|
|
Post by citynickscfc on Jan 25, 2012 23:03:21 GMT
In almost every sport that I can think, when there is a stoppage in play the watch/clock is stopped. How hard would it be to Sync the scoreboard clock with the ref's watch/clock/ third officials timekeeping device???
A prime example, Barca vs Madrid, 3 mins added time and a barca player is fouled. He rolls around for maybe a minute + commotion, and the ref has just blown his whistle at 3:07 added on mins.......
Real Madrid had a final free-kick on the half way line to launch forward, and there should have been even more time after that due to not much stoppage time actually being played.
It would also stop those stupid injury time pointless ''time wasting'' subs interfering with the ''added on time'' during games, it would stop the rolling around after a tackle (unless to break up a spell of play). Actually the phrase ''time wasting'' would not exist as no time during the 90 should be wasted, as the clock is stopped.
The refereeing doesnt half piss me off, especially in the spanish leagues.
|
|
|
|
Post by buiskatthebrit on Jan 25, 2012 23:06:55 GMT
Cos most games would last over 2 hours.
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 25, 2012 23:09:41 GMT
then the poor loves would have to play for 90 minutes
|
|
|
|
Post by StokieBoy31 on Jan 25, 2012 23:29:41 GMT
we would be there every day imagine the clock stopping every time the ball goes out of play? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Jan 26, 2012 0:51:28 GMT
Must admit we cheated the system in one of our recent games.
The ref gave four minutes injury time while we were one-up ... then he told us off for time wasting during that four minutes. But he didn't play any longer than the four minutes he'd initially given, so our time wasting was rewarded.
Think it was the Blackburn match - anyone notice that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Jan 26, 2012 1:04:05 GMT
I think they trialled this idea in America and scrapped it almost immediately because games were lasting for as much as 3 hours or something daft. They just stopped the clock for every single free-kick, corner, goal-kick, injury etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by citynickscfc on Jan 26, 2012 6:32:25 GMT
ref's do it anyway tho? and then apply as much injury time as they want to?
a match doesnt really last for 90 mins then i guess, its more like 75 with all the time wasting. If there is an injury or foul in injury time....this time should allways be added on imo. Why this is not in the world football rule book? Some refs do it and others dont, either way ''time wasting'' shouldnt really exist, as the ref should be keeping track (but normally ref's are so useless they cant even keep time, 3rd officials too for that reason)
|
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Jan 26, 2012 7:56:40 GMT
What we need is a 60 minutes of time game with quarters. Time-outs may be going a bit too far though!
|
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Jan 26, 2012 8:45:34 GMT
We were having this exact conversation last night watching the Barcelona v Real Madrid game.
In some sports the watch gets stopped automatically for various stages of a game e.g. when the ball is out of play the watch stops in basketball and the clock is on display for all to see!
It also stops when a player is injured. meaning that the full allocation of minutes is spent in play.
Gamesmanship is involved in all sports as it's not an offence - so taking extra time to take a throw in, free kick, make a substitution etc would be of no advantage if such rules exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Jan 26, 2012 9:06:52 GMT
Last season the ball was actually in play for an average of 62 minutes per game in the Prem,one minute more than in Spain or Germany and 2 minutes less than Italy.
Stoke games had the ball in play for just 58 minutes,the lowest in the league.ManU had the longest time at 66 min.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokerambler on Jan 26, 2012 9:21:17 GMT
Football is a free flowing game, and generally refs get it right, whether it be fouls, offside, added time etc. Leave well alone. ....And anyway, those added minutes at the end of the game can be the most exciting!
|
|
|
|
Post by longtimestokie on Jan 26, 2012 9:40:50 GMT
One thing I think should be stopped is Subs after the 90 mins is up
|
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Jan 26, 2012 9:52:07 GMT
One thing I think should be stopped is Subs after the 90 mins is up Excellent suggestion unless there is a serious injury. Referee / officials to agree? Both managers to agree? Doctor? |
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Jan 26, 2012 9:58:13 GMT
Recipe for bloodgate
|
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Jan 26, 2012 10:04:27 GMT
That's why I suggested a doctor - I think the RFU are wiser to this now. Otherwise the potential for some really nasty fouls |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 26, 2012 10:18:46 GMT
One thing I think should be stopped is Subs after the 90 mins is up i agree with this, even if there is an injury. Also, as soon as a player goes down, he must signal to the ref immediately whether he wants the physio or not. If so, people come on to stretcher him off immediately so the game can get back underway. If he doesn't want the physio, the ref can order the play to continue. This will stop play acting. Genuine injury means get them stretchered off and dealt with asap which is what is needed. if players complain that this encourages teams to injure, then tell them its their own fault for not being genuine when they are fouled. Also, refs can book, send off, award free kicks etc as normal so the fouling side still get punished. |
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jan 26, 2012 10:52:25 GMT
So we don't want added time, we want a clock like in Basketball?
I don't like that idea. Everyone will be looking at the clock and checking that the ref is stopping his watch accordingly, rather than focussing on the game.
As for the subs / fouls in added time. Well, the ref should be stopping his watch for those and to some extent (30 seconds) they are already taken into consideration.
|
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jan 26, 2012 10:54:36 GMT
Also, if there's a problem with time wasting then it's up to the ref / linesman (whoever tracks the time) to take that into consideration. At the moment I think they use a standard 30 seconds for throws, fouls, etc, even if they last significantly longer.
The only time they add more is when there's a proper injury or a fight.
|
|
|
|
Post by localloser on Jan 26, 2012 11:40:04 GMT
It works okay in rugby (union). The clock stops for long breaks - like when someone takes a kick at goal for a conversion or penalty and for an injury - but keeps going for shorter breaks like preparing for a scrum and a lineout. It should be possible to identify situations where the clock keeps going and when it stops.
|
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Jan 26, 2012 11:59:17 GMT
On a serious note I do like the idea that at full time the game continues until the ball goes out of play.
|
|
|
|
Post by citynickscfc on Jan 26, 2012 20:23:27 GMT
I was also thinking earlier, as stoke fans we probably not only spend most time ''wasting'' the game-time, but we see the least 'ball in-play' and therefore see the least amount of football. The ball is also in the air a hell of a lot, maybe this is the root of the media/opposition frustration to our play? We are not actually watching football? We are watching 58 mins of a game (probably including time taken to take free kicks and goal kicks, ball in the air time etc) and 32 mins + of so called time wasting.
On further consideration, this is probably a reason why we have so few shots, so few actual attacks, much less passing completion and much less excitement,
do we therefore play to 'not play' in fear of loosing? Even when we are drawing or even loosing the stats prior to game changing subs (or the 70th minute to TP) we play this way.
Im not in opposition if our style due to its success, and my love of supporting the club. But this is another way of looking at it from a less negative and a more accurate tactical perspective.
Maybe this also creates the illusion of 'Stoke Fit'? Players run less but put in more effort for shorter periods of play?
Anyway, after watching Barca vs Madrid and seeing how players can use gamesmanship to waste rediculous amounts of time, especially during injury time, I think the current situation is rediculous.
If Stoke were loosing 1-0 in the 91st minute, 3 minutes added on time, and the derby players hound the ref on every occasion falling over for fouls, should this time wasting be added on? Im sure most would say yes, so surely the same should apply to all situations reguardless of scoreline, time of match, or situation.
The clock should stop if play stops, this would encourage faster ball return, less nonesense r.e. hounding the ref, falling over feigning injury, subs that walk slowly off the pitch etc.
Oh and I am also getting sick of how long it takes us to perform a throw in, whilst it is a threat (not all that effective one) it must eat up about 10 minutes per game...hense the injury time allways being 5 mins +
|
|
|
|
Post by citynickscfc on Jan 26, 2012 20:28:09 GMT
Cos most games would last over 2 hours. Games at present last for about that anyway? 90 + 15 + 5 So lasting over 2 hours to ensure that a game actually is 45 each way isnt much of an increase really........ If you consider it takes around 45mins to get off the car park on a busy matchday its not all that much of a big deal imo. |
|
