Will we see this new style time added on creep onto the domestic game

fella

Well-known member
I'd like to see the each half end on exactly 45:00 and 90:00 with the clock stopped during periods that the ref considers time wasting or injury time etc.

The current system in fairly inscrutable, we often only have a vague idea of how much added time is accruing which can lead to surprise and controversy at the end of a half.

Big change obviously, probably controversial, unpopular, blah blah, but it'll give transparancy and may motive some players to stop being nimrods.
 

Jedi boro

Well-known member
I'd like to see the each half end on exactly 45:00 and 90:00 with the clock stopped during periods that the ref considers time wasting or injury time etc.

The current system in fairly inscrutable, we often only have a vague idea of how much added time is accruing which can lead to surprise and controversy at the end of a half.

Big change obviously, probably controversial, unpopular, blah blah, but it'll give transparancy and may motive some players to stop being nimrods.
No I wouldn’t like that.

That is too American for me as quarters would soon follow

No not for me.
 

SmogonOuseburn

Active member
Can you remember when teams used to be able to pass the ball back, and the keeper was allowed to pick it up? That DID cause a lot of time wasting that was very frustrating as a fan.
If stopping the clock when a player goes down “injured” speeds up play then I am all for it.
 

billsykes

Well-known member
I'm sure that I read last week that someone somewhere is looking into 60 minute games. That is, there will be 60 minutes of football with a clock being stopped for all stoppages so that the actual action actually lasts 60 minutes.
Sounds Draconian, but I read in the same article a piece on how much football we currently get in a game, and it is a lot less than 60 minutes.
 

Rauko

Well-known member
Would you need earlier kick off times though?

Adding 10 minutes first half - 15 minutes second half .. would see night matches, for instance, finishing close to 10:30 ..
 

wilkos_perm

Well-known member
Could we be looking at 10 or even 15 mins being added on at the riverside once the season resumes.
It seems like a lucky dip in our games at times. There was one game recently, can't remember which one, where I was expecting 7 or 8 minutes and they held up 4 minutes. Then the opposition wasted time getting treatment and they still only played the four minutes.
This is a definite improvement although I think they've over done it in a few games, the 2nd half of the England game possibly being one of them.
 

wilkos_perm

Well-known member
I'm sure that I read last week that someone somewhere is looking into 60 minute games. That is, there will be 60 minutes of football with a clock being stopped for all stoppages so that the actual action actually lasts 60 minutes.
Sounds Draconian, but I read in the same article a piece on how much football we currently get in a game, and it is a lot less than 60 minutes.
I think that's massively flawed though as it's an average and it probably varies a lot. I'd imagine if you get say Man City playing against another passing side that you get much more than that.
 

B_G

Well-known member
I'd like to see the each half end on exactly 45:00 and 90:00 with the clock stopped during periods that the ref considers time wasting or injury time etc.

The current system in fairly inscrutable, we often only have a vague idea of how much added time is accruing which can lead to surprise and controversy at the end of a half.

Big change obviously, probably controversial, unpopular, blah blah, but it'll give transparancy and may motive some players to stop being nimrods.
I like the idea of a stop clock every time the ball isn't in play. But the game should be shortened to reflect this. Take an average amount of playing time across the all the games for the rest of the season then use this as the half length. (Obviously round it to something sensible). I would guess it would be something like 30:00 each way.

Also like the idea that the half stops once the ball leaves play after the time has lapsed rather than stopping the game while the ball is in play.
 

TeaCider

Well-known member
I think changing the length of the game is a step too far, it fundamentally alters one of the core aspects of the game in a manner which isn’t easily accommodated at every level.

Would grass roots levels be able to easily accommodate a dedicated timekeeper?
It would become an essential position if you've cut the length of matches by a third.
 

Centralscrutinizer

Well-known member
Apparently, the average premier league match has the ball in play for just over 55 minutes so if a clock was stopped and started during the match we'd be looking at 35 min of added time (more than quarter of an hour per half) 😲
I'm not sure I'd like it compared to the usual arbitrary 4 or 5 mins we get now.
 

billsykes

Well-known member
I think that's massively flawed though as it's an average and it probably varies a lot. I'd imagine if you get say Man City playing against another passing side that you get much more than that.
I believe that you are right as they showed a table per team as to how much actual football is played and it varied quite a bit.
 

Nano

Well-known member
Time wasting kills the game. It is robbing fans of football. A clock that stops when it goes out would reduce time wasting because there'd be no need for it. Players going down and pretending they are injured would achieve nothing so it'll stop. Fans/ball boys keeping hold of the ball would stop. Keepers taking forever, throw-ins taking forever etc. They would all stop so while the total time of the ball in play might be higher than now the wasted time in between would be reduced.

It would require the game to re-start quickly though and bookings for extended breaks (teams trying to give themselves a rest) might have to be punished instead.

Playing the proper stoppage time is a step towards it but if they added on every stoppage there would be 65 minute halves.
 

r00fie1

Well-known member
In ice-hockey they have 3 x 20-minute periods.
Every time the puck is out of play, or the game stops - the clock stops.
What you get is actually 20 minutes of game-time every period - but sometimes that means the 20 minute periods can last 30 minutes - with 15 minute breaks between each period.
Add to that, there is no such thing as a draw in ice-hockey - one team has to win - there is over-time and sudden death, which can add another 30 minutes.
We dont need a clock in football.
We need the ref to have no patience with time-wasting and no hesitation in booking players and sending them off.
 

MolteniArcore

Well-known member
Saying now average time for games is

104 mins

But over 90 mins the ball is only in play for 57 mins When you add on that extra 14 it's 71 mins, but then obviously some of that 14 mins will involve the ball being out of play.

Maybe if teams get it into their heads that time wasting is futile as it only gets added on they won't do it - and the same for loads of subs in the 91st minute.

I think it'll eventually balance itself out.
 

Cardiffdaffs

Well-known member
It already is - Burnley scored in the 101st minute against Rotherham after some blatant time wasting. Whether refs apply this across the board I don't know.
 
Top