.

“There have also been three matches so far in the 2022-23 campaign where the figure is 45 minutes or less.”

www.dailymail.co.uk

Premier League seeing lowest ball-in-play time for 12 YEARS

The ball-in-play time in the Premier League this season is the lowest it has been for 13 years, Sportsmail can reveal, amid growing calls for an overhaul of football's timekeeping system.
www.dailymail.co.uk
 
There was some talk a couple of years ago that David Ellery was leading a FIFA panel who were seriously looking into the possibility of introducing a stop clock. It was mentioned a possible trial at a youth tournament was being considered.

Not heard it mentioned since though.

I’d certainly be in favour. You can argue about the actual time it should be. But as a principle I can’t see any negatives.
 
Stephen230 said:
There was some talk a couple of years ago that David Ellery was leading a FIFA panel who were seriously looking into the possibility of introducing a stop clock. It was mentioned a possible trial at a youth tournament was being considered.

Not heard it mentioned since though.

I’d certainly be in favour. You can argue about the actual time it should be. But as a principle I can’t see any negatives.
Click to expand...
I have advocated for it for some time and have even tested in matches at youth level and it worked quite well — almost no moans about the proper amount of time added and everyone knew how much time was left as the game wound down. In fact, the common feedback was that it made things less confusing and more suspenseful as the clock ran down at the end.

The only real negatives are those I have mentioned about it giving less discretion to officials. It would actually be less work for the referee as the time keeping, fully transparent and shown in the stadiums and on broadcast feeds, could be undertaken by an independent official, perhaps even the 4th official via watch synced with the system.
 
waspish said:
The added time might be justified but we don’t get this justified added time or maybe we not behind as much
Click to expand...

Not something I really pay too much notice to because the vast majority of time we’re ahead on 90 minutes and don’t want the extra time.

But the last time we weren’t leading at home on 90 minutes was against Everton and we were given as much additional time as Arsenal were last night. Although that might have been the game where they were fucking about with the linesman’s comms. for what seemed like an age, so that would part explain that.
 
Stephen230 said:
Not something I really pay too much notice to because the vast majority of time we’re ahead on 90 minutes and don’t want the extra time.

But the last time we weren’t leading at home on 90 minutes was against Everton and we were given as much additional time as Arsenal were last night. Although that might have been the game where they were fucking about with the linesman’s comms. for what seemed like an age, so that would part explain that.
Click to expand...

Do you not remember how many times the physio was on the pitch for the Everton players? More importantly than the time was rhythm being broken up, it’s worth doing even if the time is added on.
 
Ric said:
Not seen the stats, but do we average more than 60 minutes in play? Surprised if that’s the case.
Click to expand...
Saw one not too long ago but struggling to find now. It must be our periods of possession, but we where top and the average was nearly 7-8 minutes huggers then the lowest teams average.

Be one of the details the club uses.

We do also come up against GK taking an age to kick the ball and immune to a first half booking (that is only reserved for Ederson), so I can understand your surprise.
 
Stephen230 said:
Not something I really pay too much notice to because the vast majority of time we’re ahead on 90 minutes and don’t want the extra time.

But the last time we weren’t leading at home on 90 minutes was against Everton and we were given as much additional time as Arsenal were last night. Although that might have been the game where they were fucking about with the linesman’s comms. for what seemed like an age, so that would part explain that.
Click to expand...

Yeah someone mentioned this last night a good example and with us not being behind that much we will never know if that’s would be the Norm!? We know for Arsenal it is the norm when behind..
 
waspish said:
Yeah someone mentioned this last night a good example and with us not being behind that much we will never know if that’s would be the Norm!? We know for Arsenal it is the norm when behind..
Click to expand...
They couldn’t possibly have not added that time barring a few seconds and not come under scrutiny , it was pretty clear and concise as far as timing goes, it’s the stuff on top of that where they have a bit of ‘wiggle’ room that’s the real problem.
 
Stephen230 said:
There was some talk a couple of years ago that David Ellery was leading a FIFA panel who were seriously looking into the possibility of introducing a stop clock. It was mentioned a possible trial at a youth tournament was being considered.

Not heard it mentioned since though.

I’d certainly be in favour. You can argue about the actual time it should be. But as a principle I can’t see any negatives.
Click to expand...
It's not the actual ball in play time that irks me the most. Players go down uninjured, keepers take their time to not only "run" the clock down but to stop momentum. We see it all the time. When we were putting Everton under the cosh earlier in the season, one of their players feigned injury nearly every single time. It's so annoying! Something definitely needs to be done. As many have said. In it's current format Injury time is subjective to the individual referee. We could sit down and watch similar games this weekend where there are the same amount of subs, same amount of goals etc... And the injury time will differ in each game.
 
The one thing I noticed last night was, with about 2-3 mins left of added time, Southampton broke free.

Arsenal then committed two clear fouls, eventually stopping the move, both completely ignored by Hooper, who was in a good position for both.

So pleased they at least hung on for a point!
 
SalfordIniesta said:
The one thing I noticed last night was, with about 2-3 mins left of added time, Southampton broke free.

Arsenal then committed two clear fouls, eventually stopping the move, both completely ignored by Hooper, who was in a good position for both.

So pleased they at least hung on for a point!
Click to expand...

One thing he did do though, which you don’t see very often is, he pulled back play for a Southampton free kick just inside their own half right near the end, even though the ball had broken to one of their players in a decent attacking position in theory. But he understood that playing on would not be an advantage to Southampton at that time in the game so brought it back. A lot of referees just judge possession and advantage as the same thing, which it isn’t always. That was good refereeing that.
 
Eds said:
When we played Neverton there should have been at least 15 minutes added. Football at the top levels needs an independent time keeper as they do in rugby. Two halfs of 35 minutes each with the clock stopped for injuries, subs etc.
Click to expand...
I've always maintained that there should be a "countdown clock" in operation, independently controlled, starting and stopping when the ball is in or out of play, or the referee blows for an infringement. In that way, there is no such thing as timewasting, as the clock is stopped, and everyone in the ground can see how long is left.
However, currently, the LotG state that the game is played for 90 minutes, not 70, and the players are (supposedly) supremely fit professional athletes, being paid phenomenal amounts to do so.
Why change it?
 
crazyg said:
I've always maintained that there should be a "countdown clock" in operation, independently controlled, starting and stopping when the ball is in or out of play, or the referee blows for an infringement. In that way, there is no such thing as timewasting, as the clock is stopped, and everyone in the ground can see how long is left.
However, currently, the LotG state that the game is played for 90 minutes, not 70, and the players are (supposedly) supremely fit professional athletes, being paid phenomenal amounts to do so.
Why change it?
Click to expand...
i think the average ball in play time in the PL is about 53 minutes. 70 minutes with the clock stopping as it does in rugby would mean the fans see much more football. And it also nullifies keepers spending 30 seconds on goal kicks and the likes of Arsenal and Villa taking tactical time outs. Waste as much time as you want, the clock is stopped. Teams at the moment take the piss with time wasting in the knowledge that refs won’t add the time on.
 
Eds said:
i think the average ball in play time in the PL is about 53 minutes. 70 minutes with the clock stopping as it does in rugby would mean the fans see much more football. And it also nullifies keepers spending 30 seconds on goal kicks and the likes of Arsenal and Villa taking tactical time outs. Waste as much time as you want, the clock is stopped. Teams at the moment take the piss with time wasting in the knowledge that refs won’t add the time on.
Click to expand...
Agree with everything you say, but, let's be honest, we're supposed to get 90 minutes football being played.
The fans are, in effect, being short changed, and have been for years. It doesn't happen in Rugby or Hockey, so why not football? Football fans (myself included) may whinge and moan about it, but nothing is ever done by those in authority. Again, why?
A good few years ago (in the 1970s), I took a stopwatch to Maine Road, against (I think) Middleborough, and stopped and started it like a countdown clock. The results were frightening: 21 minutes actual playing time in the first half, and 23 in the second!
50 years on, and nothing seems to have changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top