Stop the clock (2 Viewers)

[Kieranp96]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/61342349

Not a new article but just came up on my feed when was looking at this seasons rule changes.

Writing in the Daily Mail, former referee Mark Clattenburg suggested football introducing 60-minute matches with a stop-clock to eradicate gamesmanship.

Other sports like basketball and American football use a stop-clock, and it's a straightforward concept: essentially, the clock is stopped whenever the ball is not in play, for incidents including injuries, substitutions and the referee dishing out cautions.

Football's law-making body the International Football Association Board (Ifab) has previously looked into the possibility of introducing a stop-clock.

In this season's Premier League, the average 'ball in play' time is 55 minutes and three seconds - the lowest it has been in over a decade.

What do people think, should we go for a stop the clock system?

I personally think it’s absolutely necessary because the fact that the average ball in play time is like 55 minutes is a joke

If the officials were actually decent at their jobs then no but I wouldn’t be against it in the current situation of officials, adding 3 mins on when there’s atleast 5 mins of injury’s 5mins of throwing and what ever.

 

---

[Kieranp96]

Its a fucking dogshit idea which would erode the beautiful game still further.......Just like VAR....and having a winter world cup.....in Qatar.....

so I fully expect it to happen.

Var has improved the game, apart from it being slow asf it’s so much better with it than it was without it.

 

[Frostie]

Genuinely shocked that when I hit 'Yes', how low the percentage is. I imagine it's not a view shared by all, but I believe time wasting should be one of the very top priorities to be fixed. Sunday, Sunderland were time wasting from about minute 25. A stopped clock means, although they can do it to 'disrupt' the pattern of play, noone can ever benefit from less time with the ball in play. It's a no brainer for me, but clearly the majority disagree,

Because it creates more problems than it solves imo.

If I was a player's agent, first thing I'd be doing is demanding my client gets a 33% pay rise if we're expecting him to play an extra 35mins or so every game.

It can be managed properly without this but it rarely is. If we look back at the Blackburn game last season, the time wasted was actually added on & we got the result in the end. Ironically, Blackburn were pretty comfortable until their histrionics so it backfired pretty spectacularly.

 

[jimmyhillsfanclub]

Var has improved the game, apart from it being slow asf it’s so much better with it than it was without it.

Thats your opinion Kieran & you're entitled to it........ but you're wrong.

 

[Otis]

Because it creates more problems than it solves imo.

If I was a player's agent, first thing I'd be doing is demanding my client gets a 33% pay rise if we're expecting him to play an extra 35mins or so every game.

It can be managed properly without this but it rarely is. If we look back at the Blackburn game last season, the time wasted was actually added on & we got the result in the end. Ironically, Blackburn were pretty comfortable until their histrionics so it backfired pretty spectacularly.

Yeah, but they are not playing an extra 35 mins are they. At the moment they are only playing for as little as 55 mins.

Whichever way you look at it, we pay good money to go and watch football games and deserve much better.

 

[Otis]

Thats your opinion Kieran & you're entitled to it........ but you're wrong.

It's still in its infancy. Once they sort it out, it will work just fine. Nothing wrong with the technology. It's the people operating the system and how they interpret it

 

[Frostie]

Yeah, but they are not playing an extra 35 mins are they. At the moment they are only playing for as little as 55 mins.

Whichever way you look at it, we pay good money to go and watch football games and deserve much better.

Of course, but how many reasonable agents do we know? They'd definitely be asking the question.

Completely agree on your point just think there's a better solution. There has been a directive to officials to clamp down on time wasting this season so we'll see what happens. Might take a few games to filter through though because it certainly didn't happen vs Sunderland.

It's not just time wasting by players of course. Look at the PL, games frequently stopped for 2-3 minutes at a time for VAR checks which never gets added back on.

 

[South West Sky Blue]

Doesn’t it happen in rugby? Genuine question I don’t watch it but I thought it does

Rugby does a half way house with the stop clock, which does work reasonably well for them. However, as @Hobo mentioned - gamesmanship still exists. They collapse scrums, slowly join lineouts, take 59 seconds on penalties & conversions etc......
Their stop clock kicks in at the referee's discretion for injuries, subs, TMO decisions..... The clock still runs down when the ball is out of play at other times.

 

[Otis]

Of course, but how many reasonable agents do we know? They'd definitely be asking the question.

Completely agree on your point just think there's a better solution. There has been a directive to officials to clamp down on time wasting this season so we'll see what happens. Might take a few games to filter through though because it certainly didn't happen vs Sunderland.

It's not just time wasting by players of course. Look at the PL, games frequently stopped for 2-3 minutes at a time for VAR checks which never gets added back on.

Yup. That needs sorting urgently.

It's supposed to be in part, about clear and obvious errors and if it is not clear and obvious within 20 seconds, it's not clear is it.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/61342349

Not a new article but just came up on my feed when was looking at this seasons rule changes.

Writing in the Daily Mail, former referee Mark Clattenburg suggested football introducing 60-minute matches with a stop-clock to eradicate gamesmanship.

Other sports like basketball and American football use a stop-clock, and it's a straightforward concept: essentially, the clock is stopped whenever the ball is not in play, for incidents including injuries, substitutions and the referee dishing out cautions.

Football's law-making body the International Football Association Board (Ifab) has previously looked into the possibility of introducing a stop-clock.

In this season's Premier League, the average 'ball in play' time is 55 minutes and three seconds - the lowest it has been in over a decade.

What do people think, should we go for a stop the clock system?

I personally think it’s absolutely necessary because the fact that the average ball in play time is like 55 minutes is a joke

Absolutely. Would get about the same amount of game time and solve so many problems with time wasting, feigning injury, disputes over added time etc.

Pretty much a no brainer really. Only reason I can see people objecting is a "we don't like change do we Deirdre" attitude.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

All fair points but I don't have too much issue with a lot of it, it's part of the game. All that should happen is the time is added on but it almost never is.

If we're going to look at stopping the clock every time the ball goes out you're looking at extending matches by over 30 minutes & all the knock on issues that come with that - increased demand on players, more injuries etc. No doubt the TV companies will have their say too.

The simplest solution is to have the 4th official (or even a 5th official) in charge of timings - referees already have an impossible job.

Matches wouldn't be extended. Stuies have shwon that ball is in play for roughly 60mins out of 90, so make it 60mins stopped clock is no extra burden. If anything it'll speed it up a bit as a lot of the faffing around will no longer happen as there's little benefit to doing so (maybe trying to disrupt momentum but that's it).

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Genuinely shocked that when I hit 'Yes', how low the percentage is. I imagine it's not a view shared by all, but I believe time wasting should be one of the very top priorities to be fixed. Sunday, Sunderland were time wasting from about minute 25. A stopped clock means, although they can do it to 'disrupt' the pattern of play, noone can ever benefit from less time with the ball in play. It's a no brainer for me, but clearly the majority disagree,

Agree entirely. It's a massive problem and one which could be largely fixed so easily.

 

[Grendel]

Matches wouldn't be extended. Stuies have shwon that ball is in play for roughly 60mins out of 90, so make it 60mins stopped clock is no extra burden. If anything it'll speed it up a bit as a lot of the faffing around will no longer happen as there's little benefit to doing so (maybe trying to disrupt momentum but that's it).

It won’t stop feigning injuries at all

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Because it creates more problems than it solves imo.

If I was a player's agent, first thing I'd be doing is demanding my client gets a 33% pay rise if we're expecting him to play an extra 35mins or so every game.

It can be managed properly without this but it rarely is. If we look back at the Blackburn game last season, the time wasted was actually added on & we got the result in the end. Ironically, Blackburn were pretty comfortable until their histrionics so it backfired pretty spectacularly.

They wouldn't be playing an extra amount. The time would be 60mins with a stopped clock, equivalent to the amount of time a ball is in play under the current rules.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

It won’t stop feigning injuries at all

Not all, as has been mentioned they might want to disrupt play, but it would be a pointless thing to do to waste time.

It could then be supplemented with a player not allowed back onto the pitch for 1 minute of game time to stop people doing it.

 

[robbiekeane]

It won’t stop feigning injuries at all

Or course it will. They will still roll around trying to win free kicks but there will be none of this convenient cramp and pretending to have a head injury at the end of the game

 

[mmttww]

Just enforce the laws we have rather than invent new ones.

This, for so many things. Dissent, time wasting, handball. Football complicates so many simple things! It's pathetic.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Time wasting isn't just about running down the clock, it's quite effective at halting any momentum built up by a team chasing a lead. Teams will still time waste even if all the time got added on.

 

[Grendel]

Time wasting isn't just about running down the clock, it's quite effective at halting any momentum built up by a team chasing a lead. Teams will still time waste even if all the time got added on.

exactly

 

[Johnnythespider]

If the problem is the ball only being in play for 60 minutes, how does reducing the match time to 60 minutes change anything, you're still only going to see 60 minutes football ?. Make it 90 minutes and stop the clock and that makes sense to me, particularly with 5 subs allowed now.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

If the problem is the ball only being in play for 60 minutes, how does reducing the match time to 60 minutes change anything, you're still only going to see 60 minutes football ?. Make it 90 minutes and stop the clock and that makes sense to me, particularly with 5 subs allowed now.

Because it stops all the nonsense about whether the correct amount of injury time was added on, it's stop timewasting for the purpose of running down the clock.

90mins of actual football you'd have a lot more injuries and games would take about 3 hours in total.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

In years to come this may well end up like the goalkeeper handling a backpass. Loads of people said it'd make the game rubbish, now it'd be weird to change it back.

 

[Grendel]

In years to come this may well end up like the goalkeeper handling a backpass. Loads of people said it'd make the game rubbish, now it'd be weird to change it back.

I assume then this could be filtered easily through all non leagues as well?

It’s nonsense as the rules already are there. Oh and one classic area of time wasting won’t even be impacted.

 

[Legia Sky Blue]

This would eliminate the preceived gain from certain types of timewasting in relation to pissing around over corners, throw ins, free kicks, injuries & substitutions, whereby the time refs add on currently comes to nowhere near the actual time wasted.

It won't however eliminate gamesmanship. Tactical injuries will still happen in order to kill momentum when a team is under the cosh. One of my pet hates at the moment is when players go down when there is a counter attack on, clutching their head, knowing that the ref has to stop play for a head injury. Its got to the stage where I would like it so that if a player indicates he needs treatment for a head injury, that they have to be substituted (for his own welfare of course) - at the moment it seems that such instances are regularly being used for tactical purposes - particularly remember Corboran doing that at the CBS last year instructing O'Brien to hold his head when we played Huddersfield and had them on the ropes.

 

[Finham]

Where’s he been hiding?

I think he said he was taking a social media break last time he posted? Might be confusing him with someone else.

 

[Otis]

Time wasting isn't just about running down the clock, it's quite effective at halting any momentum built up by a team chasing a lead. Teams will still time waste even if all the time got added on.

That's different though isn't it. This will kill time wasting. It won't kill teams trying to stop the momentum of their opposition.

55 mins is outrageous though and stopping the clock would clearly, definitely help in that regard.

 

[WestEndAgro]

I'm all for it, I trialled it in a game, that I was reffing.
Player's were unaware that the clock was stopped when the ball was out of play.
They were all knackered at the end.

 

[SBT]

Having a fixed timer just means that time wasting/game management becomes a part of the run of play itself. The idea that players will start playing hour after hour of gung-ho football just because the clock gets stopped when the ball is out of play is to ignore how teams manage momentum during any game. Just look at the fourth quarter of most NFL or NBA games - the whole game is about managing the clock. It’s tedious.

 

[long way home]

These rule makers are trying to make something not noticed or cared about into a problem of importance to solve. This is more about those people in boardrooms getting paid pretending they actually are doing something of value.

Keeping the game flowing and the ball in play longer would entail having better refs, limiting use of VAR and time seconds rule on throw in's, goal kicks and free kicks in your own half. But lets be honest never going to happen and would be even harder to implement. The only thing they could do it limited use of VAR, put it in the teams hands with limits the times they can review per game.

 

[Skybluedownunder]

I’m all for it for the better of the game and giving the fans what they deserve which is 90 mins of football. However selfishly I’m not looking forward to the lack of sleep I’d have when games start at 2am on a Sunday morning usually finishing about 4am would turn into 5am 🫠


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Otis]

Having a fixed timer just means that time wasting/game management becomes a part of the run of play itself. The idea that players will start playing hour after hour of gung-ho football just because the clock gets stopped when the ball is out of play is to ignore how teams manage momentum during any game. Just look at the fourth quarter of most NFL or NBA games - the whole game is about managing the clock. It’s tedious.

I don't get that argument at all. The last 2 mins of an NFL game are often outrageously entertaining and thrilling. It's not the same thing though at all. In NFL, the game setup IS that it is stop start, stop start. Plan your strategy and plays and the there is a 40 second gap between each play. It's set up to break up the play, stop the game and plan your next move. Completely different.

And no-one has said any team is going to play gung-ho football for an hour. That is simply not going to happen. Why would it?

Time wasting is really hurting the game in so many ways and it can be so awful to witness it.

All people are saying is, that if it's a 90 minute game, we shouldn't be subjected to just 55 mins of actual play.

It needs trialling. Then we will know for sure whether it world or not. Simple solution. Trial it

 

[Irish Sky Blue]

These rule makers are trying to make something not noticed or cared about into a problem of importance to solve. This is more about those people in boardrooms getting paid pretending they actually are doing something of value.

Keeping the game flowing and the ball in play longer would entail having better refs, limiting use of VAR and time seconds rule on throw in's, goal kicks and free kicks in your own half. But lets be honest never going to happen and would be even harder to implement. The only thing they could do it limited use of VAR, put it in the teams hands with limits the times they can review per game.

It’s the opposite of your opening statement. Time wasting is noticed and cared about. It is something that seems to become a bigger part of the game each season. For example, until recent times I can never recall teams wasting time in the first half of matches. This is definitely a feature of some of our games last season after we had conceded a first half goal. For lots of reasons, all mentioned above, it is virtually impossible for the referee to stamp out all instances of time wasting. Having the clock stopped for hold ups in play would make it a worthless tactic for teams trying to eat up seconds.
You say it is something that is not noticed. This simply isn’t true. Virtually every game we were behind in last season was a totally frustrating experience as the opponents deliberately delayed as much as they could. Games against Millwall, Luton, Preston and Blackburn immediately spring to mind. It is something that for the good of the game as s spectacle needs to sorted out.
The ‘part of the game’ mentality of people within football was clear in the England ladies match the other night. I only watched bits of the game but I still heard the lady pundit claim that one foul high up the pitch was ‘a good foul’ and that a player being subbed was right to take as long as she could to get off the pitch. I was also disappointed with the ball in the corner tactic for the last five, ten minutes of play.
The game is meant to be entertaining, not an exercise in frustration. My son timed a Sunderland second half corner at more than a minute from the time the ball went out to the time that Pritchard deemed to take it. That can’t be right. Having the game stopped when the ball is out of play stops a lot of ‘game management’ at a stroke.

 

[Frostie]

It’s the opposite of your opening statement. Time wasting is noticed and cared about. It is something that seems to become a bigger part of the game each season. For example, until recent times I can never recall teams wasting time in the first half of matches. This is definitely a feature of some of our games last season after we had conceded a first half goal. For lots of reasons, all mentioned above, it is virtually impossible for the referee to stamp out all instances of time wasting. Having the clock stopped for hold ups in play would make it a worthless tactic for teams trying to eat up seconds.
You say it is something that is not noticed. This simply isn’t true. Virtually every game we were behind in last season was a totally frustrating experience as the opponents deliberately delayed as much as they could. Games against Millwall, Luton, Preston and Blackburn immediately spring to mind. It is something that for the good of the game as s spectacle needs to sorted out.
The ‘part of the game’ mentality of people within football was clear in the England ladies match the other night. I only watched bits of the game but I still heard the lady pundit claim that one foul high up the pitch was ‘a good foul’ and that a player being subbed was right to take as long as she could to get off the pitch. I was also disappointed with the ball in the corner tactic for the last five, ten minutes of play.
The game is meant to be entertaining, not an exercise in frustration. My son timed a Sunderland second half corner at more than a minute from the time the ball went out to the time that Pritchard deemed to take it. That can’t be right. Having the game stopped when the ball is out of play stops a lot of ‘game management’ at a stroke.

A lot of that isn't about wasting time though per sé, it's more about disrupting momentum - that won't be changed by stopping the clock, it just means games will go on for considerably longer.

I am not against the notion of trialling it, in fact I believe it has been done at very low levels (although the lower the level, the lower the stakes & less of an issue I'd wager) but let's say miraculously the FA decided "Yep, it works, let's implement it" you would need every other nation that plays the game to agree & adopt it too. Will never happen.

Never get the complaints about the ball in the corner tactic either, that is proper game management, ball is in play, time is ticking on - perfectly legitimate. What next, ban teams from keeping possession when leading?

The simple fact is, the issues people are raising all have solutions already in the Laws of the Game, they just aren't implemented.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

These rule makers are trying to make something not noticed or cared about into a problem of importance to solve. This is more about those people in boardrooms getting paid pretending they actually are doing something of value.

Keeping the game flowing and the ball in play longer would entail having better refs, limiting use of VAR and time seconds rule on throw in's, goal kicks and free kicks in your own half. But lets be honest never going to happen and would be even harder to implement. The only thing they could do it limited use of VAR, put it in the teams hands with limits the times they can review per game.

Something no-one noticed or cared about? Do you not read manager interviews/fan comments or listen to pundits? Always talking about whether too much/not enough time was added on, especially for timewasting. Complaining about players deliberately taking too much time over things and walking off slowly for subs etc. It's a massive problem in the game that gets talked about constantly.

It won't stop it happening for trying to disrupt play and take momentum out of the game, but it'll at least remove one of the incentives for it happening.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Having a fixed timer just means that time wasting/game management becomes a part of the run of play itself. The idea that players will start playing hour after hour of gung-ho football just because the clock gets stopped when the ball is out of play is to ignore how teams manage momentum during any game. Just look at the fourth quarter of most NFL or NBA games - the whole game is about managing the clock. It’s tedious.

Wouldn't it be better having the ball in play and teams trying to keep possession, which the opposition can try and prevent them doing, and run the clock down than ambling over to take a throw in or walking off the pitch slower than an octegenarian with a hip replacement when being subbed?