Time wasting in football

[Boycie]

On 19/03/2023 at 12:22, David said:

Ok, so the start of a game where the ref lets the players get away with one or two, a player crunches into Max Bird, nasty one which turns his ankle and needs strapping up. Leaves the pitch, straight after play resumes Hourihane gets wiped out, player gets booked but now he’s out the game as well.

In the space of a minute, 2 reckless tackles, we’re down to 9 men on the pitch. 

Can’t tell me we won’t start seeing “tactical” put players out the game.

You also have the issue where some injuries it’s best not to move the player, head, spine, neck, broken bones. With some of the theatrical stuff that goes on, it’s difficult for a ref to judge what’s gone on.

Let’s not pretend our players never get up to this either, we have had our own fair share of players sat on their arses over the years.

I’m sure there’s a plan in place for multiple injuries or serious injuries I’m sure. The have always lead the way with sensible rules and especially how the players talk to the ref.

[WestKentRam]

As an interesting (to me) experiment I thought I'd time how much the ball was in play at Peterborough from 70 mins, + the 5 mins added time, when we were chasing the game.

Allowing for me not getting the stop/start timing exactly right each time, the ball was in play for around 11 to 12 of the 25 mins at this vital stage of the match.

It confirmed my feeling about how much time wasting goes on at the end of the game, making it difficult to get ourselves back. Players get frustrated leading to more fouls, cards, rushed chances and time slips away with the ball not in play even more!

[Chellaston Ram]

I agree . The time taken yesterday to take corners, goal kicks and celebration of goals was ridiculous. Until referee’s clamp down with yellow cards nothing will change 

[Malagaram]

The Peterborough keeper went down,rolling around as if in pain,after a couple or so minuites he was attended to by one of peterboroughs staff,who must have rubbed his leg with magic potion,because after a couple of minuites he was running around as if nothing had happened,just a ploy to waste time,goal kicks,throw ins,free kicks all had many minuites added.

What is the answer,perhaps a second referee on the touch line watching time wasters,who is in contact with the ref and if it is seen,then yellow card them as happened in the England/Italy match to an English player,there was a good honest ref who wasnt going to allow time wasting.

[Chellaston Ram]

I’m surprised only 5 minutes was added, it should have been like 10 minutes although I don’t think it would have made any difference to the score.

[Ram-Alf]

1 hour ago, Malagaram said:

 

What is the answer,perhaps a second referee on the touch line watching time wasters,who is in contact with the ref and if it is seen,then yellow card them as happened in the England/Italy match to an English player,there was a good honest ref who wasnt going to allow time wasting.

Independent timekeeper like in Rugby Union and League, Ref says time off and the clock stops, It's so simple in it's effectiveness...all down to FIFA tho...so nowt will happen   

[alram]

i think time wasting is footballs biggest condundrum because its not just about wasting time its about killing the game which leads to long periods of nothingness.

 

when real madrid beat liverpool 5-2 the other day, real madrid were "time wasting" at 2-0 down, but really they were just controlling the game by playing at their pace. they took an age for every goal kick and throw in whilst liverpool did everything at 100 miles per hour. as the game went on it became more and more obvious how much control real madrid had of the game and liverpool was just running around like headless chickens

 

for me it has got to be administered through a stop clock and not bookings. but if you do that you have got to reduce time of matches and you could get matches 110 mins + long even with a reduced amount of time. I think there was a burnley match under Dyche where the ball was in play for something daft like 45 minutes of the 90!

 

i dont think there is an easy answer if there was it would have been introduced by now

[WestKentRam]

29 minutes ago, alram said:

I think there was a burnley match under Dyche where the ball was in play for something daft like 45 minutes of the 90!

i dont think there is an easy answer if there was it would have been introduced by now

Yesterday from 70 mins the ball was in play a lower % of the time than that, that I find extremely frustrating when we are chasing games but I suppose that is the whole idea as it shows on the players too.

60 mins of ball in play time would make sense. Teams under the cosh will still go down with 'injuries' to try and break the momentum of the opposition, and I'm sure other tactics would emerge. Would be interesting to watch a trial game of this though.

[PistoldPete]

32 minutes ago, WestKentRam said:

Yesterday from 70 mins the ball was in play a lower % of the time than that, that I find extremely frustrating when we are chasing games but I suppose that is the whole idea as it shows on the players too.

60 mins of ball in play time would make sense. Teams under the cosh will still go down with 'injuries' to try and break the momentum of the opposition, and I'm sure other tactics would emerge. Would be interesting to watch a trial game of this though.

If the ball is not in play that much even less excuse for the players to be tired. Truth is they are either too old or Warne is overtraining them. 

[BaaLocks]

What an example of this in the England game vs Italy midweek. Harry Kane takes a ball to the ribs from a corner, falls and ends up off the pitch. Then crawls back onto the pitch before collapsing and needing medical attention. Just pathetic!

[Ram-Alf]

19 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

What an example of this in the England game vs Italy midweek. Harry Kane takes a ball to the ribs from a corner, falls and ends up off the pitch. Then crawls back onto the pitch before collapsing and needing medical attention. Just pathetic!

Not even a good crawl...I've seen babies crawl better than that 😁

[Gritstone Ram]

26 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

What an example of this in the England game vs Italy midweek. Harry Kane takes a ball to the ribs from a corner, falls and ends up off the pitch. Then crawls back onto the pitch before collapsing and needing medical attention. Just pathetic!

I think you have to look at the officials who let him get away with it.

[Steve Buckley’s Dog]

58 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

What an example of this in the England game vs Italy midweek. Harry Kane takes a ball to the ribs from a corner, falls and ends up off the pitch. Then crawls back onto the pitch before collapsing and needing medical attention. Just pathetic!

I would have left him there and played on. I would also send off any player who goes down holding their head to deliberately get the game stopped when the opposition are breaking away only to have a bit of a leg rub by the trainer, as happened in our last game or possibly the one before that at Pride Park. I would also tell a player whose shoe lace miraculously becomes undone to do it up whilst the game is going on or off the pitch. If a  goalkeeper is deliberately wasting time I would award an indirect free kick from the penalty spot. That would soon stop it. Does my head in. I am appalled by what I have seen this year, I genuinely thought this league would have been played by men with a modicum of self respect but apparently not. 

[ilkleyram]

11 hours ago, alram said:

i think time wasting is footballs biggest condundrum because its not just about wasting time its about killing the game which leads to long periods of nothingness.

 

when real madrid beat liverpool 5-2 the other day, real madrid were "time wasting" at 2-0 down, but really they were just controlling the game by playing at their pace. they took an age for every goal kick and throw in whilst liverpool did everything at 100 miles per hour. as the game went on it became more and more obvious how much control real madrid had of the game and liverpool was just running around like headless chickens

 

for me it has got to be administered through a stop clock and not bookings. but if you do that you have got to reduce time of matches and you could get matches 110 mins + long even with a reduced amount of time. I think there was a burnley match under Dyche where the ball was in play for something daft like 45 minutes of the 90!

 

i dont think there is an easy answer if there was it would have been introduced by now

I’ve seen the argument before that you have to reduce the length of matches if you introduce more accurate timekeeping, but why?

Rugby (both codes) is a much more physical game than football and they didn’t reduce matches from 80 minutes when they introduced the ability for referees to stop the clock.  We have more subs than ever before - you can alter half the outfield team if you want - better pitches, medical staff, kit including footballs, training, dietary advice and all the rest of it, why can’t they play a full 90 minutes?  If they want to stop the ref from extending the time they’re on the pitch then they should stop all the play acting and nonsense that goes on in the name of ‘professionalism’. Does my head in.

As a starting point the football authorities and referees have to do something. I thought the world cup might be the start but seemingly no one has the courage to take it further 

[Ram-Alf]

11 hours ago, Steve Buckley’s Dog said:

I would have left him there and played on. I would also send off any player who goes down holding their head to deliberately get the game stopped when the opposition are breaking away only to have a bit of a leg rub by the trainer, as happened in our last game or possibly the one before that at Pride Park. I would also tell a player whose shoe lace miraculously becomes undone to do it up whilst the game is going on or off the pitch. If a  goalkeeper is deliberately wasting time I would award an indirect free kick from the penalty spot. That would soon stop it. Does my head in. I am appalled by what I have seen this year, I genuinely thought this league would have been played by men with a modicum of self respect but apparently not. 

On a slightly different note, Watching the England Women Rugby Vs Scotland on Saturday, They knocked 7 bells out of each other, Got up wiped the blood and snot off and off we go again, Now either the Women are a tougher breed or the Men are really faking it, And before the Women on here start to say they are the tougher breed...be aware, At the end of the game when interviewing Sarah Hunter there were tears 😁

[Ram-Alf]

7 hours ago, ilkleyram said:

I’ve seen the argument before that you have to reduce the length of matches if you introduce more accurate timekeeping, but why?

Rugby (both codes) is a much more physical game than football and they didn’t reduce matches from 80 minutes when they introduced the ability for referees to stop the clock.  We have more subs than ever before - you can alter half the outfield team if you want - better pitches, medical staff, kit including footballs, training, dietary advice and all the rest of it, why can’t they play a full 90 minutes?  If they want to stop the ref from extending the time they’re on the pitch then they should stop all the play acting and nonsense that goes on in the name of ‘professionalism’. Does my head in.

As a starting point the football authorities and referees have to do something. I thought the world cup might be the start but seemingly no one has the courage to take it further 

Here's a thought, The NFL play 4 quarters of 15mins, The game last for 2+ hours, When they stop the game they put in the commercials, I wonder what implications Commercials have on the game of football 🤷‍♀️ 

[WestKentRam]

7 hours ago, ilkleyram said:

I’ve seen the argument before that you have to reduce the length of matches if you introduce more accurate timekeeping, but why?

Rugby (both codes) is a much more physical game than football and they didn’t reduce matches from 80 minutes when they introduced the ability for referees to stop the clock.  We have more subs than ever before - you can alter half the outfield team if you want - better pitches, medical staff, kit including footballs, training, dietary advice and all the rest of it, why can’t they play a full 90 minutes?  If they want to stop the ref from extending the time they’re on the pitch then they should stop all the play acting and nonsense that goes on in the name of ‘professionalism’. Does my head in.

As a starting point the football authorities and referees have to do something. I thought the world cup might be the start but seemingly no one has the courage to take it further 

There's a certain amount of time the ball will naturally be dead or out of play eg for throw ins, corners, free kicks, injuries, goal kicks, subs under hand control of GK etc.

In the PL the ball is in play an average of 55 mins per match, so assuming that it's similar in the lower leagues 60 mins seems a starting point. Looking it up, this has been argued before...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61342349

A 90 minute stop/start game would probably be around 120 mins long.

I remember reading about Tony Pullis at Stoke and his theory was the opposition can't score if the ball is out of play, so his tactics were to keep the ball out of play as much as possible! That seems to be borne out in the stats in the BBC article above that has a special section on him.

[Sparkle]

19 hours ago, WestKentRam said:

Yesterday from 70 mins the ball was in play a lower % of the time than that, that I find extremely frustrating when we are chasing games but I suppose that is the whole idea as it shows on the players too.

60 mins of ball in play time would make sense. Teams under the cosh will still go down with 'injuries' to try and break the momentum of the opposition, and I'm sure other tactics would emerge. Would be interesting to watch a trial game of this though.

If it’s 60 mins of actual play then I want a third of my money back because I pay to watch 90 mins minimum of actual football - players can be paid a third less as well 

[alram]

11 hours ago, ilkleyram said:

I’ve seen the argument before that you have to reduce the length of matches if you introduce more accurate timekeeping, but why?

Rugby (both codes) is a much more physical game than football and they didn’t reduce matches from 80 minutes when they introduced the ability for referees to stop the clock.  We have more subs than ever before - you can alter half the outfield team if you want - better pitches, medical staff, kit including footballs, training, dietary advice and all the rest of it, why can’t they play a full 90 minutes?  If they want to stop the ref from extending the time they’re on the pitch then they should stop all the play acting and nonsense that goes on in the name of ‘professionalism’. Does my head in.

As a starting point the football authorities and referees have to do something. I thought the world cup might be the start but seemingly no one has the courage to take it further 

because if sean dyche and neil warnock rock up for a game the game could last about 2 hours if you dont reduce the base time of the game

 

i dont follow rugby so i cant comment on it. 

Edited March 27, 2023 by alram

[ilkleyram]

4 hours ago, WestKentRam said:

There's a certain amount of time the ball will naturally be dead or out of play eg for throw ins, corners, free kicks, injuries, goal kicks, subs under hand control of GK etc.

In the PL the ball is in play an average of 55 mins per match, so assuming that it's similar in the lower leagues 60 mins seems a starting point. Looking it up, this has been argued before...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61342349

A 90 minute stop/start game would probably be around 120 mins long.

I remember reading about Tony Pullis at Stoke and his theory was the opposition can't score if the ball is out of play, so his tactics were to keep the ball out of play as much as possible! That seems to be borne out in the stats in the BBC article above that has a special section on him.

I don't think anyone (I'm not anyway) would argue about natural breaks in play like throw ins/corners etc being part of the 90 minutes ie that the clock wouldn't stop for them.  It doesn't happen in either rugby code so far as I'm aware

What irritates, and needs to be stamped on I think, is all the time wasting that goes on around it - the kicking the ball away even if it's off the pitch, the goalie plummeting to the ground when catching the ball, the goal celebrations some of which appear to take place in the car park, the age it takes for free kicks to be taken and substituted players going off at snails pace (unless they're losing), fake head injuries/any injury, preventing quick free kicks etc etc.  Apparently it's 'professional'

There are, or used to be, some rules in place - the sub leaves by the nearest touchline, goalie has 6 seconds to get rid of the ball, substitutions are timed/or have added time on at the end - but no referee applies them consistently (or at all) nor do they ever appear to add enough time on.  We have had teams at PP time waste from the first minute this season and the ref has done nothing until the last 5 minutes.

Players can change their behaviours - Joe Wildsmith was a master at time wasting at the start of the season but clearly got a reputation with referees and he doesn't do it nearly as much now - but it has to start with the authorities and referees, and the managers and players.  The latter two won't do anything other than moan until the authorities clamp down