| I think we need a game clock... 19:10 - Aug 6 with 6053 views | Zx1988 |
If the EFL are going to seriously persist with accurate added time, I think we need game clocks sooner rather than later.
There must be a psychological impact on both sides to suddenly finding out you've got to hold out for another 15mins, or have a extra 15mins to go for the win.
It'll be interesting to see whether there's a correlation between the length of added time post-90mins, and the number of goals scored by winning/losing teams. |  |
| |  |
| I think we need a game clock... on 08:55 - Aug 7 with 1406 views | Bluefields |
I agree & with an independent time keeper. | | | |
| I think we need a game clock... on 09:07 - Aug 7 with 1390 views | DanTheMan |
| I think we need a game clock... on 08:55 - Aug 7 by Bluefields |
I agree & with an independent time keeper. |
Part of me feels it might just be easier just to work it out so the clock is stopped properly. |  |
| |
| I think we need a game clock... on 09:07 - Aug 7 with 1379 views | monty_radio |
| I think we need a game clock... on 08:18 - Aug 7 by itfcjoe |
The events that see time added on now are detailed, and only one of those happened in the first half (a goal)
In the second half we had the physio on, 2 goals, lots of subs and then the normal timewasting and that added up to 13 presumably
I think they'll have to start stopping the clock on things like a goal being scored, physio coming on, sub being made etc as otherwise is going to be like this every week and makes game management hard |
But still, stopping the clock per se would need to be accompanied by open acknowledgement and visual availability of what the clock is actually reading or else the announcement still arrives as the opening of a magical box. [Post edited 8 Aug 2023 10:14]
| |
| |
| I think we need a game clock... on 09:13 - Aug 7 with 1374 views | sticklegs |
They're trying to fix something that was never an issue. I've been watching live football for over forty years and I've never left the match complaining I didn't see a full 90 minutes of action. Even when the ball isn't in actual play there's still things going on...you look at the celebrations, the fans, the players chatting to each other or the management, the seagulls etc. That's all part of the match experience. I don't care if the ball isn't being kicked/headed for 90 minutes. |  | | |
| I think we need a game clock... on 09:18 - Aug 7 with 1348 views | southnorfolkblue |
| I think we need a game clock... on 09:13 - Aug 7 by sticklegs |
They're trying to fix something that was never an issue. I've been watching live football for over forty years and I've never left the match complaining I didn't see a full 90 minutes of action. Even when the ball isn't in actual play there's still things going on...you look at the celebrations, the fans, the players chatting to each other or the management, the seagulls etc. That's all part of the match experience. I don't care if the ball isn't being kicked/headed for 90 minutes. |
But you must have been frustrated at the amount of time wasting that we had to put up with last season. I agree with your overall sentiment but there were times last year when teams wasted time from the start! | |
| |
| I think we need a game clock... on 09:32 - Aug 7 with 1341 views | itfcjoe |
| I think we need a game clock... on 09:13 - Aug 7 by sticklegs |
They're trying to fix something that was never an issue. I've been watching live football for over forty years and I've never left the match complaining I didn't see a full 90 minutes of action. Even when the ball isn't in actual play there's still things going on...you look at the celebrations, the fans, the players chatting to each other or the management, the seagulls etc. That's all part of the match experience. I don't care if the ball isn't being kicked/headed for 90 minutes. |
There is a difference between not needing it in play for 90 minutes, which I agree with - but ultimately the time in play has been getting less and less as gamesmanship is getting worse and worse.
Teams happy to have physio on 3-4 times a half because they know that only half the time gets added, subs taking a minute to get off, goals being celebrated for 2 minutes, etc
With regards to ball in play - the PL was 55, Champ, 52, L1 50 and L2 48 - these numbers fall season on season and will soon be down to (and below) 45 if nothing changes.
Ideally needs to be up around the hour mark of actual ball in play - I'll be interested to see how the games at the weekend were.
Only 2 games in the EFL were less than 100 minutes, Steve Evans Stevenage side who are dreadful for time wasting had 23 minutes on their game v Northampton over both halves |  |
| |
| I think we need a game clock... on 01:48 - Aug 8 with 1284 views | Blue_Moses |
| I think we need a game clock... on 19:24 - Aug 6 by redrickstuhaart |
I have no idea where it came from. No time wasting warnings bar one early on. One long stoppage.
Normal ball out of play is a part of the game. |
Not any more, we've got a World Cup coming up in America where the watch is stopped every time the ball is out of play | | | |
| I think we need a game clock... on 07:16 - Aug 8 with 1252 views | Bluespeed225 |
Also a reminder that when we’re 1-0 up against Norwich with 10 seconds left and the ball goes into the North Stand for a goal kick, don’t start playing silly boys and throw the ball around in the crowd! You can see it now, ref adds the time, they equalise, peak banter era! | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| I think we need a game clock... on 08:10 - Aug 8 with 1228 views | IPS_wich |
I'm not sure if this is helpful or not - but there may be lessons to be learned from Australian Rules Football.
There are clear parameters for when the clock is stopped:
- when the ball goes out of play (restarts when the ball goes back into play)
- when the umpire calls the ball dead (restarts when the ball is thrown back up to restart the game)
- when a goal or a behind is scored (restarts when the game resets)
- when there's a blood injury (restarts when the player leaves the pitch)
- when there's an injury that might interrupt the passage of play (restarts when the player leaves the pitch; worth noting that if the injury is away from where the ball is then the game carries on and the physio attends to the player on the pitch)
There is an independent time keeper who stops and restarts the clock for each of these stoppages.
Each quarter is 20 minutes on the clock; but in reality each quarter takes between 28-33 minutes - depending on the number of stoppages (goals consume the most time; so a 28 minute quarter is usually a low scoring quarter).
The timer at the ground just shows elapsed time; but the TV broadcast and streaming app are connected to the official countdown clock. Which means those watching on TV know how long is left, coaches know how long is left and those at the ground with the app know how long is left. The only people who don't know definitively how long is left are the players - but the coaches hold up signs to give them a fair clue.
I wouldn't advocate for a separate timekeeper - but surely the ref's stopwatch could be connected wirelessly to a timer so that everyone knows how long is left and it doesn't seem arbitrary.
Sunday was ridiculous, but in the scheme of things it was the first game of the season and these things even themselves out. However, a game like the Wednesday vs Peterborough play off semi just seemed unfair on face value (with Wednesday equalising in the 9th minute of injury time after six were signalled).
In football, if the ref stopped the clock for every injury, every goal, every booking and every substitution then that just leaves timewasting. I'm not suggesting the watch is stopped every time the ball goes out of play; but if there is blatant time wasting for goal kicks, throw ins and taking free kicks, he could give the team one official warning and then start stopping the clock from that point forward every time it's that teams turn to restart the game. Teams will soon see the consequence of timewasting if the ref clearly stops his watch and everyone can see it's stopped. | | | |
| I think we need a game clock... on 08:28 - Aug 8 with 1220 views | redrickstuhaart |
| I think we need a game clock... on 09:13 - Aug 7 by sticklegs |
They're trying to fix something that was never an issue. I've been watching live football for over forty years and I've never left the match complaining I didn't see a full 90 minutes of action. Even when the ball isn't in actual play there's still things going on...you look at the celebrations, the fans, the players chatting to each other or the management, the seagulls etc. That's all part of the match experience. I don't care if the ball isn't being kicked/headed for 90 minutes. |
Precisely. Only an issue because the media have made it one, and because they haven't properly addressed the actual issue, which is blatant shyte housing.
Deal with the fake injuries, keepers falling on the ball and taking forever to kick it etc, at source, and the problem goes away. | | | |
| I think we need a game clock... on 08:31 - Aug 8 with 1215 views | redrickstuhaart |
| I think we need a game clock... on 09:32 - Aug 7 by itfcjoe |
There is a difference between not needing it in play for 90 minutes, which I agree with - but ultimately the time in play has been getting less and less as gamesmanship is getting worse and worse.
Teams happy to have physio on 3-4 times a half because they know that only half the time gets added, subs taking a minute to get off, goals being celebrated for 2 minutes, etc
With regards to ball in play - the PL was 55, Champ, 52, L1 50 and L2 48 - these numbers fall season on season and will soon be down to (and below) 45 if nothing changes.
Ideally needs to be up around the hour mark of actual ball in play - I'll be interested to see how the games at the weekend were.
Only 2 games in the EFL were less than 100 minutes, Steve Evans Stevenage side who are dreadful for time wasting had 23 minutes on their game v Northampton over both halves |
You miss the crucial point that they will still do the same thing even if time is added, because it disrupts momentum.
There does not need to be a benchmark for ball in play. Ball out of play is part of the game. Solution is simple.
1- Throw take too long, switch it.
2- Keeper takes more than 6 seconds after a warning, free kick the other way
3- players who go down for treatment, dont get it until there is a break in play. This is the hardest one and requires a bit of judgment from refs. A player who rolls onto the pitch or goes down when they could clearly get to the edge of the pitch easily, gets booked for it.
Done. | | | |
| I think we need a game clock... on 08:40 - Aug 8 with 1198 views | itfcjoe |
| I think we need a game clock... on 08:31 - Aug 8 by redrickstuhaart |
You miss the crucial point that they will still do the same thing even if time is added, because it disrupts momentum.
There does not need to be a benchmark for ball in play. Ball out of play is part of the game. Solution is simple.
1- Throw take too long, switch it.
2- Keeper takes more than 6 seconds after a warning, free kick the other way
3- players who go down for treatment, dont get it until there is a break in play. This is the hardest one and requires a bit of judgment from refs. A player who rolls onto the pitch or goes down when they could clearly get to the edge of the pitch easily, gets booked for it.
Done. |
But there does need to be some element of time in that, there was a PL stat the other day which shows Newcastle on average take 89 seconds from scoring a goal to the game restarting
I don't disagree with some of the suggestions, but I think you have to go with what is easier to manage and that is the game clock opposed to the ref having to do it all on the pitch with the pressure he is put under - the momentum argument is key but again it's very difficult to stop that.
If I ever watch football from the Latin countries, both in Europe or South America it is basically unwatchable, our football is heading that way too, especially in the lower leagues. | |
| |
| I think we need a game clock... on 08:42 - Aug 8 with 1195 views | redrickstuhaart |
| I think we need a game clock... on 08:40 - Aug 8 by itfcjoe |
But there does need to be some element of time in that, there was a PL stat the other day which shows Newcastle on average take 89 seconds from scoring a goal to the game restarting
I don't disagree with some of the suggestions, but I think you have to go with what is easier to manage and that is the game clock opposed to the ref having to do it all on the pitch with the pressure he is put under - the momentum argument is key but again it's very difficult to stop that.
If I ever watch football from the Latin countries, both in Europe or South America it is basically unwatchable, our football is heading that way too, especially in the lower leagues. |
No problem adding time for excessive celebrations etc. Thats part of the existing setup. The point is that youadd the excess, not every stoppage.
13 minutes on Sunday was absurd. No noticeable time wasting was seen. Only one notable stoppage. That's more than 25% of the half added on.
It just favours the biggest richest clubs who are more likely to want time to chase a game in the late stages, and who have more players to rotate. Players are already covering more ground at higher intensity than they ever have. This will cause injuries. It will lead to pressure for even more subs, further favouring the biggest and richest. The number of subs is already spoiling the game. [Post edited 8 Aug 2023 8:46]
| | | |
| I think we need a game clock... on 08:51 - Aug 8 with 1184 views | OldFart71 |
Some games Town played in League One would still be playing now if timewasting was taken into consideration. Just like VAR it's someone's opinion. Until both VAR and timekeeping is taken away from humans they are both open to opinion and bias. | | | |
| I think we need a game clock... on 08:52 - Aug 8 with 1184 views | itfcjoe |
| I think we need a game clock... on 08:42 - Aug 8 by redrickstuhaart |
No problem adding time for excessive celebrations etc. Thats part of the existing setup. The point is that youadd the excess, not every stoppage.
13 minutes on Sunday was absurd. No noticeable time wasting was seen. Only one notable stoppage. That's more than 25% of the half added on.
It just favours the biggest richest clubs who are more likely to want time to chase a game in the late stages, and who have more players to rotate. Players are already covering more ground at higher intensity than they ever have. This will cause injuries. It will lead to pressure for even more subs, further favouring the biggest and richest. The number of subs is already spoiling the game. [Post edited 8 Aug 2023 8:46]
|
But this has happened because teams have been wasting so much time, so the only solution is for them to hurry up when making subs, when scoring goals, not having too many injuries.
The difference was previously you knew you could slow the time down so much, because that time wouldn't be added back on in anywhere near it's fullness. Now that isn't the case - so if you are winning 1-0 and doing this, then you will have to defend a massive period of stoppage time.
There will still be the momentum stoppers, but I don't really see anyway to avoid that - but the authorities have got to get the ball back up to being in play for nearer 60 minutes than 45; and now the teams need to adjust their styles to make the games shorter | |
| |
| I think we need a game clock... on 09:05 - Aug 8 with 1176 views | Stewart27 |
Course we do. It’s absolutely ridiculous that football isn’t managed like this. I like that they are trying to make up for time wasting, but all they are doing now is inserting a random large number of minutes at the end of each game. The Sunderland game was insane. Barring JDs 4 minute injury there was nothing other of note that the first half didn’t have.
I think if there was a game clock it would take a needless responsibility away from the officials and we’d get accurate time. I think ball in play for 60 minutes (2 x 30) would be pretty accurate. | | | |
| I think we need a game clock... on 09:08 - Aug 8 with 1173 views | Stewart27 |
| I think we need a game clock... on 21:16 - Aug 6 by Bluebell |
There are going to be a lot of people missing trains if the game goes on that long at Ipswich!
There is usually a rush to the station if there are 4 or 5 minutes of extra time. Could now mean waiting an hour for the next train. |
I don’t really think people’s train itinerary’s should be considered in these decisions. | | | |
| I think we need a game clock... on 10:28 - Aug 8 with 1154 views | TheMover |
Arsene Wenger proposed having 60 minute matches, but with the clock stopping everytime the ball was not in play. This could be displayed on the big screen which would keep everybody informed. | | | |
| I think we need a game clock... on 10:48 - Aug 8 with 1145 views | JackNorthStand |
The clock should be stopped each time their is a stop in play, apart from throw ins and corners. For throw ins and corners I think teams should be given a maximum time to take the corner or throw in. | | | |
| I think we need a game clock... on 11:04 - Aug 8 with 1142 views | ElephantintheRoom |
It’s almost exclusively because of cheating and time wasting - with the ridiculous five subs being the largest contributor.
There is a certain frisson of excitement with extra time being such an unknown quantity - and what about extra time in extra time?
Stopping the clock seems so sensible. But in such a stop start game as ‘soccer’ it isn’t easy - and at a guess most games would last two hours | |
| |
| I think we need a game clock... on 11:10 - Aug 8 with 1137 views | Swansea_Blue |
| I think we need a game clock... on 21:19 - Aug 6 by Dubtractor |
Quite telling that Mowbray was pretty unimpressed with the extra time, even though they were most likely to benefit from it.
"Is that what football's going to be like now - 13, 14, 15 minutes added on? I'm not trying to deflect from the match, I'm just trying to say 'is this what we have to do for the next 40 weeks?' Goodness me." |
Yeah, he’s spot on. A clock is a better approach than what’s happening now, but then I’d worry there’d be no hurry to move things along and then god knows how long games would go on for.
They could do much to stop time wasting at source. Subs simultaneously or don’t stop the game for subs for a start. |  |
| |
| I think we need a game clock... on 12:27 - Aug 8 with 1124 views | Zx1988 |
| I think we need a game clock... on 08:42 - Aug 8 by redrickstuhaart |
No problem adding time for excessive celebrations etc. Thats part of the existing setup. The point is that youadd the excess, not every stoppage.
13 minutes on Sunday was absurd. No noticeable time wasting was seen. Only one notable stoppage. That's more than 25% of the half added on.
It just favours the biggest richest clubs who are more likely to want time to chase a game in the late stages, and who have more players to rotate. Players are already covering more ground at higher intensity than they ever have. This will cause injuries. It will lead to pressure for even more subs, further favouring the biggest and richest. The number of subs is already spoiling the game. [Post edited 8 Aug 2023 8:46]
|
Thirteen minutes was correct, though, based on the new rules.
I've been bored on my lunch break, so re-watched the second half with a stopwatch and measured each 'allowable' stoppage up until the board went up for thirteen minutes:
Hirst's goal - 1m10s
Hladky timewasting (yellow card) - 35s
McKenna yellow & Sunderland subs - 1m11s
Burns injury and drinks break - 1m08s
Broadhead FK - 1m03s
Red card & ITFC sub - 1m32s
ITFC subs - 1m20s
Sunderland FK - 30s
Ladapo/Ballard scuffle - 41s
Donacien injury - 2m58s
Sunderland goal - 51s
Sunderland FK/Davis 'injury' - 1m18s
Hladky timewasting - 26s
This all adds up to fourteen minutes and forty-three seconds.
I understand the points you are making about players having to run further, but the above are all 'extraordinary' incidents, and points at which the players will not be running around/making runs etc., It's dead time that is not guaranteed to happen in any match, and during which players are able to rest and take on drinks etc., | |
| |
| I think we need a game clock... on 12:46 - Aug 8 with 1113 views | Swansea_Blue |
| I think we need a game clock... on 08:40 - Aug 8 by itfcjoe |
But there does need to be some element of time in that, there was a PL stat the other day which shows Newcastle on average take 89 seconds from scoring a goal to the game restarting
I don't disagree with some of the suggestions, but I think you have to go with what is easier to manage and that is the game clock opposed to the ref having to do it all on the pitch with the pressure he is put under - the momentum argument is key but again it's very difficult to stop that.
If I ever watch football from the Latin countries, both in Europe or South America it is basically unwatchable, our football is heading that way too, especially in the lower leagues. |
Make it so that teams can restart after 60 secs even if the opponents aren’t back? That’d soon hurry them up! [Post edited 8 Aug 2023 12:46]
| |
| |
| I think we need a game clock... on 12:49 - Aug 8 with 1111 views | itfcjoe |
| I think we need a game clock... on 12:27 - Aug 8 by Zx1988 |
Thirteen minutes was correct, though, based on the new rules.
I've been bored on my lunch break, so re-watched the second half with a stopwatch and measured each 'allowable' stoppage up until the board went up for thirteen minutes:
Hirst's goal - 1m10s
Hladky timewasting (yellow card) - 35s
McKenna yellow & Sunderland subs - 1m11s
Burns injury and drinks break - 1m08s
Broadhead FK - 1m03s
Red card & ITFC sub - 1m32s
ITFC subs - 1m20s
Sunderland FK - 30s
Ladapo/Ballard scuffle - 41s
Donacien injury - 2m58s
Sunderland goal - 51s
Sunderland FK/Davis 'injury' - 1m18s
Hladky timewasting - 26s
This all adds up to fourteen minutes and forty-three seconds.
I understand the points you are making about players having to run further, but the above are all 'extraordinary' incidents, and points at which the players will not be running around/making runs etc., It's dead time that is not guaranteed to happen in any match, and during which players are able to rest and take on drinks etc., |
I wouldn't say all those would always be added on - under new directives I'd make it
Hirst's goal - 1m10s
McKenna yellow & Sunderland subs - 1m11s
Burns injury and drinks break - 1m08s
Red card & ITFC sub - 1m32s
ITFC subs - 1m20s
Donacien injury - 2m58s
Sunderland goal - 51s
Sunderland FK/Davis 'injury' - 1m18s
So 11 minutes 28 of genuine stoppages, and an extra 1:30 considering a player was booked for timewasting seems about right | |
| |
| I think we need a game clock... on 13:05 - Aug 8 with 1092 views | Zx1988 |
| I think we need a game clock... on 12:49 - Aug 8 by itfcjoe |
I wouldn't say all those would always be added on - under new directives I'd make it
Hirst's goal - 1m10s
McKenna yellow & Sunderland subs - 1m11s
Burns injury and drinks break - 1m08s
Red card & ITFC sub - 1m32s
ITFC subs - 1m20s
Donacien injury - 2m58s
Sunderland goal - 51s
Sunderland FK/Davis 'injury' - 1m18s
So 11 minutes 28 of genuine stoppages, and an extra 1:30 considering a player was booked for timewasting seems about right |
I think that's a fair assessment.
I was in two minds over the two attacking free kicks as, although they're not specified within the new rules, they often take just as long to set up and take as a penalty.
There are certainly further savings to be made in the form of rolling subs and the like, but I stand by my previous comments that things like this are all wastes of time that might not happen match-to-match and so shouldn't have a significant impact upon players' fitness and wellbeing. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
