|
|
Post by kustokie on Jan 22, 2017 16:55:11 GMT
This subject is becoming so controversial that maybe it's time for a rethink. I understand not knowing how much time the referee is going to add on adds to the excitement. However, that has be weighed against the appearance of fairness. One way to address this might be for the fourth official to take complete control of the clock and show on the scoreboard how much time is to be added on. There's only a few situations where time needs to added: substitutions, injuries and time wasting. So it would not be that difficult to develop a set of rules. Right now it all seems a very arbitrary and the key thing that's missing is transparency. I know this all sounds very American but I do believe it's worth some consideration.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2017 16:57:00 GMT
Maybe just pause it when the ball goes out of play and for subs. Start it when the ball is kicked.
That means the ref solely has to concentrate on free kicks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Royal Donut on Jan 22, 2017 17:01:09 GMT
I remember a rule saying something like, 30seconds for a sub and so much time for a goal, then I use add it up after the 90 minutes. And he never worked out, 30 seconds for each sub so for 6 subs 3mins min never mind any goals and injuries. And they put up the board and says 2 minutes, so that went out the window pretty quick.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 22, 2017 17:02:35 GMT
This subject is becoming so controversial that maybe it's time for a rethink. I understand not knowing how much time the referee is going to add on adds to the excitement. However, that has be weighed against the appearance of fairness. One way to address this might be for the fourth official to take complete control of the clock and show on the scoreboard how much time is to be added on. There's only a few situations where time needs to added: substitutions, injuries and time wasting. So it would not be that difficult to develop a set of rules. Right now it all seems a very arbitrary and the key thing that's missing is transparency. I know this all sounds very American but I do believe it's worth some consideration. On average the ball is in play for approx 30 minutes per half. Simply have a clock that is visible to everybody counting down from 30 minutes at kick-off, which stops and then restarts when the ball is not in play. When it gets to 00.00 that's it, half is over, no arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by Robo10 on Jan 22, 2017 17:03:55 GMT
I always find it very odd that refs are fine for goal kicks, free kicks, throw ins to take upwards of 30 seconds to setup and take before 70 minutes are in the clock, but suddenly get arsey and start carding folk after that - if it was stamped out from the start of the game it wouldnt be a 'thing'
Its just inconsistently applied, a bit like injury time
Foster and WBA were wasting time after the first 5 mins earlier in the season, and certain teams do it all the time - dont see the point is dishing out a yellow on 89mins when they have wasted 10 mins of the match already
Beggo was ace at time wasting! We are deffo no angels.
Although we were shit at it yesterday not taking balls down into the corners etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Jan 22, 2017 17:06:04 GMT
This subject is becoming so controversial that maybe it's time for a rethink. I understand not knowing how much time the referee is going to add on adds to the excitement. However, that has be weighed against the appearance of fairness. One way to address this might be for the fourth official to take complete control of the clock and show on the scoreboard how much time is to be added on. There's only a few situations where time needs to added: substitutions, injuries and time wasting. So it would not be that difficult to develop a set of rules. Right now it all seems a very arbitrary and the key thing that's missing is transparency. I know this all sounds very American but I do believe it's worth some consideration. On average the ball is in play for approx 30 minutes per half. Simply have a clock that is visible to everybody counting down from 30 minutes at kick-off, which stops and then restarts when the ball is not in play. When it gets to 00.00 that's it, half is over, no arguments. Oo, er. That sounds very American to me. Every gym in Amercia has one of those and we use them for indoor footie - it works fine. |
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Jan 22, 2017 17:11:27 GMT
They would need to distinguish between running down the clock while the ball is in play, which is all part of the game and wasting time getting the ball back into play, which is basically cheating and needs to be stamped out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 22, 2017 17:11:57 GMT
On average the ball is in play for approx 30 minutes per half. Simply have a clock that is visible to everybody counting down from 30 minutes at kick-off, which stops and then restarts when the ball is not in play. When it gets to 00.00 that's it, half is over, no arguments. Oo, er. That sounds very American to me. Every gym in Amercia has one of those and we use them for indoor footie - it works fine. It would stop time wasting instantly, there would be absolutely no point to it. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jan 22, 2017 17:15:09 GMT
Talking about time wasting tactics, the best I've ever seen was by the Colombians in World Cup Finals many years ago. Every time the ball crossed their dead ball line for a goal kick, the team would immediately start lining up to defend a corner and even roll the ball towards the corner. This confused the fuck out of the opposition and the ref would spend minutes arguing with the Columbian defenders that it was actually a goal kick.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrred on Jan 22, 2017 17:19:00 GMT
Yup. As soon as the balls out or whatever the ref blows for, stop the fucking clock. Works fine in rugby. Watching the Chelsea/ Hull match with that youth on the floor for a good 5 minutes- seems rediculous watched my the clock ticking away.
|
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Jan 22, 2017 17:21:46 GMT
This subject is becoming so controversial that maybe it's time for a rethink. I understand not knowing how much time the referee is going to add on adds to the excitement. However, that has be weighed against the appearance of fairness. One way to address this might be for the fourth official to take complete control of the clock and show on the scoreboard how much time is to be added on. There's only a few situations where time needs to added: substitutions, injuries and time wasting. So it would not be that difficult to develop a set of rules. Right now it all seems a very arbitrary and the key thing that's missing is transparency. I know this all sounds very American but I do believe it's worth some consideration. On average the ball is in play for approx 30 minutes per half. Simply have a clock that is visible to everybody counting down from 30 minutes at kick-off, which stops and then restarts when the ball is not in play. When it gets to 00.00 that's it, half is over, no arguments. The only argument would be whether the ball crossed goal line before the whistle sounded. It happens fairly often in basketball because there's more scoring. However, it's easily sorted out with an action replay which is reviewed referees. They put on the scoreboard so everyone can see - no arguments. It doesn't delay the game because the half is over anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 22, 2017 19:15:18 GMT
As part of the answer, would allowing the trainer on whilst play continues work,as in Rugby?
|
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Jan 22, 2017 19:21:04 GMT
doesn't look arbitrary this weekend.
big club not winning = find an extra 3 min
big club winning = delete 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2017 19:23:44 GMT
If he had given the bare minimum 3 we still would haved drew. It's gone. We now go on to everton
|
|
|
|
Post by reddipotter on Jan 22, 2017 20:23:28 GMT
A clock in full view of everyone is such an obvious, and easy, idea as in other sports. But football stubbornly and arrogantly refuses to learn from other sports.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jan 22, 2017 23:24:28 GMT
In 1992 Oldham played Leeds and the ref added time on when Leeds took the ball to the corner. Of course right at the end Oldham equalised in the added time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Jan 22, 2017 23:32:50 GMT
Why is it always 2,3,4 mins. etc.
Why never 2min 30secs.or 3mins.40 secs. etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Jan 23, 2017 1:39:05 GMT
Why is it always 2,3,4 mins. etc. Why never 2min 30secs.or 3mins.40 secs. etc. I am not sure that quite right. What I have seen is they almost always wait until the play has broken down. It seems to me they invariably wait till a corner has been taken before they blow the whistle even if time seems to have expired. As I said in my original post it all seems very arbitrary. Edit: I just realized that I may have misread your question. If you are asking why is always in units of 30 seconds on the board, I believe the answer is either because the board isn't big enough to display minutes and seconds or they track the time in 30 second blocks. Also, the time on the board is only a guide from the 4th official. The ref on the pitch tracks the actual stoppage time and can do what ever he wants. He wouldn't blow the whistle before the time on the board because all hell would break loose. |
|
|
|
Post by hanibal7 on Jan 23, 2017 1:57:00 GMT
Always bad when a team scores against us in injurt time, but it seems to be ok when we score in injury time, Strange that?????
|
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Jan 23, 2017 2:04:41 GMT
In the good old days, kick off at the Vic was always at 3:15, which was 15 minutes later than everywhere else for various reasons that have been discussed on here before. So the ref blew his whistle at 4 o'clock for HT. There were 10 minutes for a cup-a-tea and fag. Then play resume and everyone started looking at their watch at ten to five. We got worried if we were losing and started whistling like crazy if we were winning. It wasn't this complicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Jan 23, 2017 2:05:18 GMT
I thought it wasx 'the fourth official has indicated a minimum of 5 minutes added on.'
A figure based on subs, significant stoppages for injuries, cards etc.
Up to the ref's discretion to add more as he sees fit for time wasting and I suppose incidents within the added time.
I thought it worked that way, effectively a timekeeper sets the minimum.
Not within the gift of the ref in that respect yesterday.
|
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Jan 23, 2017 2:07:40 GMT
I thought it wasx 'the fourth official has indicated a minimum of 5 minutes added on.' A figure based on subs, significant stoppages for injuries, cards etc. Up to the ref's discretion to add more as he sees fit for time wasting and I suppose incidents within the added time. I thought it worked that way, effectively a timekeeper sets the minimum. Not within the gift of the ref in that respect yesterday. Our posts keep crossing. That's essentially correct. The time on the board is advisory and represents the minimum. It's time we moved on from this archaic systems. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jan 23, 2017 8:31:53 GMT
In 1992 Oldham played Leeds and the ref added time on when Leeds took the ball to the corner. Of course right at the end Oldham equalised in the added time. I often wonder about the logic of last minute substitutions when drawing or slender lead thus adding 30 seconds of injury time to the game. Didn't we send Ngoy on very late on Saturday? |
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jan 23, 2017 8:45:30 GMT
In 1992 Oldham played Leeds and the ref added time on when Leeds took the ball to the corner. Of course right at the end Oldham equalised in the added time. I often wonder about the logic of last minute substitutions when drawing or slender lead thus adding 30 seconds of injury time to the game. Didn't we send Ngoy on very late on Saturday? Yes. Can't remember what minute but it was in the 80s. I am sure some managers made very late substitutions to get more injury time when losing too. |
|
|
|
Post by redandwhitetundra on Jan 23, 2017 8:54:31 GMT
I thought it wasx 'the fourth official has indicated a minimum of 5 minutes added on.' A figure based on subs, significant stoppages for injuries, cards etc. Up to the ref's discretion to add more as he sees fit for time wasting and I suppose incidents within the added time. I thought it worked that way, effectively a timekeeper sets the minimum. Not within the gift of the ref in that respect yesterday. Referee - the man in the middle - is the time keeper. He tells 4th Official how much to display to crowd, media, club staff etc via the board - ie he indicates time to be added. This is a minimum amount, hence sometimes 2 minutes are shown but he blows the whistle on 2 minutes 47 seconds. If they showed 3 minutes and blew before, managers would whinge. It is 30 seconds per goal and per substitution. However goal can be extended if the players are over celebrating. Time isn't stopped for throw in, goal kick or corner - but generally is for penalties being awarded, free kicks if treatment or delay is expected, and for periods requiring treatment. If the ball goes into the crowd, the clock can be stopped, likewise if there's likely to be a delay in resuming play (eg left back is taking corner on right wing). Arbitrary? Yes, to a degree. But so is most of time in life. Imagine having to stop the clock for a second when a quick throw is taken? |
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Feb 17, 2017 18:05:23 GMT
I thought it wasx 'the fourth official has indicated a minimum of 5 minutes added on.' A figure based on subs, significant stoppages for injuries, cards etc. Up to the ref's discretion to add more as he sees fit for time wasting and I suppose incidents within the added time. I thought it worked that way, effectively a timekeeper sets the minimum. Not within the gift of the ref in that respect yesterday. Referee - the man in the middle - is the time keeper. He tells 4th Official how much to display to crowd, media, club staff etc via the board - ie he indicates time to be added. This is a minimum amount, hence sometimes 2 minutes are shown but he blows the whistle on 2 minutes 47 seconds. If they showed 3 minutes and blew before, managers would whinge. It is 30 seconds per goal and per substitution. However goal can be extended if the players are over celebrating. Time isn't stopped for throw in, goal kick or corner - but generally is for penalties being awarded, free kicks if treatment or delay is expected, and for periods requiring treatment. If the ball goes into the crowd, the clock can be stopped, likewise if there's likely to be a delay in resuming play (eg left back is taking corner on right wing). Arbitrary? Yes, to a degree. But so is most of time in life. Imagine having to stop the clock for a second when a quick throw is taken? Here's an idea we could adapt from basketball. Don't stop the clock when the ball goes out for a throw unless there's obvious time wasting (say 10 seconds). Then stops the clock and give the ball ot the other side. |
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Feb 17, 2017 19:03:28 GMT
Referee - the man in the middle - is the time keeper. He tells 4th Official how much to display to crowd, media, club staff etc via the board - ie he indicates time to be added. This is a minimum amount, hence sometimes 2 minutes are shown but he blows the whistle on 2 minutes 47 seconds. If they showed 3 minutes and blew before, managers would whinge. It is 30 seconds per goal and per substitution. However goal can be extended if the players are over celebrating. Time isn't stopped for throw in, goal kick or corner - but generally is for penalties being awarded, free kicks if treatment or delay is expected, and for periods requiring treatment. If the ball goes into the crowd, the clock can be stopped, likewise if there's likely to be a delay in resuming play (eg left back is taking corner on right wing). Arbitrary? Yes, to a degree. But so is most of time in life. Imagine having to stop the clock for a second when a quick throw is taken? Here's an idea we could adapt from basketball. Don't stop the clock when the ball goes out for a throw unless there's obvious time wasting (say 10 seconds). Then stops the clock and give the ball ot the other side. The refs can already do this...it's just that they choose not to. As with many things in football, and life, rather than change the rules, why not just enact the ones we already have. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Feb 17, 2017 19:52:52 GMT
Oo, er. That sounds very American to me. Every gym in Amercia has one of those and we use them for indoor footie - it works fine. It would stop time wasting instantly, there would be absolutely no point to it. It might get rid of the explicit incentive to "waste" time, Paul, but a stopwatch like this would make games incredibly drawn-out in my opinion. Part of the reason football works so well as a game is that it has a continuous flow, rather than being a series of tactical "play"-based episodes like American football - the fact that sometimes as a team you have to get the ball back in play quickly, or take a quick free kick because time is running out. That sense of urgency would dissipate completely if teams knew there was exactly 2 minutes 12 seconds left to play, and you'd inevitably get tactics being decided upon every time the ball goes out for a throw, tailored for the exact requirements of the next 15 seconds of play until there's another (relatively) lengthy break, particularly towards the end of games. I suppose you could put a limit on the amount of time teams have to get it back in play, but how do you decide how long that's going to be? 15 seconds is a bloody long time for a routine throw-in but it's nothing for a free-kick on the edge of the box. Also with a stopwatch matches would suddenly vary wildly in real-time duration. Matches that start at the same time could end twenty or thirty minutes apart - could have a major impact on simultaneous end-of-season matches or tournament group games. By the way, American football matches last about 3 hours but the time the ball is in play is 11 minutes - I know it wouldn't be as extreme as that in soccer but the timed play-based structure of the game is partly responsible for that. Finally 30 minutes might be the average now but do we really want every single game to have the exact amount of play time? Surely a high-quality, flowing game between top teams would normally feature a lot more play time than a niggly, stop-start mid-table clash? Imagine how soul-destroying it would be watching that clock stop every time a fussy ref pulls up another player for a talking-to after another minor incident in a poor game... Continuous time is a part of the fabric of the game and a change like this, while appearing like an obvious solution to a simple problem, would transform the way the game is played almost beyond recognition in my view. Ha, I didn't intend to write such a long and impassioned response. I just think it's a terrible idea! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2017 7:52:25 GMT
Keep it how it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2017 8:50:20 GMT
Keep things how it is but give the managers a taser each that they are allowed to use once per match on any player or official as they see fit.
|
|
