Time wasting

[Newman Noggs]

I bored myself with this one yesterday. But by the 56th minute yesterday i ran a stop watch. Palace had already wasted 4 and a half minutes, by our equaliser it was over 6 minutes. I stopped after that, but something does need to be done.

Wasn't it something insane in the second half of extra time against Madrid? Ball was in play for 6 and a half minutes i think.

Ha ha ! That's exactly what I did. It might be boring but it's educational. Means you know exactly what you are talking about when criticising the way refs deal with what is a scourge on the game.

 

[East Level 2]

Just do it like Rugby - time keeping is done by an official in the stands - when a ball goes dead he/she stops the clock and restarts it when the ball becomes active again - that way they can waste all the time they want as they will be getting no time advantage so it will soon stop

This is the way forward. The last figures I saw showed the average ball in play time to be below 60 minutes in the Premier League (City's average was the highest at 62 minutes), so two halves with 30 minutes of action would be ideal.
Teams would still waste time to disrupt the flow of the game, but the time would still be played.
Who benefits? The fans. Who might be inconvenienced? The broadcasters. Oh well, never mind, it was a good idea.

 

[West Yorks Owl]

Is time wasting becoming the new 'thing' in football.

Keepers taking an age to get the ball back in play.

Throw ins also taking an age

And this is a new one the whole team celebrating a goal at the furthest point from their half. Normally the corner flag. Than taking ages to walk back.

We pay good money in very difficult times to watch a game of football. It seems that clubs couldnt care less about the amount of football fans see.

You want to come and see it in League 1, it's an artform!!!

I do believe certain rule changes haven't helped over the years, goal kicks being allowed from either side of the 6 yard box, if Team A is winning the keeper will always go to the opposite side to waste time.

More recently being allowed to take a goal kick inside the box to defenders, now for a Pep/City team it makes no odds as you would still play out to players at the edge of the box anyway.

For most teams though, they set up as though they are going to pass short, then see nothing is on, wave everybody up field and take a goal kick.

20-30 second wasted every time.

These rules were implemented to speed up the game, but it has had the opposite effect.

One game last season stood out for me Gillingham (Under Steve Evans) at home, every time they had a throw in on their left the right back would take it and had to come across the pitch every time, this was from about 20 mins.

It had the desired affect as the crowd was wound up

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I bored myself with this one yesterday. But by the 56th minute yesterday i ran a stop watch. Palace had already wasted 4 and a half minutes, by our equaliser it was over 6 minutes. I stopped after that, but something does need to be done.

Wasn't it something insane in the second half of extra time against Madrid? Ball was in play for 6 and a half minutes i think.

I thought it was great yesterday with the crowd getting on the keeper's back from the start. It works IMO.
I checked a few and he was getting the goal kick off in 15-25 seconds. It's still shit but so many times seen it in the range 30+ seconds.

 

[meeesh]

Just do it like Rugby - time keeping is done by an official in the stands - when a ball goes dead he/she stops the clock and restarts it when the ball becomes active again - that way they can waste all the time they want as they will be getting no time advantage so it will soon stop

So in other words do away with stoppage time at the end of a match ?

Problem with that idea,is losing the (what can be) the most intense 3,4,5 mins whatever,as we all know has proven to be very important.

As much as the game could learn a bit from rugby,that idea is a no from me

 

[Devil's Advocate]

This is the way forward. The last figures I saw showed the average ball in play time to be below 60 minutes in the Premier League (City's average was the highest at 62 minutes), so two halves with 30 minutes of action would be ideal.
Teams would still waste time to disrupt the flow of the game, but the time would still be played.
Who benefits? The fans. Who might be inconvenienced? The broadcasters. Oh well, never mind, it was a good idea.

This was the article showing the deatils for 21/22 and historic PL years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61342349#:~:text=Football's%20law%2Dmaking%20body%20the,been%20in%20over%20a%20decade.

 

[give it to gordon]

So in other words do away with stoppage time at the end of a match ?

Problem with that idea,is losing the (what can be) the most intense 3,4,5 mins whatever,as we all know has proven to be very important.

As much as the game could learn a bit from rugby,that idea is a no from me

Wouldn't be a need for injury time as each half would be 45 minutes long. As the clock is stopped when a stoppage in play

 

[moomba]

First few weeks I saw a few bookings, and it was said that refs were going to crack down on time-wasting.

Yesterday's must have got the memo, was appalling.

 

[hertsblue]

Cramp seems the new method of time wasting.
Funny how many cards Eddie gets for time wasting yet opposition are immune to cards

 

[deano ou812]

Cramp seems the new method of time wasting.
Funny how many cards Eddie gets for time wasting yet opposition are immune to cards

This,game management from teams especially if they are leading or drawing against us,it’s also apart from running the clock down it can break the teams momentum..