|
|
Post by teenagefanclub on Feb 17, 2019 17:27:57 GMT
How does it work in reality from a refs point of view?
Does he start his watch and stop it every
time there is an injury?
Then for example say he has stopped it for 4 injuries how does he know how much time to add for injuries at the end? as his watch will show the actual time in play and not 45 mins (does this make sense).
In my head he has 2 watches, one he starts at kick off and just let's it run for 45 mins, and another he uses to tot up added time? But other than the goal line watch I've only ever seen a ref wear one watch.
I appreciate this may not make any sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2019 17:34:05 GMT
Then for example say he has stopped it for 4 injuries how does he know how much time to add for injuries at the end? as his watch will show the actual time in play and not 45 mins (does this make sense). Deduct the time showing on the watch from 45 or 90 minutes? |
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Feb 17, 2019 18:12:15 GMT
Can't remember which ground it was, but they kept the clock running after 45 and 90 minutes so all the fans (and players?) could see the time
Maybe it's not allowed these days or clubs don't want it on view
Of course the officials may have to add on additional time if there is a delay, but that should be more transparent for everybody
It seems that a referee will not blow for full time when the ball is in play unless it's in a "neutral" part of the pitch
|
|
nickhfc
Youth Player
Dave Kitson in ITV3 'Life'
Posts: 473
|
Post by nickhfc on Feb 17, 2019 18:26:54 GMT
Needs to be changed. Like RU, stop the clock when play stops; decide how many minutes of ball in play - 60 been suggested often. Put it on a big screen.
Take the unfairness and uncertainty out of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by kjpt140v on Feb 17, 2019 19:07:20 GMT
How does it work in reality from a refs point of view? Does he start his watch and stop it every time there is an injury? Then for example say he has stopped it for 4 injuries how does he know how much time to add for injuries at the end? as his watch will show the actual time in play and not 45 mins (does this make sense). In my head he has 2 watches, one he starts at kick off and just let's it run for 45 mins, and another he uses to tot up added time? But other than the goal line watch I've only ever seen a ref wear one watch. I appreciate this may not make any sense. The referee wears two watches, the second watch is in case the first fails. The referee's watch normally counts down from 45 mins. He will stop the watch when there is an injury and sometimes if he believes excessive time is being taken to restart the game, he should stop the watch for substitutions. I think time keeping is horrendous particularly for time wasting which is fast becoming a disease in the game. I'd agree that time should be stopped every time the ball is dead, time lost in games can be can be 20 minutes or more. |
|
|
|
Post by teenagefanclub on Feb 17, 2019 19:27:56 GMT
How does it work in reality from a refs point of view? Does he start his watch and stop it every time there is an injury? Then for example say he has stopped it for 4 injuries how does he know how much time to add for injuries at the end? as his watch will show the actual time in play and not 45 mins (does this make sense). In my head he has 2 watches, one he starts at kick off and just let's it run for 45 mins, and another he uses to tot up added time? But other than the goal line watch I've only ever seen a ref wear one watch. I appreciate this may not make any sense. The referee wears two watches, the second watch is in case the first fails. The referee's watch normally counts down from 45 mins. He will stop the watch when there is an injury and sometimes if he believes excessive time is being taken to restart the game, he should stop the watch for substitutions. I think time keeping is horrendous particularly for time wasting which is fast becoming a disease in the game. I'd agree that time should be stopped every time the ball is dead, time lost in games can be can be 20 minutes or more. Which is fine but how does he keep track of added time to be able to tell the 4th official as his watch will have been constantly stopped and restarted (maybe I'm being an absolute tard) |
|
|
|
Post by kjpt140v on Feb 17, 2019 19:33:06 GMT
The referee wears two watches, the second watch is in case the first fails. The referee's watch normally counts down from 45 mins. He will stop the watch when there is an injury and sometimes if he believes excessive time is being taken to restart the game, he should stop the watch for substitutions. I think time keeping is horrendous particularly for time wasting which is fast becoming a disease in the game. I'd agree that time should be stopped every time the ball is dead, time lost in games can be can be 20 minutes or more. Which is fine but how does he keep track of added time to be able to tell the 4th official as his watch will have been constantly stopped and restarted (maybe I'm being an absolute tard) He compares it to his second watch which is left running unless watches have more technology than in my time. |
|
|
|
Post by teenagefanclub on Feb 17, 2019 19:41:15 GMT
Which is fine but how does he keep track of added time to be able to tell the 4th official as his watch will have been constantly stopped and restarted (maybe I'm being an absolute tard) He compares it to his second watch which is left running unless watches have more technology than in my time. Ahhhh nice one. I can sleep easy tonight now. |
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Feb 17, 2019 20:09:55 GMT
Most refs use the "dandelion clock" method...which is a bit tricky this time of year  |
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Feb 18, 2019 15:37:45 GMT
The ref usually waits for our opponents to score in injury time, then blows for the match to end.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokieinaus on Feb 18, 2019 22:14:55 GMT
Do it like Australian football, where they don’t time keep an independent person does it and a siren is sounded at the end of time.
The referee may have more time to better keep up with play and manage the game better. I still believe the game is too quick for one referee these days but that’s another issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Feb 18, 2019 22:54:25 GMT
They assess whether the big club is losing or winning and increase or decrease time added on accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Feb 18, 2019 23:08:08 GMT
The visible clock used in rugby, as mentioned above, which is stopped when play is stopped. is a far better system than the one used in football. I can't see why the football authorities are not interested in conducting trials to test a visible clock system in the professional game.
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Feb 18, 2019 23:24:15 GMT
Needs to be changed. Like RU, stop the clock when play stops; decide how many minutes of ball in play - 60 been suggested often. Put it on a big screen. Take the unfairness and uncertainty out of the game. I firmly believe this idea would completely and utterly ruin football as we know it. What sets football apart and makes it such a perfect team sport is its fluidity. Comparisons with rugby or the American sports are just daft because they are so totally different in the way they are played in strictly-managed “phases” or “plays” conducive to stop-start timekeeping. The “active play” clock idea would completely transform the face of the game for the worse. |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Feb 18, 2019 23:58:25 GMT
A match would go for ever if you insisted on 90 minutes of actual play.
It would become like American Football where an average professional game lasts 3 hours and 12 minutes, but if you tally up the time when the ball is actually in play, the action amounts to a mere 11 minutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Feb 19, 2019 0:00:19 GMT
Needs to be changed. Like RU, stop the clock when play stops; decide how many minutes of ball in play - 60 been suggested often. Put it on a big screen. Take the unfairness and uncertainty out of the game. By doing that,how does it help the big clubs though?  |
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Feb 19, 2019 7:39:47 GMT
Needs to be changed. Like RU, stop the clock when play stops; decide how many minutes of ball in play - 60 been suggested often. Put it on a big screen. Take the unfairness and uncertainty out of the game. I firmly believe this idea would completely and utterly ruin football as we know it. What sets football apart and makes it such a perfect team sport is its fluidity. Comparisons with rugby or the American sports are just daft because they are so totally different in the way they are played in strictly-managed “phases” or “plays” conducive to stop-start timekeeping. The “active play” clock idea would completely transform the face of the game for the worse. Time added on is for substitutions, injuries where the trainer is called for It would be simple and fairer to just stop a clock for these occasions Even better if this additional time was shown at 45 and 90 minutes I cannot recall a game where it’s 0-0 at half time, no substitutions and no injuries AND 0 minutes of additional time 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Feb 19, 2019 14:17:07 GMT
I firmly believe this idea would completely and utterly ruin football as we know it. What sets football apart and makes it such a perfect team sport is its fluidity. Comparisons with rugby or the American sports are just daft because they are so totally different in the way they are played in strictly-managed “phases” or “plays” conducive to stop-start timekeeping. The “active play” clock idea would completely transform the face of the game for the worse. Time added on is for substitutions, injuries where the trainer is called for It would be simple and fairer to just stop a clock for these occasions Even better if this additional time was shown at 45 and 90 minutes I cannot recall a game where it’s 0-0 at half time, no substitutions and no injuries AND 0 minutes of additional time 🤔 Yeah I can see the sense of that idea, the only thing is the entire crowd is then going to be privy to the ref's decisions about the exact moment to stop the clock... I can imagine it causing even more controversy in a way. |
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Feb 19, 2019 14:56:39 GMT
Time added on is for substitutions, injuries where the trainer is called for It would be simple and fairer to just stop a clock for these occasions Even better if this additional time was shown at 45 and 90 minutes I cannot recall a game where it’s 0-0 at half time, no substitutions and no injuries AND 0 minutes of additional time 🤔 Yeah I can see the sense of that idea, the only thing is the entire crowd is then going to be privy to the ref's decisions about the exact moment to stop the clock... I can imagine it causing even more controversy in a way. The crowd at other sports cope with that, football fans need to adopt a more positive attitude to ways for officials to manage a game as fairly as possible We will all accept VAR at some point just as goal line technology and the “10 yard “ spray is helping and there is no harassing officials in these instances All of these ways of helping make any situation in sport fairer are only as good as the technology and which will improve over time |
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Feb 19, 2019 15:49:26 GMT
Simple. At the end of 90 minutes, the ref asks the manager of the big club to signal when the game should end.
|
|
|
|
Post by innocentbystander on Feb 19, 2019 21:53:37 GMT
They assess whether the big club is losing or winning and increase or decrease time added on accordingly. Presumably this law is reversed in the Championship, as we're usually the "big" club? |
|
|
|
Post by adi on Feb 20, 2019 12:35:10 GMT
Any suggestion of any change to reflect technology/changes in the modern game will likely be met with suspicion and complaint. See VAR.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokefan1972 on Feb 20, 2019 16:59:58 GMT
If stoke are winning 5 minutes extra if stoke are losing 1 minute added time
|
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Feb 21, 2019 12:04:05 GMT
They assess whether the big club is losing or winning and increase or decrease time added on accordingly. Presumably this law is reversed in the Championship, as we're usually the "big" club? They just hate Stoke bigger club or not tw@ts. |
|
