Too many managed stoppages being allowed during play:

AFKABartram

I feel for refs with this tbh, the problem is very much with the players and clubs

MrOneLung

If you need to be treated on the pitch, you have to go off the field for 2 minutes once you are sorted.

simples 

 

Chunes

I don't think we'll ever see goalkeepers leaving the pitch, it would alter the dynamic of the game way too much. It would essentially be a power play. You might as well throw yourself at the keeper during a corner because if he takes a knock and needs treatment, your opposition could be keeper-less for a period of time.

Isn't it a rule in rugby that the players are not allowed to leave their approximate positions for water or instructions? Just put that rule into football.  

Crusty54

iaitch said:

David Dein made this proposal recently.

Dein contends that football's current time-keeping system is flawed, as referees struggle to accurately account for stoppage time at the end of each half. He believes fans are shortchanged, with significant time lost to goal celebrations, VAR checks, injuries, and substitutions, resulting in far less than 90 minutes of actual play. To resolve this, Dein advocates for two real-time 30-minute halves, ensuring that every minute reflects active gameplay and enhancing the fairness of the match for both players and supporters.

The rugby system for timekeeping is better. Ref signals for the clock to stop for any incident/injury. Then says when the clock should restart.

Garrymanilow

fenaddick said:

Garrymanilow said:

It's not about timekeeping, it's about managing the loss of momentum teams are forcing on each other. Time wasting that runs the clock down is annoying but not the end of the world and it can be worked around. What's killing the spectacle this season though is the deliberate stopping of any momentum from being developed and with it any enjoyment from the game. One of the best parts of the game is when you start making a few chances, the ball goes out for a throw or a corner and the roar goes up. That's being deliberately stifled by teams and while it's effective it means there isn't actually a lot of fun going to games anymore.

It's a new problem and it'll need a new solution. Keepers going down is almost unstoppable; you can't play on without a keeper and you can't accuse a keeper of faking and book him every time he goes down. You can say the players can't go to the bench but they will just find a way to pass a note, probably through the physio, and that doesn't prevent the game from being slowed down anyway. All I can think of is with the exception of the keeper players have a set amount of time to be removed from the field, say 20 seconds, and if they don't leave in that time with the exception of serious injury that leads to them being subbed they get booked when they return to the field. Still exploitable but more no questions asked bookings are needed. With the keeper the most you can do is say they can go down once and any recurrence means they have to be subbed. Still very exploitable but better than nothing. Ultimately it's about making it cost more to do it than you gain, and that's really difficult. I don't have a good solution but we need something or EFL attendances are going to go down more and more.

How does a ref decide what a serious injury is though? The GK one is the biggest issue as if you somehow stop outfield players doing it then GK's will just do it more. No idea how you stop it though

That was one thing I actually did think about. If you take more than 20 seconds to be moved from the pitch, either by yourself or by the physio, then when you come back on you're booked. It's not exact as any good physio would argue that you need to assess before you know if the player can be removed but somewhere within that there's the opportunity to book players who go down claiming a bad leg injury and are then running around again as soon as they can following them coming back on. They can be booked when they return to the field of play for delaying the restart. Though of course even if that happens there will just be more 'head injuries' and more concussion assessments for everyone's safety. It's a bit of a nightmare really.

fenaddick

Garrymanilow said:

fenaddick said:

Garrymanilow said:

It's not about timekeeping, it's about managing the loss of momentum teams are forcing on each other. Time wasting that runs the clock down is annoying but not the end of the world and it can be worked around. What's killing the spectacle this season though is the deliberate stopping of any momentum from being developed and with it any enjoyment from the game. One of the best parts of the game is when you start making a few chances, the ball goes out for a throw or a corner and the roar goes up. That's being deliberately stifled by teams and while it's effective it means there isn't actually a lot of fun going to games anymore.

It's a new problem and it'll need a new solution. Keepers going down is almost unstoppable; you can't play on without a keeper and you can't accuse a keeper of faking and book him every time he goes down. You can say the players can't go to the bench but they will just find a way to pass a note, probably through the physio, and that doesn't prevent the game from being slowed down anyway. All I can think of is with the exception of the keeper players have a set amount of time to be removed from the field, say 20 seconds, and if they don't leave in that time with the exception of serious injury that leads to them being subbed they get booked when they return to the field. Still exploitable but more no questions asked bookings are needed. With the keeper the most you can do is say they can go down once and any recurrence means they have to be subbed. Still very exploitable but better than nothing. Ultimately it's about making it cost more to do it than you gain, and that's really difficult. I don't have a good solution but we need something or EFL attendances are going to go down more and more.

How does a ref decide what a serious injury is though? The GK one is the biggest issue as if you somehow stop outfield players doing it then GK's will just do it more. No idea how you stop it though

That was one thing I actually did think about. If you take more than 20 seconds to be moved from the pitch, either by yourself or by the physio, then when you come back on you're booked. It's not exact as any good physio would argue that you need to assess before you know if the player can be removed but somewhere within that there's the opportunity to book players who go down claiming a bad leg injury and are then running around again as soon as they can following them coming back on. They can be booked when they return to the field of play for delaying the restart. Though of course even if that happens there will just be more 'head injuries' and more concussion assessments for everyone's safety. It's a bit of a nightmare really.

Think that penalised injuries, plenty of things that are genuinely sore or painful that need assessing but can be sorted with numbing spray/painkillers/stretches

Raith_C_Chattonell

Must be able to outlaw this ...

SoundAsa£

Tunwellsaddick said:

 - Take players off the field for treatment and continue the play (or, adopt rugby rules by treating injured players on the field without stopping the game)

 - Stop pitch-side coaching and water sessions during the game

 - Subbed players to leave the field by the nearest touchline

 - Get official timekeepers to apply the exact extra time 

 - Match officials to be of the same calibre as those seen in rugby and outlaw players intimidation tactics to change decisions 

Any more ideas to improve the enjoyment and take back the game from the cheats before we lose it altogether?  
 

Yellow cards for players who deliberately don’t retreat the required 10 yards from free kicks.
Sometimes they are coming from 20 to 30 yards away to stand right in front of the ball.
I give you Gillingham a couple of seasons back I think it was, an evening game at The Valley with Fatty Evans at the helm, absolutely outrageous! 😡

queensland_addick

People getting angry about it on a Football Forum isn't going to change anything.
The Clubs need to take the concerns of the fans to the Football Authorities, and action needs to be taken.
Too many games like the Blackpool debacle, and people will take their hard earned cash elsewhere.

Garrymanilow

fenaddick said:

Garrymanilow said:

fenaddick said:

Garrymanilow said:

It's not about timekeeping, it's about managing the loss of momentum teams are forcing on each other. Time wasting that runs the clock down is annoying but not the end of the world and it can be worked around. What's killing the spectacle this season though is the deliberate stopping of any momentum from being developed and with it any enjoyment from the game. One of the best parts of the game is when you start making a few chances, the ball goes out for a throw or a corner and the roar goes up. That's being deliberately stifled by teams and while it's effective it means there isn't actually a lot of fun going to games anymore.

It's a new problem and it'll need a new solution. Keepers going down is almost unstoppable; you can't play on without a keeper and you can't accuse a keeper of faking and book him every time he goes down. You can say the players can't go to the bench but they will just find a way to pass a note, probably through the physio, and that doesn't prevent the game from being slowed down anyway. All I can think of is with the exception of the keeper players have a set amount of time to be removed from the field, say 20 seconds, and if they don't leave in that time with the exception of serious injury that leads to them being subbed they get booked when they return to the field. Still exploitable but more no questions asked bookings are needed. With the keeper the most you can do is say they can go down once and any recurrence means they have to be subbed. Still very exploitable but better than nothing. Ultimately it's about making it cost more to do it than you gain, and that's really difficult. I don't have a good solution but we need something or EFL attendances are going to go down more and more.

How does a ref decide what a serious injury is though? The GK one is the biggest issue as if you somehow stop outfield players doing it then GK's will just do it more. No idea how you stop it though

That was one thing I actually did think about. If you take more than 20 seconds to be moved from the pitch, either by yourself or by the physio, then when you come back on you're booked. It's not exact as any good physio would argue that you need to assess before you know if the player can be removed but somewhere within that there's the opportunity to book players who go down claiming a bad leg injury and are then running around again as soon as they can following them coming back on. They can be booked when they return to the field of play for delaying the restart. Though of course even if that happens there will just be more 'head injuries' and more concussion assessments for everyone's safety. It's a bit of a nightmare really.

Think that penalised injuries, plenty of things that are genuinely sore or painful that need assessing but can be sorted with numbing spray/painkillers/stretches

Sure, but there's no reason that has to take place on the pitch for as long as it does. And there's no reason the player has to go down for so long before the physio runs on, assesses on the pitch and then takes him off to do the stretching or spraying. Hence giving them a limited time to get off the pitch. It's not exact but there's has to be space in there for deliberately delaying the restart by dragging out injury checks.

MuttleyCAFC

All I ask of refs is they play the time that is lost. Surely that shouldn't be too much for them.

golfaddick

fenaddick said:

Garrymanilow said:

It's not about timekeeping, it's about managing the loss of momentum teams are forcing on each other. Time wasting that runs the clock down is annoying but not the end of the world and it can be worked around. What's killing the spectacle this season though is the deliberate stopping of any momentum from being developed and with it any enjoyment from the game. One of the best parts of the game is when you start making a few chances, the ball goes out for a throw or a corner and the roar goes up. That's being deliberately stifled by teams and while it's effective it means there isn't actually a lot of fun going to games anymore.

It's a new problem and it'll need a new solution. Keepers going down is almost unstoppable; you can't play on without a keeper and you can't accuse a keeper of faking and book him every time he goes down. You can say the players can't go to the bench but they will just find a way to pass a note, probably through the physio, and that doesn't prevent the game from being slowed down anyway. All I can think of is with the exception of the keeper players have a set amount of time to be removed from the field, say 20 seconds, and if they don't leave in that time with the exception of serious injury that leads to them being subbed they get booked when they return to the field. Still exploitable but more no questions asked bookings are needed. With the keeper the most you can do is say they can go down once and any recurrence means they have to be subbed. Still very exploitable but better than nothing. Ultimately it's about making it cost more to do it than you gain, and that's really difficult. I don't have a good solution but we need something or EFL attendances are going to go down more and more.

How does a ref decide what a serious injury is though? The GK one is the biggest issue as if you somehow stop outfield players doing it then GK's will just do it more. No idea how you stop it though

I'd have no problem with the keeper having to go off for 30 seconds like any other player. Or maybe for keepers they can come back on quicker.....but they still have to go off in any case.

I bet you'd see a great reduction in the amount of "injuries" they have.

Tunwellsaddick

If the goalkeeper stops the game by going down and then refuses physio attention, then that could be seen as a callous attempt to interfere with the game`s momentum and should be a yellow card offence. 

If the physio comes on and the goalkeeper is protected by not serving an off-field penalty, then another player from his side should be punished with the off-field time penalty to avoid an unfair advantage.

Stig

Tunwellsaddick said:

If the goalkeeper stops the game by going down and then refuses physio attention, then that could be seen as a callous attempt to interfere with the game`s momentum and should be a yellow card offence. 

If the physio comes on and the goalkeeper is protected by not serving an off-field penalty, then another player from his side should be punished with the off-field time penalty to avoid an unfair advantage.

I kind of like this, but I'd rather the goalkeeper have to go off and an outfielder take over the goalkeeper's shirt. In my rules there would be no time allowed for them to swap back, so they'd have to do that in an opportune moment whilst the game is progressing. I'd very much look forward to seeing some comedy goals because keeper and defender were stuck in a dressing up race.  

Edit - this would of course necessitate the ending of the utterly ridiculous shirt-off rule, so it would have another benefit as well.

JamesSeed

They Crusty54 said:

iaitch said:

David Dein made this proposal recently.

Dein contends that football's current time-keeping system is flawed, as referees struggle to accurately account for stoppage time at the end of each half. He believes fans are shortchanged, with significant time lost to goal celebrations, VAR checks, injuries, and substitutions, resulting in far less than 90 minutes of actual play. To resolve this, Dein advocates for two real-time 30-minute halves, ensuring that every minute reflects active gameplay and enhancing the fairness of the match for both players and supporters.

The rugby system for timekeeping is better. Ref signals for the clock to stop for any incident/injury. Then says when the clock should restart.

They play a full 40 mins play each half. 

We get around 30 minutes play in a 45 min half. 

fenaddick

JamesSeed said:

They Crusty54 said:

iaitch said:

David Dein made this proposal recently.

Dein contends that football's current time-keeping system is flawed, as referees struggle to accurately account for stoppage time at the end of each half. He believes fans are shortchanged, with significant time lost to goal celebrations, VAR checks, injuries, and substitutions, resulting in far less than 90 minutes of actual play. To resolve this, Dein advocates for two real-time 30-minute halves, ensuring that every minute reflects active gameplay and enhancing the fairness of the match for both players and supporters.

The rugby system for timekeeping is better. Ref signals for the clock to stop for any incident/injury. Then says when the clock should restart.

They play a full 40 mins play each half. 

We get around 30 minutes play in a 45 min half. 

Ball in play time for rugby isn't actually 40 minutes though as the clock doesn't stop for all stoppages. At the 2023 WC the average was 34 mins. Still a significant improvement but aiming for 100% ball in play time is a pipe dream

Pelling1993

If a player goes down for longer than 2 minutes they should be forcibly subbed unless it was the result of a foul that warranted a card imo.

Stu_of_Kunming

JamesSeed said:

They Crusty54 said:

iaitch said:

David Dein made this proposal recently.

Dein contends that football's current time-keeping system is flawed, as referees struggle to accurately account for stoppage time at the end of each half. He believes fans are shortchanged, with significant time lost to goal celebrations, VAR checks, injuries, and substitutions, resulting in far less than 90 minutes of actual play. To resolve this, Dein advocates for two real-time 30-minute halves, ensuring that every minute reflects active gameplay and enhancing the fairness of the match for both players and supporters.

The rugby system for timekeeping is better. Ref signals for the clock to stop for any incident/injury. Then says when the clock should restart.

They play a full 40 mins play each half. 

We get around 30 minutes play in a 45 min half. 

I think the data showed we get at most 30mins a half.

It's outrageous.

fenaddick

Stu_of_Kunming said:

JamesSeed said:

They Crusty54 said:

iaitch said:

David Dein made this proposal recently.

Dein contends that football's current time-keeping system is flawed, as referees struggle to accurately account for stoppage time at the end of each half. He believes fans are shortchanged, with significant time lost to goal celebrations, VAR checks, injuries, and substitutions, resulting in far less than 90 minutes of actual play. To resolve this, Dein advocates for two real-time 30-minute halves, ensuring that every minute reflects active gameplay and enhancing the fairness of the match for both players and supporters.

The rugby system for timekeeping is better. Ref signals for the clock to stop for any incident/injury. Then says when the clock should restart.

They play a full 40 mins play each half. 

We get around 30 minutes play in a 45 min half. 

I think the data showed we get at most 30mins a half.

It's outrageous.

Last year was 55 mins a game on average up to December

https://www.efl.com/news/2023/december/21/ball-in-play-time-increases-across-efl-league-competitions/

Stu_of_Kunming

fenaddick

Stu_of_Kunming said:

It's interesting that your gut (or mine anyway) would tell you the problem would be worse higher up the pyramid as players further down "just get on with it". I'm guessing the difference is refs not putting up with it higher up the divisions and less set plays where all the big men get flung forward

Algarveaddick

fenaddick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

It's interesting that your gut (or mine anyway) would tell you the problem would be worse higher up the pyramid as players further down "just get on with it". I'm guessing the difference is refs not putting up with it higher up the divisions and less set plays where all the big men get flung forward

Could be that some of the players are realising that seven cameras are on them all the time in the PL, and know they can't get away with as much fakery?  

Stig

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Am I reading that right? Are we really getting seven more minutes football that last season? It feels like seven less to me.  (Thinking whilst typing - I guess there was a lot more added time last season, but the time wasting seems far worse now)

stevexreeve

Algarveaddick said:

fenaddick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

It's interesting that your gut (or mine anyway) would tell you the problem would be worse higher up the pyramid as players further down "just get on with it". I'm guessing the difference is refs not putting up with it higher up the divisions and less set plays where all the big men get flung forward

Could be that some of the players are realising that seven cameras are on them all the time in the PL, and know they can't get away with as much fakery?  

No! I think it's the refs realising that seven cameras are on them and they must implement the laws/rules of the game.

I agree about "time in play" not really being the important thing. I don't regard throw-ins, goal kicks and corners as stoppages. A stoppage is when the referee has blown his whistle and told the players they cannot continue until he blows it again!

fenaddick

Stig said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Am I reading that right? Are we really getting seven more minutes football that last season? It feels like seven less to me.  (Thinking whilst typing - I guess there was a lot more added time last season, but the time wasting seems far worse now)

No, last season we got 7 more than the previous one 

ForeverAddickted

So in League Two, the ball was in play for basically a single half of Football in 22-23 if you consider there being 3mins of injury time!!

stevexreeve

fenaddick said:

Stig said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Am I reading that right? Are we really getting seven more minutes football that last season? It feels like seven less to me.  (Thinking whilst typing - I guess there was a lot more added time last season, but the time wasting seems far worse now)

No, last season we got 7 more than the previous one 

Last season the referees were adding on much more extra time because of the rule change after the world cup about adding on actual injury time - rather than just making something up. (From the stats about seven minutes per game more than the previous season!).

This season they've gone back to adding on whatever suits them. So we are probably going to lose that extra seven minutes per game this season!

Ben18

Strange how 99% of players who suffer with cramp are on the side that’s winning. 

Maybe make them have 30 seconds off the pitch too

MuttleyCAFC

I suppose in the Premier League the skill levels will be higher so the ball is probably kept in play more.

Stig

fenaddick said:

Stig said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Am I reading that right? Are we really getting seven more minutes football that last season? It feels like seven less to me.  (Thinking whilst typing - I guess there was a lot more added time last season, but the time wasting seems far worse now)

No, last season we got 7 more than the previous one 

Ahh, yes of course. Thanks. Always behind the times, me.