A&H

Added time

D

DJIC

Well-Known Member
With the ball reportedly in play for 43 minutes of Arsenal v Newcastle match, the five substitutes rule compounds this problem.

Two matches tonight at Southampton & Villa each had nine second half substitutions, on field treatments and time wasting.

Both games added time of 4 minutes. I guess we can assume the World Cup experiment of 10+ added minutes has been abandoned as not good for TV.
 
The Referee Store
It was abandoned during the World Cup, disappeared, or at least watered down, after the group stages. As I predicted, there is absolutely no way broadcasters will stand for it.

Not sure where you get 43 minutes from, it was reported as over 50 minutes in the media today.
 
RustyRef said:
It was abandoned during the World Cup, disappeared, or at least watered down, after the group stages. As I predicted, there is absolutely no way broadcasters will stand for it.

Not sure where you get 43 minutes from, it was reported as over 50 minutes in the media today.
Click to expand...
I think they came up with 43 minutes before the added time, made a better headline!
 
DJIC said:
I think they came up with 43 minutes before the added time, made a better headline!
Click to expand...
The ball was in play for over 53 minutes, that's below the average but nowhere near the lowest times. And, as was rightly pointed out on talksport today, most of delays were caused by players surrounding the referee after decisions.
 
David Dean on the radio this morning championing the idea of 60 minute timed games
The notion feels like another Americanism. I don't mean that with any malice to Americans BTW
I actually think it would improve the 'commercial product of the game', but the notion is against the ethos of the Laws. But then so is VAR
I think it's likely to happen because I can't see Referees around the World suddenly managing 'time lost' effectively in unison
The problem has gone beyond recall. It would represent another radical separation between pro and grass-roots footy
 
Big Cat said:
David Dean on the radio this morning championing the idea of 60 minute timed games
The notion feels like another Americanism. I don't mean that with any malice to Americans BTW
I actually think it would improve the 'commercial product of the game', but the notion is against the ethos of the Laws. But then so is VAR
I think it's likely to happen because I can't see Referees around the World suddenly managing 'time lost' effectively in unison
The problem has gone beyond recall. It would represent another radical separation between pro and grass-roots footy
Click to expand...
The 'ethos of the law'? I'd love to hear more about that, as it seems to be both a distinctly nebulous phrase and core to your argument!
 
Big Cat said:
David Dean on the radio this morning championing the idea of 60 minute timed games
The notion feels like another Americanism. I don't mean that with any malice to Americans BTW
I actually think it would improve the 'commercial product of the game', but the notion is against the ethos of the Laws. But then so is VAR
I think it's likely to happen because I can't see Referees around the World suddenly managing 'time lost' effectively in unison
The problem has gone beyond recall. It would represent another radical separation between pro and grass-roots footy
Click to expand...
Those two hour television windows go out the window once you have a stopping clock, too, as time be ones much less predictable.
 
socal lurker said:
Those two hour television windows go out the window once you have a stopping clock, too, as time be ones much less predictable.
Click to expand...
Its not that diffuclt to solve. For cup matches broadcasters have to have 3 schedules/running orders - "90'"; ET no pens and ET with pens.

Decades and decades of covering live sport now, I think the boadcasters can cope!

It was the PL who released the statement saying that THEY were not prepared to have the additional additional time. As I said at the time, that seemed odd, it was them and not the PGMOL who said that!
 
Sky and BT viewers plummet when the EPL isn't on, I'm not sure why they would be against longer games.
Not sure about international broadcasters.
 
PinnerPaul said:
Its not that diffuclt to solve. For cup matches broadcasters have to have 3 schedules/running orders - "90'"; ET no pens and ET with pens.

Decades and decades of covering live sport now, I think the boadcasters can cope!

It was the PL who released the statement saying that THEY were not prepared to have the additional additional time. As I said at the time, that seemed odd, it was them and not the PGMOL who said that!
Click to expand...
Exactly... It's the League and Clubs who determine how the game is Refereed
The Broadcasters can cope though. Often the programme has 90 mins of analysis for the 45 mins of ball-in-play
 
To stop coaches abusing many substitution events, we have a grassroots “law” in many serious youth and adult leagues that restricts teams to three second half substitution events. (Does not include HT. Exception in the event of GK injury if subs remain unused after 3 events).

Works great.

Gives AR1 something extra to think about and communicate. Also, in many matches, relieves the pain for the ref of constantly worrying about holding up an exciting ending for an impending sub. Of course YMMV;)
 
PinnerPaul said:
Its not that diffuclt to solve. For cup matches broadcasters have to have 3 schedules/running orders - "90'"; ET no pens and ET with pens.

Decades and decades of covering live sport now, I think the boadcasters can cope!

It was the PL who released the statement saying that THEY were not prepared to have the additional additional time. As I said at the time, that seemed odd, it was them and not the PGMOL who said that!
Click to expand...
Yes, but you don't know they hadn't already spoken to the broadcasters and been told in no uncertain terms that they wouldn't stand for it. They can't upset the broadcasters as without their money the Premier League immediately goes bankrupt.

It would be a bigger problem for terrestrial companies rather than subscription services, as they have next to no flex in their services. Sky and BT tend to have at least an hour for analysis at the end of the games, with BBC and ITV you are lucky to get 10 minutes. It isn't just broadcasters though, but also fans at the ground. At the moment for league games you know, give or take 5 or 10 minutes, when the game is going to end so you can make plans, book trains, pay for parking, etc. With a stopped clock the end time of the games could vary wildly.
 
RustyRef said:
Yes, but you don't know they hadn't already spoken to the broadcasters and been told in no uncertain terms that they wouldn't stand for it. They can't upset the broadcasters as without their money the Premier League immediately goes bankrupt.

It would be a bigger problem for terrestrial companies rather than subscription services, as they have next to no flex in their services. Sky and BT tend to have at least an hour for analysis at the end of the games, with BBC and ITV you are lucky to get 10 minutes. It isn't just broadcasters though, but also fans at the ground. At the moment for league games you know, give or take 5 or 10 minutes, when the game is going to end so you can make plans, book trains, pay for parking, etc. With a stopped clock the end time of the games could vary wildly.
Click to expand...
Fans I get, but going to have to reveal I worked in ITV Sport for nearly 38 years - they CAN cope with live events, whatever happens!
 
RustyRef said:
Yes, but you don't know they hadn't already spoken to the broadcasters and been told in no uncertain terms that they wouldn't stand for it. They can't upset the broadcasters as without their money the Premier League immediately goes bankrupt.

It would be a bigger problem for terrestrial companies rather than subscription services, as they have next to no flex in their services. Sky and BT tend to have at least an hour for analysis at the end of the games, with BBC and ITV you are lucky to get 10 minutes. It isn't just broadcasters though, but also fans at the ground. At the moment for league games you know, give or take 5 or 10 minutes, when the game is going to end so you can make plans, book trains, pay for parking, etc. With a stopped clock the end time of the games could vary wildly.
Click to expand...
Last thing they'll care about is fans daft enough to go to games
 
PinnerPaul said:
Fans I get, but going to have to reveal I worked in ITV Sport for nearly 38 years - they CAN cope with live events, whatever happens!
Click to expand...
Of course they can, but do they want to go from doing it on rare occasions to every game they show?
 
Would be quite a radical change for the game if a stop clock timer did come in, would love too see it trailed for a season and see what conclusions we can take from it.

I will say I don't blame teams for timewasting especially an underdog playing a big club and they are winning the game, it's just make total sense to take the sting out of the game.
 
It could have a good overall effect on participant behaviour as a lot of shenanigans revolve around time wasting
It would however be another change to the game that would further widen the gap between the 'have's and have not's' (advantageous to top teams as ball in play longer than it is with the status quo)
 
I think the spirit of the law is that we're supposed to play for 90 minutes - obviously that's never really been the case, but I think it's clear than "more play" is what's intended.

To go back to the "laws that are ignored" thread - there are multiple sections in the law regarding ways the game should be spend up, and outside of safety concerns, very few ways of legally slowing the game down. There's a clear weighting towards "football is about playing football" and even the teams who do benefit from slowing the game down would I think be forced to accept that they're taking advantage of the laws rather than following the intent of them.
 
The obvious question is what would the clock be stopped for. In rugby it isn't stopped for much, but the ball stays in play way more than it does in football. Would it be stopped for throw-ins, goal kicks, corners, goals, etc, or would it just be stopped for subs and injuries? If the latter I would argue it isn't really needed, and instructing the match officials to accurately add on time for subs and injuries would provide the same outcome.

Perhaps there are also more radical approaches. Throw-ins can take a long time, and whilst referees can caution, which just delays the restart even more, they can't reverse the direction. How about players get 10 seconds from picking the ball up, if they haven't taken it the throw gets reversed? Same for goal kicks, but rather than giving a corner, which would make it like the 6 second rule that never gets enforced, if it isn't taken within a specific time limit the ball is dropped to the opponents in the centre circle.

The other factor is time wasting antics aren't just to waste time, as strange as that sounds, they are to break up momentum. All coaches at all levels do it, if their team are under relentless pressure they need to break up the opposition's momentum so will tell a player to go down, tell the keeper to take ages on restarts, etc. Stopping the clock does nothing to fix that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top