A&H

Injury Time

Another way of putting this is that when game times were set to 90 minutes it was with natural stoppages in mind. If they wanted to have 90 minutes of ball in play they would have set game time to well over two hours. So the problem is not that we are not getting 90, or 80, 70 or whatever minutes of ball in play. The problem is that there is a big difference of ball in play time in different games.

Stop clock is good to get consistency around play time in top levels where additional officials can be appointed as timekeepers. Only an official should be allowed to Start and stop the clock. And this shouldn't the the centre referee as it is distracting to his other duties. However at levels where a timekeeper can't be appointed (like grassroots) buffer time to be allocated. For example 60 minutes with stop clock and 90 minutes without. This concept is already in practice in other sports.
 
The Referee Store
Sports fans out there - how long is play active (ball in play) in a 5-day cricket Test Match🤔?!
I have no idea what the answer is, but no doubt someone will.
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
Sports fans out there - how long is play active (ball in play) in a 5-day cricket Test Match🤔?!
I have no idea what the answer is, but no doubt someone will.
Click to expand...

Well t20 cricket and 50 over cricket obviously have set overs, so there's no advantage or disadvantage to wasting time or the ball being out of play. The game isn't altered by that time that the ball isn't in play.

Test cricket is different. Its supposed to be 90 overs a day but its often 75-80 and the authorities have shown no attitude to deal with it much to the annoyance of cricket fans. I suppose there's a comparison there with football
 
Be careful what you wish for . . . once the clock stops regularly, all of a sudden it becomes feasible to have those breaks longer for TV commercials . . . In the US, we've watched sports with timeouts have ongoing creep in the length of those commercials, which can make some games painful to watch. A straight 45 minutes of just playing with no commercial breaks is so refreshing.
 
Often injury time seems to weirdly be 'getting injured time' with the supermajority being of the winning team. Fair to say added time in added time is often more than 50% of the original added time
 
Anubis said:
Bear in mind too, we hear constant the players are tired, no time to recover from injury etc,
If thats based on 60 mins of in play time, absolute meltdown should someone dare suggest they perform another third on top of what they already do
Click to expand...

You could just reduce the length of the half.

The problem with using a stopping clock is that somebody has to do it. Fine at professional level but at grassroots it's never going to happen.
 
socal lurker said:
Be careful what you wish for . . . once the clock stops regularly, all of a sudden it becomes feasible to have those breaks longer for TV commercials . . . In the US, we've watched sports with timeouts have ongoing creep in the length of those commercials, which can make some games painful to watch. A straight 45 minutes of just playing with no commercial breaks is so refreshing.
Click to expand...
Yes, alas anything that happens on your side of the pond, soon makes it to our shores
 
Max2 said:
2 x 45 plus time lost for stoppages is absolutely fine. No need to piss about with it.
Click to expand...
I agree with the sentiment of if it's not broken don't fix it. But this is broken. When, at top level, you get same games with actual play time of less than 50 minutes and some other games of actual play time of 70 minutes or more, then something is broken. I am not sure if stop clock is the fix but it does need a fix.
 
Trip said:
You could just reduce the length of the half.

The problem with using a stopping clock is that somebody has to do it. Fine at professional level but at grassroots it's never going to happen.
Click to expand...
It's pretty straightforward - if you don't have a separate timekeeper, the referee does it. They've been using a stopping clock in NFHS games with no problem for literally decades now, where although there is normally an official timekeeper, the NFHS rules also state that:

the official time may be kept by the head referee.
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grove said:
It's pretty straightforward
Click to expand...
You'd think so. But I know I would struggle. I'd either forget to stop or restart. Happens now. Thankfully I have a 2nd watch.

Thinking if a 2nd watch would we need to do it twice, in case our primary watch died, as is 1 of the reasons we wear two?

It's not for me. I'm also not in favour of reducing the time limits though. 45 is fine. As referees we just need to ensure time is not unfairly wasted.

There are problems with showing how little a ball is in actual play, it's an erroneous statistic although no doubt there is correlation.

But this could simply boil down to skill level.

If team A hits all their shots off target the ball goes out of play every time. Whereas team B are accurate there is less chance of ball going out of play, save for a goal/keeper parry (but the chance is still less than the former).

A team that play from the back are more likely to try to keep posession, whereas another team might just hoof into row z.

So many variables to ball in play time, it's just not a good statistic unless it's backed up with granular data as to why the ball was out of play alongside reasoning for any delay to it being returned.
 
I don't really think it needs to be that granular. The ball being in play is what we're all there for, it's what fans pay their money for and it's what broadcasters pay big money for at the top level. It's also undeniably more fair for every match to consist of the same amount of play time, rather than what we have now where some teams will play 10% less football over the course of the season.

I'm OK with maybe some wiggle room or retaining the old system where a referee is solo. But as soon as you have dedicated NAR's (and definitely where a 4th is appointed), there's no good excuse not to be doing this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
I'm firmly in the 'not broken' camp on this one.

I would hazard a guess that some of the most boring games for spectators have the highest percentage of ball in play - aimless passing around going nowhere isn't a great watch. The backpass rule was changed specifically to deal with this - watch a Liverpool game from the 70s and it now looks really odd to see the old keeper to full back, across the back four, back to keeper routine. That wasted loads of time and was frankly turgid, but the ball was in play the whole time.

It's our job to ensure time is not unfairly wasted and to add time on fairly. I'd rather focus on that than starting and stopping a watch - and I'm with @JamesL on not trusting myself to do that reliably. I used to aim to stop and start at all stoppages that should result in added time, but my failure rate in restarting was really quite high ! Second watch always saved me, but the net result was I still ended up working it out in my head anyway. Now I just stop and restart if there is a 'major' stoppage. The rest I just tot up in my head.

If the focus is on eradicating time wasting tactics that would make the game a better spectacle, the first thing I would focus on is phantom injuries
 
Quarryref said:
I'm firmly in the 'not broken' camp on this one.

I would hazard a guess that some of the most boring games for spectators have the highest percentage of ball in play - aimless passing around going nowhere isn't a great watch. The backpass rule was changed specifically to deal with this - watch a Liverpool game from the 70s and it now looks really odd to see the old keeper to full back, across the back four, back to keeper routine. That wasted loads of time and was frankly turgid, but the ball was in play the whole time.

It's our job to ensure time is not unfairly wasted and to add time on fairly. I'd rather focus on that than starting and stopping a watch - and I'm with @JamesL on not trusting myself to do that reliably. I used to aim to stop and start at all stoppages that should result in added time, but my failure rate in restarting was really quite high ! Second watch always saved me, but the net result was I still ended up working it out in my head anyway. Now I just stop and restart if there is a 'major' stoppage. The rest I just tot up in my head.

If the focus is on eradicating time wasting tactics that would make the game a better spectacle, the first thing I would focus on is phantom injuries
Click to expand...
But you've quite rightly pointed out that by introducing the concept of the "backpass", the law making authorities have in the past acted to remove instances where the clock is still ticking but he ball cannot be played. This proposal would be more of the same, so is entirely consistent with the already-existing law changes that you mention.
 
GraemeS said:
But you've quite rightly pointed out that by introducing the concept of the "backpass", the law making authorities have in the past acted to remove instances where the clock is still ticking but he ball cannot be played. This proposal would be more of the same, so is entirely consistent with the already-existing law changes that you mention.
Click to expand...
There are easier fixes to increase ball "in play" time before we need to go for a stop clock.
If the clock is stopped then the rush to get the ball back into play is no longer there. Yes we could still have delaying the restart but it wouldn't be as serious as there's no actual time lost. Which will lead to actually longer breaks in play to punctuate and opposition momentum. In essence we would see very low quality games and probably start seeing 'plays' like you do in American footy.

Ideas:
Actually enforce six second rule (or increase to 10 and enforce it)
Time limit on restarts (from when the referee is ready to restart) and actually enforce it. If time taken exceeds allowed, restart changes to opposition.
Allow players to be assessed for injury with the ball in play. Play can be stopped to allow physio on if neccesary. But do not always have to wait for him to leave before restarting.
The first player to touch a ball after it has gone out of play for a throw in has to take the restart (in line with DRP law).
Substitutions with the ball in play, monitored by a 4th (for top levels).

These are just fof top of my head and I know they carry their own problems but just thoughts on, what I think, are better alternatives to a stop clock.

There needs to be greater punishment for tiemwasting or to be correct delaying restarts. A caution and tenner fine is no punishment to these multi millionaire Footballers and I know we as grassroots referees can be guilty of managing DRPs.

Sin bins anyone? 😏
 
JamesL said:
Ideas:
Actually enforce six second rule (or increase to 10 and enforce it)
Time limit on restarts (from when the referee is ready to restart) and actually enforce it. If time taken exceeds allowed, restart changes to opposition.
Allow players to be assessed for injury with the ball in play. Play can be stopped to allow physio on if neccesary. But do not always have to wait for him to leave before restarting.
The first player to touch a ball after it has gone out of play for a throw in has to take the restart (in line with DRP law).
Substitutions with the ball in play, monitored by a 4th (for top levels).
Click to expand...
Nice - some builds
Not a fan of fixed 6 or 10 seconds for a GK - we will have to deal with everyone counting out loud & I think what is reasonable varies, but instead allow a YC rather than IDFK as a sanction - enforceable without creating carnage
If you have the trainer on for an injury not caused by a foul on you, you have to spend 2 mins off. Limp off of your own accord and you can come back whenever you are ready
Ball shielded in the corner with no intention to play, but deliberate intention to prevent opposition, is IDFK
Undue delay on throw in reverses it - softer sanction, but threshold can come down
 
Quarryref said:
Not a fan of fixed 6 or 10 seconds for a GK - we will have to deal with everyone counting out loud & I think what is reasonable varies, but instead allow a YC rather than IDFK as a sanction - enforceable without creating carnage
Click to expand...

Interesting idea. How would you restart?
 
JamesL said:
There are easier fixes to increase ball "in play" time before we need to go for a stop clock.
If the clock is stopped then the rush to get the ball back into play is no longer there. Yes we could still have delaying the restart but it wouldn't be as serious as there's no actual time lost. Which will lead to actually longer breaks in play to punctuate and opposition momentum. In essence we would see very low quality games and probably start seeing 'plays' like you do in American footy.

Ideas:
Actually enforce six second rule (or increase to 10 and enforce it)
Time limit on restarts (from when the referee is ready to restart) and actually enforce it. If time taken exceeds allowed, restart changes to opposition.
Allow players to be assessed for injury with the ball in play. Play can be stopped to allow physio on if neccesary. But do not always have to wait for him to leave before restarting.
The first player to touch a ball after it has gone out of play for a throw in has to take the restart (in line with DRP law).
Substitutions with the ball in play, monitored by a 4th (for top levels).

These are just fof top of my head and I know they carry their own problems but just thoughts on, what I think, are better alternatives to a stop clock.

There needs to be greater punishment for tiemwasting or to be correct delaying restarts. A caution and tenner fine is no punishment to these multi millionaire Footballers and I know we as grassroots referees can be guilty of managing DRPs.

Sin bins anyone? 😏
Click to expand...
I'd be open to any and all of these, although I disagree with the idea that they're all easier. At top levels with a 4th O/dedicated timekeeper, all of these are more disruptive than a stopclock that essentially just allows you to play as normal but with a different system to decide when it ends. And if you're willing to add a time limit on restarts anyway (aka a play clock! ;)), I see no reason why you couldn't do that in tandem with the stopclock as well to remove your main concern.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top