Time wasting by Shit football teams (it is always shit football teams) at Throw ins and Set pieces

Red_in_SE8

If you paid £70 or £80 for a ticket to watch Cardiff v Burnley at the week end you would have seen 42 minutes of football. You would also have spent over 8 minutes watching the same Cardiff player prepare to take a throw about 20 times. When Stoke use to rip paying football fans off like this I never understood why they were allowed to get away with it. At last it seems something might be done about it.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/plans-to-end-time-wasting-v9m6n3s9j

Lincsaddick

I read the article .. time wasting is getting worse in all divisions .. last night Alnwick was wasting time as soon as they scored the first goal .. after 3 minutes play !!

ForeverAddickted

We've been just as bad in the past... Its irritating but we cant really complain

I'd honestly love to see an end to it even if it affected us as despite being clever (when we do it) I didnt go to see a game of Football to see a sub taking an age to get off the field - My view has always been that the team at fault should be penalised depending on what they're time wasting for

i.e. If the below isnt taken within 10 / 20 seconds of the decision then:

- Throw Ins get given to the oppositon
- Substitutions arent allowed to happen for X minutes with the team at fault briefly going down to 10-men
- Corners become Goal Kicks
- Goal Kicks become Corners

Trouble is players will always find other ways to waste time (feigning injury will be the obvious replacement)

Rizzo

Separate timekeeping official with the clock stopping every time the ball is out of play (obviously with a reduced total playing time). I have no idea why this has never happened, and the article that was linked said the idea wasn't gaining any traction but I can't see any downside to it.

paulbaconsarnie

you would have to change the laws of the game to stop it outright.
The only way is to have a time official with a live stadium clock which only ticked down when the ball was in play.
Matches would last about 3hrs.

Rizzo

paulbaconsarnie said:

you would have to change the laws of the game to stop it outright.
The only way is to have a time official with a live stadium clock which only ticked down when the ball was in play.
Matches would last about 3hrs.

I don't see why matches would last longer. I just looked and across the 20 teams in the premiership, the average time that the ball was actually in play ranged from 53 mins 34 secs (West Ham) to 58 mins 31 secs (Chelsea). So you only actually get about 55 minutes on average despite the game officially lasting 90+. Reducing match time to 30 minutes each way but having that as actual ball in play time would be roughly equivalent of a 98 minute game that includes stoppages.

bobmunro

Rizzo said:

paulbaconsarnie said:

you would have to change the laws of the game to stop it outright.
The only way is to have a time official with a live stadium clock which only ticked down when the ball was in play.
Matches would last about 3hrs.

I don't see why matches would last longer. I just looked and across the 20 teams in the premiership, the average time that the ball was actually in play ranged from 53 mins 34 secs (West Ham) to 58 mins 31 secs (Chelsea). So you only actually get about 55 minutes on average despite the game officially lasting 90+. Reducing match time to 30 minutes each way but having that as actual ball in play time would be roughly equivalent of a 98 minute game that includes stoppages.

The first time a match time was prearranged was London v Sheffield - and ever since it has been 90 minutes. That was in 1866! Call me a stick in the mud but I'm happy with 90 minutes.

Blatant time wasting is a bookable offence and referees should clamp down harder on it but to be honest I'm happy with only 50-60 minutes of ball in play during a 90 minute game - it a) gives you the chance to have a chat with the bloke behind and b) some of the best chants are when the ball is dead.

Rizzo

bobmunro said:

Rizzo said:

paulbaconsarnie said:

you would have to change the laws of the game to stop it outright.
The only way is to have a time official with a live stadium clock which only ticked down when the ball was in play.
Matches would last about 3hrs.

I don't see why matches would last longer. I just looked and across the 20 teams in the premiership, the average time that the ball was actually in play ranged from 53 mins 34 secs (West Ham) to 58 mins 31 secs (Chelsea). So you only actually get about 55 minutes on average despite the game officially lasting 90+. Reducing match time to 30 minutes each way but having that as actual ball in play time would be roughly equivalent of a 98 minute game that includes stoppages.

The first time a match time was prearranged was London v Sheffield - and ever since it has been 90 minutes. That was in 1866! Call me a stick in the mud but I'm happy with 90 minutes.

Blatant time wasting is a bookable offence and referees should clamp down harder on it but to be honest I'm happy with only 50-60 minutes of ball in play during a 90 minute game - it a) gives you the chance to have a chat with the bloke behind and b) some of the best chants are when the ball is dead.

The games would still last about the same amount of time and there would still be plenty of time when the ball was dead. It's just that the clock wouldn't be ticking during those times and there's be no incentive to waste time.

ValleyGary

Time wasting is a joke but we don't need the 90 minutes being changed, thats something that shouldn't be touched.

Pedro45

A match should last 60-minutes, ball in play live time. Professional footie can have a time-keeper. Amateur footie can have a ref with a stop/start stop-watch. Games would soon quicken up because there is no point wasting time.

Charlton_Stu

I'm sure when i was younger that goal kicks were taken from the side the ball went out, that would save time as most keepers waste time moving from one side to the other when it suits them.

bobmunro

Rizzo said:

bobmunro said:

Rizzo said:

paulbaconsarnie said:

you would have to change the laws of the game to stop it outright.
The only way is to have a time official with a live stadium clock which only ticked down when the ball was in play.
Matches would last about 3hrs.

I don't see why matches would last longer. I just looked and across the 20 teams in the premiership, the average time that the ball was actually in play ranged from 53 mins 34 secs (West Ham) to 58 mins 31 secs (Chelsea). So you only actually get about 55 minutes on average despite the game officially lasting 90+. Reducing match time to 30 minutes each way but having that as actual ball in play time would be roughly equivalent of a 98 minute game that includes stoppages.

The first time a match time was prearranged was London v Sheffield - and ever since it has been 90 minutes. That was in 1866! Call me a stick in the mud but I'm happy with 90 minutes.

Blatant time wasting is a bookable offence and referees should clamp down harder on it but to be honest I'm happy with only 50-60 minutes of ball in play during a 90 minute game - it a) gives you the chance to have a chat with the bloke behind and b) some of the best chants are when the ball is dead.

The games would still last about the same amount of time and there would still be plenty of time when the ball was dead. It's just that the clock wouldn't be ticking during those times and there's be no incentive to waste time.

A football game is played as two halves of 45 minutes - period. That's the God given rule and I aint budging!

So for a 3.00pm kick off you know for sure that the match will end around 4.50pm - or in our case about 5.05pm.

Nug

Don’t need to change the 90 minutes just book a player for time wasting first time they do it. Keepers get away with it all the time rarely get booked and only usually after 5 or 6 times.

cafctom

Who remembers the time we played Stevenage away during the title winning season?

I’ve never seen a side so deliberate in that respect.

SELR_addicks

Stop the clock or nothing will change.

Bookings will never work as the refs don't have the bottle to send off players for taking a throw-in too long. Stopping the clock the moment the ball is out of play completely negates any form of time-wasting.

Stig

Rizzo said:

Separate timekeeping official with the clock stopping every time the ball is out of play (obviously with a reduced total playing time). I have no idea why this has never happened, and the article that was linked said the idea wasn't gaining any traction but I can't see any downside to it.

Spot on, sir. I'd actually have two clocks, one to count the wastage by each side. At the end of the game that time is offered to the opposition team, if they want to use it they can but if they are happy with the result they don't have to.

oohaahmortimer

Ben Amos was the king of wasting time , he even did it when we were losing ffs

Rizzo

Nug said:

Don’t need to change the 90 minutes just book a player for time wasting first time they do it. Keepers get away with it all the time rarely get booked and only usually after 5 or 6 times.

Most annoying thing is after the first few occasions of time wasting, instead of showing a card, the ref will amble half the length of the pitch to have a word with the keeper about time wasting before ambling back up the pitch to restart the game. I'll bet you any money that the time the ref wastes doing that ain't added on at the end!

Addick Addict

I thought France did their fair share of time wasting in the WC Semi against Belgium.

Afternoon Delight

The situation is not helped by allowing Keepers to take a goal kick from either side. The law was changed in order to speed tbe game up, but has done the opposite.

Callumcafc

You might be surprised to hear that I am completely against this idea.

I’d worry that stopping the clock leads to tv ad breaks etc. Suddenly a 60 minute match becomes 2 and a half hours because Sky want to shoehorn in 15 minutes of adverts per half of play.

Not to mention the total tempo killing effect it would have. If the clock is stopped, it kills all urgency to get the ball back in play when both teams are chasing a winner with ten minutes left - to me that is the best passage of a football match.

Think back only to the Luton match at the weekend when we were pushing hard for that equaliser. The urgency was palpable. Would’ve been nothing like the same if the clock stopped between each set piece.

Rizzo

I don't see why that would be the case. The players would still need to chase the game. The only difference is that they would know exactly how long is left rather than it being at the whim of the referee. If anything, I'd say it would increase urgency right up to the last few seconds.

killerandflash

I've no massive problem with time wasting as long as the referee adds it on, and books players who time waste excessively, which usually speeds things up

My only slight grouse is that when a team goes 1-0 then time wastes horrendously for 30 minutes, only to concede 2 goals and go 2-1 down, they're then the team that benefits when the referee adds 5 minutes on at the end of the game. I can't think of a way around that though

Chizz

Changing the Laws of the game to enable a different method of keeping time; and altering the length of "playing time" are both ridiculous ideas that should never be allowed to take place.

Imagine a game in which your team is playing and needing to secure a draw in order to win promotion, as long as another team, in another match fails to win. You would be incentivised to delay the end of the match for as long as possible, so that you know the result of the other match. Free-kicks, throw-ins, goal-kicks or even penalties would take minutes. If there is no incentive to get on with the game, the players in this scenario would take as long as they wanted - or needed. It would become a lengthy, turgid, boring festival of time wasting.

Imagine a player gets injured. He's incapacitated, but not badly hurt. It's the sort of injury that you could "run off" if you had enough time. Guess what? With the time clock being paused at each break in play, he's suddenly got as long as he needs. You simply wait until you have a throw-in and... don't take it. Give Charlie another half an hour on the massage table and he'll be back. He can even take the throw himself.

Changing the Laws of the game simply because the current Laws aren't being enforced effectively is ridiculous. There's a saying in legal terms: bad cases make bad law. Footballers waste time - don't use that to change how football time is measured. Deal with the footballers who waste time.

Rizzo

Erm, you could still be done for time wasting. What makes you think that a change in the playing time would alter that?

Chizz

Rizzo said:

Erm, you could still be done for time wasting. What makes you think that a change in the playing time would alter that?

What's the point of having laws against time-wasting, if they're not applied? Applied the Laws and there's no need to alter the fundamental structure of the game.

Rizzo

Chizz said:

Rizzo said:

Erm, you could still be done for time wasting. What makes you think that a change in the playing time would alter that?

What's the point of having laws against time-wasting, if they're not applied? Applied the Laws and there's no need to alter the fundamental structure of the game.

I agree there's no point in having laws that are not applied but as they are not applied and never have been then it's time to change.

blackpool72

Time wasting has always gone on.
Remember when defenders used to pass back to the keeper, the keeper would then pick the ball up hold on to it for an age and then roll it back to the defender.
This could be repeated as many times as the players could get away with.
The best way to deal with time wasting is for the ref to warn a player that if he does it again he will be booked.
If refs carried out their threat and booked the offending players I am sure time wasting would be reduced.

JaShea99

Good.

Kicking the ball away, dribbling it away from where the ball should be taken or doing that stupid high throw up in the air does my head in. And none of it is ever penalised.

killerandflash

JaShea99 said:

Good.

Kicking the ball away, dribbling it away from where the ball should be taken or doing that stupid high throw up in the air does my head in. And none of it is ever penalised.

Some of those, while annoying, are done though to allow the defending team to regroup, rather than to waste time

The Red Robin

I coach at U13 level with roll on, roll off subs. We played a team on Sunday and their kids were slowly walking off the pitch when subbed, time wasting etc. Quite depressing that there's coaches out there teaching children to do that.