A few points on this matter.
Having a 60 minute stop clock system must not happen as it's clearly unpractical in all forms of the game. Hardly going to be done at Sunday League or even Conference standard.
Timewasting has become almost as bad for the image of the game as faking fowls. Wigan were absolutely terrible and took it in turns to just sit on the floor and feigning some injury.
Something has to be done and it seems that it has at this world cup. Officials playing 9 or 10 minutes injury time in both halfs seems to have eradicated time wasting. It's pretty boring have such long injury times played but its worked.
I suggest UK officials follow the same pattern. for those people who leave 5 or 10 minutes early in a match they would miss a massive portion of the game and might think twice in future about that. However people do need to know when a game is likely to finish though for planning their journey. For instance 1500 kickoff would normally finish at around 1650 to 1655 and could be 1700 or 1710! However as soon as managers know timewasting is literally a 'waste of time' under new system they wouldnt do it anymore.
It's no more impractical than making them work out injury time. For that they need to have one watch on continuously and another that they stop and start to work out injury time to add on.
Or they could just stop and start a stopwatch and see how much time's left.
I like the idea, but do wonder if the opposing team start doing everything they can to feign 'fouls' from challenges, particularly if the team is near the limit. May well work with VAR (sigh) who could check the validity of each yellow card decision - leading to a yellow for the other team trying to con the ref. E quite like the player having to go off for 10 minutes for a yellow (again, checked by VAR, to avoid incorrect decisions, or a yellow for the other player if they have dived etc.
Anyway overall any talk of it being restricted to 60-70 minutes needs to stop.
That would be rewarding chelating.
They can FO, you're reducing a third of the game that you've been given to beat them
It's no more impractical than making them work out injury time. For that they need to have one watch on continuously and another that they stop and start to work out injury time to add on.
Or they could just stop and start a stopwatch and see how much time's left.
At grass roots level this would be difficult to implement. It's hard enough getting referees already. To have this extra burden and chance of mistakes would deter amateur ref's. I remember in my playing days, the abuse they got . It would get maybe even worse if they got it perceived as wrong.
At grass roots level this would be difficult to implement. It's hard enough getting referees already. To have this extra burden and chance of mistakes would deter amateur ref's. I remember in my playing days, the abuse they got . It would get maybe even worse if they got it perceived as wrong.
Surely if it was cut and dried, ie the clock only runs when the ball is in play, then there is little room for argument. Much less than now anyway, when it is much more arbitrary, depending on the whim of a ref as to whether he wants to add time on or not.
Anyway overall any talk of it being restricted to 60-70 minutes needs to stop.
That would be rewarding chelating.
They can FO, you're reducing a third of the game that you've been given to beat them
You’re missing the point. The game has never been a “90 minutes in play” game.
The way it’s going at the World Cup it’s adding literally all of the time it was not in play on after 90 minutes has been played, making the game ridiculously long.
If they go down this route they need to make the game 70 minutes. I would suggest they stop the clock though rather than add on