Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Time added on for stoppages

The guidelines are below re subs and goals scored but the ref has the right to decide to add more if the goal celebration (how dare they!) or substitution takes over the odds.
So I know we all wanted the full time whistle to go at around 60 minutes, but the 5 minutes wasn't OTT according to this: (which doesn't even take injuries into account)

Is 30 seconds added on for each substitution?
As a rule of thumb, yes. But if a player is doddering, meandering, then extra time can be added. And it's the same for red cards, yellow cards as well.
Is the clock stopped for goals?
No, it's not. But they do add time (to cover celebrations). It's around 30 seconds as a rule of thumb, unless they spend five minutes celebrating. Every situation is different, they'll take each one on its merit.
How do referees account for time-wasting?
That's discretionary. It has to depend on the situation.

Comments

  • edited October 2014
    Fair enough with the 5 mins added on last night but 2 mins (BBC Report on the game says 3mins?) at Bournemouth on Saturday was an absolute joke. Three subs for us, a goal celebration injuries and constant time wasting by them in the final 15 mins. Mind you Henderson wasn't exactly helping our cause with speed of play. Not that we would have scored or deserved anything from the game but it summed up that joke of a 'homer' ref.
  • One sub for us during the second half and the goal was in the first half = 30 seconds!
  • Bug bear of mine. I have two big issues

    1. What exactly are the "regulations"? Are they published somewhere. It is a fact that whatever they are, they are English, because in continental Europe the amount of added time is much less.

    2. Why oh why oh why are we - who pay for all this - not allowed to be fully informed of how much time they have added on at any given point? That, effectively, is what happens in ice hockey.
  • edited October 2014
    Ok Stone but 2 mins ET, if I remember correctly first half and 2 mins second half ET on Saturday just didn't make sense. The ball seemed to be constantly 'dead' during the later stages of the game with a distinct lack of urgency from the oppo to get it back in play.
  • Do not forget the time added is a minimum amount of time and not maximum
  • RedChaser said:

    Ok but 2 mins ET, if I remember correctly first half and 2 mins second half ET on Saturday just didn't make sense. The ball seemed to be constantly 'dead' during the later stages of the game with a distinct lack of urgency from the oppo to get it back in play.

    Plus, how many times was the ball 'accidently' cleared/shot over the roof into the car park....

    I agree that we could have stayed until 9 o'clock and still not scored but it did rankle a bit
  • CatAddick said:

    RedChaser said:

    Ok but 2 mins ET, if I remember correctly first half and 2 mins second half ET on Saturday just didn't make sense. The ball seemed to be constantly 'dead' during the later stages of the game with a distinct lack of urgency from the oppo to get it back in play.

    Plus, how many times was the ball 'accidently' cleared/shot over the roof into the car park....

    I agree that we could have stayed until 9 o'clock and still not scored but it did rankle a bit
    Exactly!
  • Added time is ultimately down to the official, there are no clear laws of what determines an amount of time added, but most go with the general rule of thumb.

    I agree that 5 mins was a bit excessive last night. However, 4 substitutions, 2 goals and other short minor stoppages probably should've accumulated to 4 minutes, not 5.

    At the end of the day, it does not matter now, we won. Be happy!
  • My neighbour in the Lower North last night said Henderson was booked for time-wasting at Bournemouth - when we were 1-0 down! Is this true?
  • My neighbour in the Lower North last night said Henderson was booked for time-wasting at Bournemouth - when we were 1-0 down! Is this true?

    YES
  • Sponsored links:


  • In rugby, the ref just stops the clock when he feels there is a pause in play and restarts when play recommences, and everyone (players, fans, TV audience) is aware when play has stopped and restarted. Never any complaints about time-wasting. Not sure why we can't move to a similar system, especially since we're halfway there with 'suspended play' for weather/humidity/incidents requiring pitch evacuation. If the ball is not 'in-play' and cannot be immediately restarted the clock ought to be stopped. Aren't the conditions of kick-off that a team may kick-off after a goal when they & the ref are ready, regardless of whether the scoring team is in position?
  • edited October 2014
    ross1 said:

    My neighbour in the Lower North last night said Henderson was booked for time-wasting at Bournemouth - when we were 1-0 down! Is this true?

    YES
    To be fair, he was holding onto the ball after conceding a corner to give his defence time to get organised. More the intent of delaying a quick set piece which got him booked rather than running the clock down.
  • Fiiish said:

    In rugby, the ref just stops the clock when he feels there is a pause in play and restarts when play recommences, and everyone (players, fans, TV audience) is aware when play has stopped and restarted. Never any complaints about time-wasting. Not sure why we can't move to a similar system, especially since we're halfway there with 'suspended play' for weather/humidity/incidents requiring pitch evacuation. If the ball is not 'in-play' and cannot be immediately restarted the clock ought to be stopped. Aren't the conditions of kick-off that a team may kick-off after a goal when they & the ref are ready, regardless of whether the scoring team is in position?

    Didn't know that was already happening in rugby. Open and shut case then. No excuse not to have that in football. What the hell is the argument against it?
  • An interesting piece on time the ball is actually in play here from a couple of years ago:

    http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2011/may/18/innovations-next-season-premier-league


    Football authorities are swindling you with institutionalised theft. They advertise 90-minute matches and that's what you pay for – but you only get about two-thirds of that. Because of relentless faffing about by players, the average amount of time that the ball has been in play in Premier League matches this season is 62min 39sec.

    That, including stoppage time, means you spend over half an hour watching players roll on the floor, line up walls, trudge off the pitch and laugh in your unsuspecting face as they celebrate goals (imagine if a taxi driver stopped his cab, jumped out and danced on the pavement for a couple of minutes while the meter kept running: would you get out and jig along with him, you fools?). And if you went to watch Blackburn-Stoke this season, you also got to watch Rory Delap repeatedly drying a ball. For about 10 minutes (in that match the ball was in play for only 50:04min).

    The solution is simple: next season the referee must kill the clock whenever the ball is not on the pitch and moving. It is galling that fourth officials always indicate about one minute of time added on at the end of the first half and around four at the end of the second. It should be at least 15 in both.
  • edited October 2014
    Should we time it like rugby does? When the ball goes out of play the game end. That way we would know the way the time is being used.

    Downside is it would probably encourage a lot more time wasting.

  • Bug bear of mine. I have two big issues

    1. What exactly are the "regulations"? Are they published somewhere. It is a fact that whatever they are, they are English, because in continental Europe the amount of added time is much less.

    2. Why oh why oh why are we - who pay for all this - not allowed to be fully informed of how much time they have added on at any given point? That, effectively, is what happens in ice hockey.

    Because, and this is what a lot of the spectator related rules boil down to, Hockey fans don't have a long history of frequently smashing up stadia and bashing seven shades out each other, invading pitches or rioting in the streets (with a few notable exceptions) if they don't get what they want/perceive they deserved.

    It is perhaps unnecessary nannying on the part of the football authorities, but they are scared of large scale crowd disorder and the effect it has on the image of their 'product'.

    I don't agree with the authorities stance, but like having a beer in your seat - if we (football fans as a collective) had shown down the years we could be trusted to behave like grown ups the regulations would never have come into place.

  • Bug bear of mine. I have two big issues

    1. What exactly are the "regulations"? Are they published somewhere. It is a fact that whatever they are, they are English, because in continental Europe the amount of added time is much less.

    2. Why oh why oh why are we - who pay for all this - not allowed to be fully informed of how much time they have added on at any given point? That, effectively, is what happens in ice hockey.

    Because, and this is what a lot of the spectator related rules boil down to, Hockey fans don't have a long history of frequently smashing up stadia and bashing seven shades out each other, invading pitches or rioting in the streets (with a few notable exceptions) if they don't get what they want/perceive they deserved.

    It is perhaps unnecessary nannying on the part of the football authorities, but they are scared of large scale crowd disorder and the effect it has on the image of their 'product'.

    I don't agree with the authorities stance, but like having a beer in your seat - if we (football fans as a collective) had shown down the years we could be trusted to behave like grown ups the regulations would never have come into place.

    Well that's an interesting take on it. But I am not sure that I follow it. Surely there is more potential for widespread disorder from fans who see their team concede in the 96th minute of a game where in their view 4 minutes was already a joke?

    I've personally felt like causing widespread disorder many times while watching us hang on desperately in such a situation :-)
  • It's one of the few things in sport that I think that the Americans have got better than us: Count the time down not up and have an independent timekeeper.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!