Stop clock?

[Middle Man]

Time limits would never work unless it goes with a visible count(futsal style). We already have one (six second) last I saw it penalised was 2003.

It might not be penalised currently but, it certainly allows the referee some recourse to speed up play where there is an excessive delay.

Only problem with that is if a player puts the ball into row Z, there's desperation to get the ball to the player. You'll start seeing tactics such as home teams supposedly 'not having a ball available' to quickly get the game going again.

At the end of the day, there's a referee on the pitch with rules backing him up to book players for situations like this. If they enforce it, the players don't do it. Simple enough

I agree, the more I think about it, the mechanics probably won’t work.

Perhaps Rugby Union might be an idea to follow, the clock just goes into red after 80 mins and the clock is stopped throughout the game meaning that there is no added time for stoppages as the playing time is not lost.

 

[one]

it certainly allows the referee some recourse to speed up play where there is an excessive delay.

Already have those. And well supported by the LOTG . The point was, if not currently penalised, what makes you think it will be if more restrictions are put in place?

 

[QuaverRef]

It might not be penalised currently but, it certainly allows the referee some recourse to speed up play where there is an excessive delay.


I agree, the more I think about it, the mechanics probably won’t work.

Perhaps Rugby Union might be an idea to follow, the clock just goes into red after 80 mins and the clock is stopped throughout the game meaning that there is no added time for stoppages as the playing time is not lost.

But in the direct comparison to Rugby, the ball goes out of play far more often in football than in Rugby. By putting a 'stop clock' in, you'd be dealing with stoppages as regular as american football, a sport which already takes 3 hours to complete a 1 hour game and they don't even have a regular stop clock.

For me, looking at the Cardiff and Leeds examples above, the laws are already in place to prevent this sort of things from happening. If the referee's were less tolerant of it, the issue would be sorted.

Maybe on the face of it, it seems like a good idea. Teams won't time waste if the clock is stopped but imagine how long the game would go on if the clock was stopped for every celebration, foul, substitution, ball in row z/lost in crowd, offside, penalty, VAR review, cabbage thrown at Steve Bruce etc etc.

 

[bester]

Time limits would never work unless it goes with a visible count(futsal style). We already have one (six second) last I saw it penalised was 2003.

Why not? For those not familiar with futsal the count starts once the player is in position to take the restart so it's not mad rush to get the ball back into play.

 

[one]

Why not? For those not familiar with futsal the count starts once the player is in position to take the restart so it's not mad rush to get the ball back into play.

I am saying it would work if done like futsal (I used a double negative). The key to it is 'visible' count. So the referee has no choice but to start a count and no way out of awarding the sanction once everyone sees the count is over.

In other words if the referee bottles it (as done in almost every Keeper 6 second offence) everyone can see he is bottling it which won't be a good look for him.

In futsal you start the count when the player is 'ready' which means if you see if the player is taking his time getting in position you can start the count even before he is in position. That gets him moving very quick.

 

[GraemeS]

But in the direct comparison to Rugby, the ball goes out of play far more often in football than in Rugby. By putting a 'stop clock' in, you'd be dealing with stoppages as regular as american football, a sport which already takes 3 hours to complete a 1 hour game and they don't even have a regular stop clock.

For me, looking at the Cardiff and Leeds examples above, the laws are already in place to prevent this sort of things from happening. If the referee's were less tolerant of it, the issue would be sorted.

Maybe on the face of it, it seems like a good idea. Teams won't time waste if the clock is stopped but imagine how long the game would go on if the clock was stopped for every celebration, foul, substitution, ball in row z/lost in crowd, offside, penalty, VAR review, cabbage thrown at Steve Bruce etc etc.

If you insist on keeping the total time at 90 minutes, then yeah, you probably would be looking at 3 hours to achieve 90 minutes of in-game time. But given we're currently seeing as low as 50 minutes of in-game time, I see no reason why you wouldn't drop it to two 30/35 minute halves if you were using a stop-start clock. It would still mean the overall match takes around the same amount of time, but will standardise it more across match.es

 

[Big Cat]

Two halves of 30 would probably be about right. Once there's no point time wasting, things would probably motor along quite nicely
Be prepared for, "how long's left ref"? -> on an unimaginable scale

 

[Ben448844]

Just for clarity, I'm not advocating that the referee is in charge of the stop clock. It would be controlled by someone else. This would also only be for professional matches.

35 minute halfs would suffice imo but obviously this would be determined by trials.

No time wasting, no added on time, the referee would have no influence or requirements to get involved with the time management of the game apart from when the ball is in play, ie in the keepers hands.

To flip it, why wouldn't we trial this? Was is there to lose?

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Let’s go all American and withdraw a player each from 70 minutes every 2 minutes till we get a winner! We can’t have draws either! Stupid idea!

 

[GraemeS]

Let’s go all American and withdraw a player each from 70 minutes every 2 minutes till we get a winner! We can’t have draws either! Stupid idea!

Why? Because it's different? As Ben says, what possible reason is there not to at least try it?

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Games last for 90 minutes, period, it will end up as 4 hour matches as they pick though fine detail of getting every scrap of time out to get their desired outcome, terrible idea, think of a better one!

 

[GraemeS]

Games last for 90 minutes, period, it will end up as 4 hour matches as they pick though fine detail of getting every scrap of time out to get their desired outcome, terrible idea, think of a better one!

It's almost as if you've completely ignored the discussion up above....

 

[Sheffields Finest]

It's almost as if you've completely ignored the discussion up above....

Can I ignore you personally with your obnoxious and personalised replies... not just today, over a few months, your tone is terrible to anyone who doesn’t agree with you.... chill ye beans....

 

[GraemeS]

Can I ignore you personally with your obnoxious and personalised replies... not just today, over a few months, your tone is terrible to anyone who doesn’t agree with you.... chill ye beans....

And you don't think your initial response was at all personal, dismissive or rude? Easy to criticise someone else for escalating an argument, but when you've seen a thread where people were having a perfectly civil discussion and you've come in with an aggressive tone, perhaps you should stop pointing at other people?

 

[Ben448844]

Games last for 90 minutes, period, it will end up as 4 hour matches as they pick though fine detail of getting every scrap of time out to get their desired outcome, terrible idea, think of a better one!

I think it will happen, driven by tv. Can't market the PL as the best in the world and have the only game of the day having 42 mins of play.

 

[RustyRef]

Oops, I've obviously gone to the wrong link and ended up in a stroppy teenager's forum.

Hang on, no I haven't, so play nicely please folks and behave as referees should towards each other.

 

[bester]

Sky certainly knew what they were doing with their scheduling, one Super Sunday game and it was a borefest. Only snag was that The Ryder Cup was won too early!

 

[Ben448844]

TV companies give each team 90m a year. 42 mins of play just won't cut the mustard

 

[Sheffields Finest]

I think it will happen, driven by tv. Can't market the PL as the best in the world and have the only game of the day having 42 mins of play.

There were some awful games in the 70s and 80s and the PL definitely improved the games and standards on show. I can’t remember the stats but there were single digit players from foreign shores in 1992, since then we’ve had some great imports to our leagues, Juninho Brazil , Klinsman , Aguaro and of course, Barry Bannan ...... there will be crap games but overall it’s a global brand that doesn’t need tweaking too much...

 

[Ben448844]

On the whole the football is good, there's just not enough of it! Time wasting is plan A for many teams and it needs eradicating imo