Injury Time

[velo army]

51 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Agree with this, but can honestly see 60 minutes' play becoming what's required and timed by the 2030 World Cup. 

Including half time, matches will generally take well over 2 hours to complete.

5 day test matches, just to be sure like.

[Doonhame Buddie]

Absolutely right. Take time keeping out of the referee’s hands and have 90 minutes of “in play” football.  Some of the time wasting stuff is beyond horrible - you know who you are. 

[1GregStewart]

12 minutes ago, Doonhame Buddie said:

Absolutely right. Take time keeping out of the referee’s hands and have 90 minutes of “in play” football.  Some of the time wasting stuff is beyond horrible - you know who you are. 

Yes, every team.

[velo army]

16 minutes ago, Doonhame Buddie said:

Absolutely right. Take time keeping out of the referee’s hands and have 90 minutes of “in play” football.  Some of the time wasting stuff is beyond horrible - you know who you are. 

There hasn't been a game in the history of football that's had 90 minutes of play. Behave.

[Doonhame Buddie]

23 minutes ago, velo army said:

There hasn't been a game in the history of football that's had 90 minutes of play. Behave.

What’s your point?  Do you think it’s a good idea that a football game lasts somewhere between 50 and 70 minutes?  

[velo army]

38 minutes ago, Doonhame Buddie said:

What’s your point?  Do you think it’s a good idea that a football game lasts somewhere between 50 and 70 minutes?  

You said that a game should have 90mins of in game play. Nobody mentioned 50 or 70.

I reiterate. Behave.

[AJF]

Aye, let’s not turn this into NFL style matches where the clocks stop and the matches last 3 hours.

[lennyzer0]

21 hours ago, FreedomFarter said:

Livi v Killie had 6 minutes of second half added time last Saturday. That's the first match I've been at post-WC that's had more than the previously "accepted" upper limit of 4 minutes. So I don't think there's been much movement on this other than a bit less spectator outrage if more than 4 minutes are added. Officials probably were given more leeway by the WC example but don't seem to have wanted to use it. They've largely just stuck with the pre-WC norm.

5 minutes at HT and 7 at fulltime in the Hearts - Utd game on Saturday.

Which seemed fair enough, both because it gave Stephen Humphreys time to score goal of the season, and because of the time wasting by first Utd when they were 1-0 up (the old guy who sits behind me insisted on counting out loud how long it took for every Utd goal kick from picking up the ball to kicking it out - 29 seconds being the record) and then, to an only slightly less extent, by us once we were 2-1 up.

[Pete the Jakey]

48 minutes ago, AJF said:

Aye, let’s not turn this into NFL style matches where the clocks stop and the matches last 3 hours.

Agreed, couldn't abide that.

11 hours ago, velo army said:

5 day test matches, just to be sure like.

I reckon the recent cup match Hamilton Accies vs Ross County would still have ended 0-0 after 5 days.

8 minutes ago, lennyzer0 said:

5 minutes at HT and 7 at fulltime in the Hearts - Utd game on Saturday.

Which seemed fair enough, both because it gave Stephen Humphreys time to score goal of the season, and because of the time wasting by first Utd when they were 1-0 up (the old guy who sits behind me insisted on counting out loud how long it took for every Utd goal kick from picking up the ball to kicking it out - 29 seconds being the record) and then, to an only slightly less extent, by us once we were 2-1 up.

So from what's been said it seems some refs are more judicious with the added time than others.  Maybe the SFA should send a memo so they are all on the same script.

[Empty It]

11 hours ago, velo army said:

There hasn't been a game in the history of football that's had 90 minutes of play. Behave.

Should have one weekend that all the matches last for 90 minutes of ball in play, how utterly shite it would be would soon stop this argument.

[Pete the Jakey]

18 minutes ago, Empty It said:

Should have one weekend that all the matches last for 90 minutes of ball in play, how utterly shite it would be would soon stop this argument.

That would definitely be a 2 pie day.

[Doonhame Buddie]

11 hours ago, velo army said:

You said that a game should have 90mins of in game play. Nobody mentioned 50 or 70.

I reiterate. Behave.

Now I’ve got it. 70 minutes playing time is too short, 90 is too long. 80 minutes it is then if it keeps you happy. 

[Molotov]

4 minutes ago, Doonhame Buddie said:

Now I’ve got it. 70 minutes playing time is too short, 90 is too long. 80 minutes it is then if it keeps you happy. 

I thought I recently read that the average time in play at SPL/EPL level was 55minutes. Therefore 80 is way too long. 

[Bobby_F]

14 hours ago, Doonhame Buddie said:

Absolutely right. Take time keeping out of the referee’s hands and have 90 minutes of “in play” football.  Some of the time wasting stuff is beyond horrible - you know who you are. 

Taking time keeping out of the referees hand - absolutely!

But 60 minutes of in-play equates to an average 90 minute game.

I've been saying this for years - solves several problem, and doesn't really introduce any - at least not ones that aren't easily surmountable.

[Bobby_F]

3 hours ago, Pete the Jakey said:

Agreed, couldn't abide that.

I reckon the recent cup match Hamilton Accies vs Ross County would still have ended 0-0 after 5 days.

So from what's been said it seems some refs are more judicious with the added time than others.  Maybe the SFA should send a memo so they are all on the same script.

A lot of the time it's down to the current score.

Sometimes if there should be 5 or 6, but one team is winning 4-0, they put up 1 or 2 minutes as it's really not going to impact the game.

If there's just a goal in it though, that's where it really matters.

I'm sure everyone just looks at incidents that involve their own teams, but away to RC (3-2) down and at home to Hibs on Saturday (1-0) down; 3 minutes was added in both games, in both games ref warned the winning team about time wasting, and in both games they stopped before the full 3 minutes was played - with Saints in possession.

Just after the RC game I mentioned, Saints at home to Saintees, Saints 2-1 up - ref gives 5 minutes - which seemed generous - Saintees score equaliser in 97th minute.

If there's a big clock that we can all see, then it least it would stop my paranoia!

I'm not normally a fan of learning from US Sports, but they way the clock works in NFL, NBA and the NHL gives clarity to fans and players - AND adds excitement.

[Bairnardo]

Thought id posted on this lastnight....

 

I had a moan about this during the WC, specifically that I don't want to see it come into our game. 

 

f**k sitting in the freezing cauld and rain in Scottish winter for an additional 15 to 20 minutes, when it's already within the scope of the referee to cut down on timewasting. Why would you simply ignore a goalie taking 90 seconds to take a GK and add it on at the end when you can simply keep the pace of the game and therefore the viewer experience going by telling him to move his fucking arse or he's booked?

Absolutely stupid way to handle th situation. 

 

The obvious answer here is speed the players up, not elongate the match day. 

 

 

 

 

[Charles Stiles]

12 minutes ago, Bobby_F said:

A lot of the time it's down to the current score.

Sometimes if there should be 5 or 6, but one team is winning 4-0, they put up 1 or 2 minutes as it's really not going to impact the game.

If there's just a goal in it though, that's where it really matters.

I totally disagree with this. Goal difference is important in league football so the ref should just play the appropriate time. 

[Squonk]

I disagree that rigidly applying the full amount of added time would be detrimental to the game.

When the game was first played, we didn't have players wasting time by theatrically throwing themselves to the ground, feigning injury, spinning across the turf at a rate of revolutions that would aggravate any genuine injury, if they had one.

There wasn't even such as thing as a substitute in football until 1965, but nowadays, the use of substitutions is a recognised time-wasting tactic employed by managers, who are only too aware that match officials rarely apply the appropriate amount of added time at the end of a match.

And therein lies the problem. If players and managers realised that it was futile to waste time because that time would simply be added on at the end, every single time, worldwide, they'd eventually stop wasting time.

Remember when FIFA eradicated kicking or throwing the ball away following the award of a free kick? It took a little time for the players to learn, but they did in the end (before the fukkwits at FIFA allowed it to creep back in again via match officials not enforcing it!). 

Short term pain for long term gain should also be accepted in tackling the rugby scrums that take place in the penalty box during the taking of a corner or other set piece. A rake of penalties and yellow and red cards would soon have the desired effect, but it has to be uniformly applied by match officials worldwide. 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Squonk

[The Golden God]

Firstly I hate the term “ball in play time” more than I hate xG, and I heard about it for the first time on this thread. 
 

Secondly, isn’t the varying amount of it from game to game what makes football interesting? Some times you’ll get a 3-3 cracker with red cards and penalties and controversy, some times you’ll get boring 1-0s where there is a goal after 20 minutes and the winning team sticks 10 men behind the ball for the rest of the game. Why should we have a minimum time of “ball in play”?. What’s next, the game can’t end till there’s been 3 goals? Or both teams have to get at least 1 booking? 
 

Time wasting is obviously a problem but introducing radical new rules isn’t the way to solve it, have refs enforce the current rules properly, bookings for any clear time wasting at any point, it would soon stop it when a team has 6 guys booked after an hour at a tough away game. 

[Bobby_F]

2 hours ago, Charles Stiles said:

I totally disagree with this. Goal difference is important in league football so the ref should just play the appropriate time. 

I agree with you, I'm just saying that as officials don't think it's going to impact the game they are refereeing they do this.

You've even heard commentators saying "4th officials doing them a favour there" when referring to a team 6-0 down when 1 minute gets shown.