Time wasting.

Yeah it’s very easy. As soon as it starts warn them, still don’t listen book them, then off. The fact first half he warned the villa keeper, then warned Mings after it and still no yellow card shows the problem. Teams will try and trick, I don’t overly blame them. It’s on the refs to do their jobs properly
 
Pollocksheader said:
Yeah it’s very easy. As soon as it starts warn them, still don’t listen book them, then off. The fact first half he warned the villa keeper, then warned Mings after it and still no yellow card shows the problem. Teams will try and trick, I don’t overly blame them. It’s on the refs to do their jobs properly
Click to expand...
Yep no need for rule changes, just for refs to have the support, the will and the balls to properly enforce the current laws of the game
 
Bournemouth Blue said:
Recent reports suggest that the ball is in play for less than 60% of most games, often much less. Watching non-action is usually boring, unless there is a chance that a VAR might change the ref’s decision in our favour, for example, but I prefer the way Rugby times the live game, no opportunity for time-wasting, clock is stopped for injuries, subs and TMS, makes a lot of sense to me. This has to be a Fifa decision though, so no chance of logic being applied.
Click to expand...
Sure I read somewhere that if the clock ran only when the ball was actually "in play", games would last for 3 hours. No way would TV accept that. Also, what if Newcastle were playing down at Southampton on a monday night, what time would travelling fans get back up to Tyneside if the game didn't finish til after 11pm; 4 or 5 o'clock the next morning? Lovely. Now, I suppose it could be possible to arrange the fixtures so that only teams within 90 minutes of each other play after 6pm. But that still leaves the TV issue.
 
an independent clock, that only records the time the ball is in play, would obviate the shithousery that we've been stuck with. The game would not last longer, 90mins of the ball in play is no longer than 60mins of ball in play plus 30mins of feigned injury etc. It's so obvious, yet why does the most watched sport in the world have to put up with the blatant cheating, it can incite violence, it rewards cheats and robs spectators who have paid to watch football not play-acting. Not possible to stop it whilst the ball is in play, though the scrum that develops when "take it to the corner" tactic is employed needs sorting. Ugly and potentially dangerous but not against the rules.
 
Chris Holmes said:
Quite a few teams waste time against City, Southampton included, and the Saints also developed this tactical break cheating between 60-70 minutes in games last season.

www.thesun.co.uk

Is this the secret tactic that Southampton use between 60 and 70 mins?

SOUTHAMPTON are finding a second wind late in matches this season. This extra burst was on full display last week, when they overcame a 2-1 deficit late on against Tottenham to triumph 3-2. Ralph H…
www.thesun.co.uk www.thesun.co.uk
Click to expand...
yep . biggest cheats in the league . hope they go down .
 
Incredible how lackadaisical the approach to dealing with it, especially players going down. Kouyate at Palace going down "injured" multiple times breaking our momentum and probably wasting 10 minutes on his own, still manages to finish the game. To be fair not sure why every team doesn't do it, there's never any real punishment. Think the likes of Atkinson appreciate the breather.
 
I prefer the idea of cards, but correctly applied rather than adding more time. If time is just added then teams will still feign injury etc to break up the flow of the game, and to have a breather.
 
It’s a genuine tactic that is sanctioned by the powers that be when it comes to certain teams.

Can‘t blame the team who does it, unless they have ambition.
 
Having said all that, it's hilarious when a team has wasted time right up until the moment we score and then start rushing around afterwards. Even better when we start playing keep-ball and taking the piss.
 
I think the ball boys should have a spare ball each all game.
Everton in particular change this to suit in game, if they are winning all balls vanish.
 
I've always liked the idea of a clock on the time the ball is in play. Dead simple to implement and no margin of error. Displayed live for all to see, and means one less thing for the ref to do, and of course one less thing for him to be accused of manipulating.

Would like to know an argument against it. The only one I can come up with is that football would no longer be played over two halves of 90 minutes, it would probably be played over two halves of 35 minutes of ball in play.

(Edit - didn't spot that what DontLookBack said just a couple of posts back, but nowt wrong with posting in again).
 
skiddypants said:
I think the ball boys should have a spare ball each all game.
Everton in particular change this to suit in game, if they are winning all balls vanish.
Click to expand...

That’s the exact reason they don’t allow it anymore. It used to be an option. The home team could either use multi ball or just one. Until Moyes sent someone round collecting all the spare balls after they’d scored against United.
 
If sat in the ground the amount of time a goalkeeper wastes taking a goal kick really grinds your gears. If sat at home you hardly notice because that's the time TV company's use to show replays. It's as if the powers that be want teams to do it.
 
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