90 minutes or not 90 minutes?

MuttleyCAFC

One thing in football - especially International football that is particularly frustrating is management of the time. I have noticed in quite a few games that if a player rolls on the ground feigning injury for a minute or so, the ref will never play that minute. The England game last night was a case in point. Before the Slovakia player went down injured, the commentator said there would be 5 minutes additional time. The player was treated for a couple of minutes at least so we should have had 7m minutes- and there was a 30 second or so injury to another Slovakian in the additional time period. We probably should have had 8! But the ref blew up, even before we got to the 5 he had indicated.

The issue with this - and I think it is a problem everywhere, but even more so abroad - is that it encourages time wasting. As football is a product, time wasting, which is no fun to watch, should be prevented. But referees are currently encouraging it with their stupid timing systems. Football is crying out to be time managed like Rugby It can easily be done by an independent time keeper off the pitch. I know I would upset traditionalists, but I would change game durations to 80 minutes, but stop the clock for every stoppage. That way fans would actually see more football and there would be no point in wasting time - which would improve the spectacle.

ForeverAddickted

Just once I'd love to see a Broadcaster stop the clock every time the ball isnt in play... Reckon you only get to see about 75-80mins of Football after all the time-wasting that goes on, drives me insane (even when Charlton do it)...

I'm there to see a game of Football not to see some over-paid prick admiring the ball for five minutes!!

Daggs

Agreed.

MuttleyCAFC

I think it would be nearer 55-65 minutes. The problem lies in the laws of the game, that leaves time management of the game to the discretion of the ref. The more a team passes and the game flows (which is good to watch) the more time is spent playing and visa versa.

Pedro45

Actual game time with the ball in play is more like 50 - 60 minutes. I would prefer to see a clock (American football style) and play for 30 minutes each half. The problem is that at grass roots level, you can't have that accurate timekeeping, so it is unlikely to ever happen.

sam3110

Always said 30 minute halves, stop the clock when the ball is out of play/play is dead. No added time, game ends next time play stops after the 30 minutes

PragueAddick

What we need most of all is transparency. We, the paying customersfans, have the right to see exactly how much injury time has been added, and when. This can be done quite easily in a professional stadium:

- overall responsibility for time is given to the 4th official, leaving the ref to concentrate on the game
- he uses a stopwatch which is synched to the stadium clock on the screen
- whenever he stops the watch, we all see it, because the stadium clock stops too
- on exactly 90 minutes, a bloody great electronic whistle blows. End of game. No ifs, no buts.

It's basically what is already happening in ice hockey.

PS, please comment on what you think of this idea, as I may be allowed to put it )or something like it) to Howard Webb at the Supporters' Summit on July 16

PeterGage

Don't personally see a problem. The referee is instructed to add 30 seconds for each substitute and add time for any incidents that in his view, constitutes "wasting time". I personally don't sit and watch a game with a stop watch in hand to judge a referee; besides which, what constitutes "wasting time" is, to a point, sometimes down to the individuals slant on the game.

The referee is the sole arbiter of time management, not some random guy in the stands, the latter who will probably have a bias view, subconscious or conscious, for his team.

Fiiish

ITV can barely manage to keep the adverts from showing when the ball is in play, let alone when there are breaks in play. Bear in mind the clock is not supposed to stop every time the ball goes into touch.

You'll rarely see any great periods of stoppage at these tournaments, too many broadcasters and advertisers to give refs that much control.

MuttleyCAFC

You cant have a biased view on a matter of fact. If the game stops, the clock stops. If you accept that there is time wasting in most games - then there is a problem that can be solved, by taking away the point of it!

PragueAddick

@PeterGage

I know you are a ref. Do you know for sure what i believe to be correct, that FIFA set out the guidelines for injury time (such as the 30 second for subs) and every nation is supposed to follow it?

If that is correct how come we now see clearly at Euro 16 what i have already noticed in club games across Europe: stoppage time in England is routinely longer than anywhere else? I am absolutely certain of this, the question is, why? and is the answer a good thing for the game or not?

PeterGage

MuttleyCAFC said:

You cant have a biased view on a matter of fact. If the game stops, the clock stops. If you accept that there is time wasting in most games - then there is a problem that can be solved, by taking away the point of it!

Simply not true. The watch should NOT stop because the game stops. Subs, injuries and time wasting (in the opinion of the referee) are the only occasions. Outage for say throws, goal kicks do not constitute stop watching.

ForeverAddickted

PeterGage said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

You cant have a biased view on a matter of fact. If the game stops, the clock stops. If you accept that there is time wasting in most games - then there is a problem that can be solved, by taking away the point of it!

Simply not true. The watch should NOT stop because the game stops. Subs, injuries and time wasting (in the opinion of the referee) are the only occasions. Outage for say throws, goal kicks do not constitute stop watching.

Have you not seen the length of time a Goalkeeper takes retrieving the ball, strolling to the opposite end of the goal then hunting for 5-mins to ensure the ball is placed on the perfect blade of grass, before finally looking up the pitch and admiring the view!!

Goal Kicks are one of the worst cases for time-wasting!!

ForeverAddickted

PragueAddick said:

What we need most of all is transparency. We, the paying customersfans, have the right to see exactly how much injury time has been added, and when. This can be done quite easily in a professional stadium:

- overall responsibility for time is given to the 4th official, leaving the ref to concentrate on the game
- he uses a stopwatch which is synched to the stadium clock on the screen
- whenever he stops the watch, we all see it, because the stadium clock stops too
- on exactly 90 minutes, a bloody great electronic whistle blows. End of game. No ifs, no buts.

It's basically what is already happening in ice hockey.

PS, please comment on what you think of this idea, as I may be allowed to put it )or something like it) to Howard Webb at the Supporters' Summit on July 16

Be good because if players are only actually playing for 60mins then tiredness will rarely play a part... If they're then having to play for a further 90mins like they should then tiredness will play a part, more mistakes will be made and we'll see more goals.

Hex

Surely extended goal celebrations are time-wasting ? I have noticed 2 matches in the last week where the ref blew dead on time despite goals being scored after 90mins. The refs rarely allow for anything after 90mins which makes that time different to the rest of the match. It's a form of cheating by the officials.

ForeverAddickted

Hex said:

Surely extended goal celebrations are time-wasting ? I have noticed 2 matches in the last week where the ref blew dead on time despite goals being scored after 90mins. The refs rarely allow for anything after 90mins which makes that time different to the rest of the match. It's a form of cheating by the officials.

I thought a between half a minute or a minute was usually added on per Goal / Substitution.

MuttleyCAFC

PeterGage said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

You cant have a biased view on a matter of fact. If the game stops, the clock stops. If you accept that there is time wasting in most games - then there is a problem that can be solved, by taking away the point of it!

Simply not true. The watch should NOT stop because the game stops. Subs, injuries and time wasting (in the opinion of the referee) are the only occasions. Outage for say throws, goal kicks do not constitute stop watching.

But I am making a proposal, not commenting on the current poxy laws - my big gripe with refs, which goes back to when I played, is that their noses are so glued to the rule book that they cant see anything else. It is cruel irony that my son is now a ref, although his playing comes first - which is my only solace! I am proposing that the watch should stop when the game stops, not what the laws tell the ref to do. I thank god the laws don't tell refs to run on the pitch wearing nothing but women's underwear because it wouldn't be a pretty site. For a change, my issue here is not so much with refs, but laws that encourage players to waste time and feign injury and ultimately make matches less attractive to watch. Laws can and do get changed.

Although Prague makes a very good point that I have observed also, and that is that English league refs tend to play more time than on the continent. Football is not progressive like Rugby and I hate to say it - Cricket. It needs to be.

stevexreeve

What frustrates me is that, even when there is a genuine injury, referees take no account of the actual time the game is stopped. Even if it takes two or three minutes to treat a badly injured player the ref still only adds 20-30 seconds per "stoppage".

So the second half always lasts
three minutes if there are no injuries,
four minutes if there have been "some" injuries
five minutes if there has also been time-wasting.
six minutes if it is an important game. (Fergie Time)

I would prefer that the clock was actually stopped by the fourth official but only when

a trainer is on the pitch.
while a substitution is in progress
when a goal is scored (to allow for extended celebrations).

It still would still be up to the ref to calculate extra time for time wasting.

Oh_Yoni_Boy

We can still be grateful that we're not watching NFL... I think I read that it's something like an average game length of 3hrs 15min and the ball is live in play for about 11-13 minutes of that.

Referees do need to be tougher on the theatrics though, both in terms of time-wasting and booking players for trying to get others sent off by play acting (e.g. Pepe most games he's in) - but it ain't coming any time soon.

PeterGage

ForeverAddickted said:

PeterGage said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

You cant have a biased view on a matter of fact. If the game stops, the clock stops. If you accept that there is time wasting in most games - then there is a problem that can be solved, by taking away the point of it!

Simply not true. The watch should NOT stop because the game stops. Subs, injuries and time wasting (in the opinion of the referee) are the only occasions. Outage for say throws, goal kicks do not constitute stop watching.

Have you not seen the length of time a Goalkeeper takes retrieving the ball, strolling to the opposite end of the goal then hunting for 5-mins to ensure the ball is placed on the perfect blade of grass, before finally looking up the pitch and admiring the view!!

Goal Kicks are one of the worst cases for time-wasting!!

Referees are not expected to stop the watch for goal kicks per se. However if, in the opinion of the match referee he perceives that time wasting is part of that process, then he stops the watch for the time taken, over and beyond the anticipated normal time for a goal kick

MuttleyCAFC

That NFL fact is correct! Amazing really!

MuttleyCAFC

It is unfair on the ref to have to make a judgement that the player rolling about on the floor is feigning injury (and thus wasting time) or not IMO. It is actually ridiculous.