Substitions very late on in a game (2 Viewers)

[Otis]

Man City v Chelsea.

Mourinho makes 3 substitions late on in the game (82 mins, 92 mins, 94 mins). The commentator says of the last one, Chelsea making one final substitution trying to take some time off the clock.

Right, well as we all know, time shouldn't be taken off the clock should it. The watch is supposed to stop and not start again until play restarts.

Can understand teams making substitutions to disrupt things a little, take away the tempo and slow things down, but they should never be able to run time down by making substitions.

My question is therefore, does this actually happen or is it just commentator talk? Does a team making a substitution actually make any gain time wise in a match? If so, then surely that is down to the incompetence of the referee isn't it?

 

---

[Sutty]

Don't know about time lost/wasted, I'd imagine the effect is more to disrupt the flow of the game. Other team can't get momentum going, more time for your defence to get organised, 30 second breather, etc.

 

[RFC]

Don't know about time lost/wasted, I'd imagine the effect is more to disrupt the flow of the game. Other team can't get momentum going, more time for your defence to get organised, 30 second breather, etc.

Spot on. PUSB!

 

[Otis]

Well that's how I feel too, that it's a ploy to slow the pace down.

Maybe it was just commentator talk then. Refs time keeping can be a bit dodgy at times though can't it.

 

[mds]

Didnt the powers that be change the rules a while ago, automatic 30s to be added for a sub, dont know if it was implemented, sure it was talked about for a while!

 

[Otis]

Could be a perception amongst managers that the ref's aren't always accurate with their time keeping and therefore they could possibly get away with taking some time off the clock.

30 secs is supposed to be allocated for a substitution, but that doesn't mean that refs are alloting that time accurately though mind.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Could be a perception amongst managers that the ref's aren't always accurate with their time keeping and therefore they could possibly get away with taking some time off the clock.

30 secs is supposed to be allocated for a substitution, but that doesn't mean that refs are alloting that time accurately though mind.

I'm not sure if the refs add on the actual time for the sub or is it just a set time of 30s added for a sub, I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that Ferguson used to use the same principals but the other way round to add on time. So if he was losing late in the 90th minute, if he could make a quick sub which takes 10 seconds, then the ref adds on 30s for the sub and you have gained 20 seconds.

 

[6 Generations]

Man City v Chelsea.

Mourinho makes 3 substitions late on in the game (82 mins, 92 mins, 94 mins). The commentator says of the last one, Chelsea making one final substitution trying to take some time off the clock.

Right, well as we all know, time shouldn't be taken off the clock should it. The watch is supposed to stop and not start again until play restarts.

Can understand teams making substitutions to disrupt things a little, take away the tempo and slow things down, but they should never be able to run time down by making substitions.

My question is therefore, does this actually happen or is it just commentator talk? Does a team making a substitution actually make any gain time wise in a match? If so, then surely that is down to the incompetence of the referee isn't it?

i do not profess to be an expert on anything, but i understood it that a referee should allow 30 seconds for a substitution and 30 seconds for a goal. They just never do!!

As football in general has assumed more importance in terms of financial implication, i have advocated for sometime that as referees already have sufficient responsibilities, the time-keeping should be governed by another party, possibly the much under employed 4th official.

In my opinion the clock should be stopped on any occasion when the ball is not in play. It should be stopped in the same way adopted in both codes of rugby.

Until such time as the ball is 'in play', the clock should not start. This will reduce delayed throw-ins, goal-kicks, free-kicks and feigning of injury to 'eat up the clock' ( commentator speak). And, of course, regardless of how many late subs are introduced, there will be no wasted time.

 

[mark82]

i do not profess to be an expert on anything, but i understood it that a referee should allow 30 seconds for a substitution and 30 seconds for a goal. They just never do!!

As football in general has assumed more importance in terms of financial implication, i have advocated for sometime that as referees already have sufficient responsibilities, the time-keeping should be governed by another party, possibly the much under employed 4th official.

In my opinion the clock should be stopped on any occasion when the ball is not in play. It should be stopped in the same way adopted in both codes of rugby.

Until such time as the ball is 'in play', the clock should not start. This will reduce delayed throw-ins, goal-kicks, free-kicks and feigning of injury to 'eat up the clock' ( commentator speak). And, of course, regardless of how many late subs are introduced, there will be no wasted time.

Agree. But, really, how difficult is it for the ref to push the button on his stopwatch.

 

[alphapappa]

It's actually 45 seconds per substitution, and they shouldn't add on time if under!

 

[Otis]

Agree. But, really, how difficult is it for the ref to push the button on his stopwatch.

Impossible apparently, if you have someone like Alex Ferguson breathing down your neck.

 

[Otis]

i do not profess to be an expert on anything, but i understood it that a referee should allow 30 seconds for a substitution and 30 seconds for a goal. They just never do!!

As football in general has assumed more importance in terms of financial implication, i have advocated for sometime that as referees already have sufficient responsibilities, the time-keeping should be governed by another party, possibly the much under employed 4th official.

In my opinion the clock should be stopped on any occasion when the ball is not in play. It should be stopped in the same way adopted in both codes of rugby.

Until such time as the ball is 'in play', the clock should not start. This will reduce delayed throw-ins, goal-kicks, free-kicks and feigning of injury to 'eat up the clock' ( commentator speak). And, of course, regardless of how many late subs are introduced, there will be no wasted time.

Could be like American Football with the game clock up on the scoreboard, where the fans could see every moment the clock is stopped.

Would put an end to a lot of this nonsense.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

The Ice Hockey clock would be the best form of time keeping. Take the pressure off the Ref, and let him get on with the real job of Reffing.

 

[justvisiting]

I had heard that Neil Warnock used to agree to send subs on right at the end for 50% of their appearance fee.

 

[covcity4life]

Don't know about time lost/wasted, I'd imagine the effect is more to disrupt the flow of the game. Other team can't get momentum going, more time for your defence to get organised, 30 second breather, etc.