Injury Time

[Bobby_F]

1 hour ago, The Golden God said:

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. 

It's hardly a radical rule - stop the clock when the ball is dead; start it when the ball is in play.

Literally any other approach leaves the officials a value judgement to make and the players and fans in the dark.

[Bobby_F]

2 hours ago, Bairnardo said:

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. 

Very good question. 

And those indeed are the current rules.

Do you think they're correctly and evenly applied?

Edited February 7, 2023 by Bobby_F

[Staggie52]

1 hour ago, Bobby_F said:

Very good question. 

And those indeed are the current rules.

Do you think they're correctly and evenly applied?

Most of these rules are subjective and dependent on the judgement of the referee. There is no absolute correct application.

[kingjoey]

4 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. 

You may disagree with this, as do I, but what @Bobby_F says is what actually happens.

[The Golden God]

1 hour ago, Bobby_F said:

It's hardly a radical rule - stop the clock when the ball is dead; start it when the ball is in play.

Literally any other approach leaves the officials a value judgement to make and the players and fans in the dark.

I’d say changing the way the game is timed is a very radical rule, given that’s it’s been the same way since the sport was invented. 

[VincentGuerin]

People arguing for 90 minutes of actual play to make up for time-wasting don't understand what time-wasting is actually for.

It's not just about the time itself; much of that is added on anyway. It's about breaking up the flow of the game and frustrating your opponents. Adding on all the time wouldn't really change that, and you'd still see players taking a minute to walk off when being subbed, and keepers taking two minutes over a goal kick when their team is a goal up.

You'd just make the game last fucking forever, to no massive benefit.

As others have pointed out, the easy solution is refs start using the tools they have to combat time-wasting. Book the keeper the first time he does it, not in the 92nd minute. Book every player who kicks the ball away (fucking rife these days). Book players for standing over a free-kick to stop opponents playing the ball quickly.

Use your fucking cards. There is absolutely no reason for us all to spend a whole day watching a game of fitba.

[ropy]

It’s not the same issue, but why do stadium clocks stop at 45 minutes in the first half and 90 in the second?

If the 4th official holds up 4 minutes why can the clock not run on to 49 minutes?

[coprolite]

10 hours ago, ropy said:

It’s not the same issue, but why do stadium clocks stop at 45 minutes in the first half and 90 in the second?

If the 4th official holds up 4 minutes why can the clock not run on to 49 minutes?

The clubs buy a set number of minutes from the clock companies at the start of the season. Adding extra on to the plan later is ridiculously expensive. 

[craigkillie]

On 06/02/2023 at 09:29, Pete the Jakey said:

One of the things I found refreshing about the World Cup was the unprecedented injury time allowance, not just at full time but at half time.  I think this caught the media off guard as it meant programming schedules were often delayed.  Personally I thought it was brilliant as it offered much more game time and therefore value to matches.  I was disappointed it doesn't seem to have carried over into domestic football.   

At the last Ross County home game on Tuesday night we played Hibs which saw a game ending injury to Kevin Nisbet as well as 7 other subs.  The injury time was 3 minutes... 

So my question is should refs across the SPFL take injury time more seriously?   Should we have a "stop the clock" rule like rugby?

The game ending injury to Kevin Nisbet happened in the first half, so I'm not sure why that would have been added on at the end. Four of the subs happened at the same time too.

[craigkillie]

20 hours ago, Squonk said:

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.

We did have time getting wasted by the fact that there were no goal nets and players would have to fetch it before the game started. For that matter, there also wouldn't have been stands or in most cases even supporters behind the goals, or ballboys, and you'd have the players going to get it themselves.

[Charles Stiles]

16 hours ago, kingjoey said:

You may disagree with this, as do I, but what @Bobby_F says is what actually happens.

I never said it didn't. I just expressed an opinion about it but thanks for your valuable input anyway.

[Bobby_F]

16 hours ago, Staggie52 said:

Most of these rules are subjective and dependent on the judgement of the referee. There is no absolute correct application.

I rest my case !

[Bobby_F]

14 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

People arguing for 90 minutes of actual play to make up for time-wasting don't understand what time-wasting is actually for.

It's not just about the time itself; much of that is added on anyway. It's about breaking up the flow of the game and frustrating your opponents. Adding on all the time wouldn't really change that, and you'd still see players taking a minute to walk off when being subbed, and keepers taking two minutes over a goal kick when their team is a goal up.

You'd just make the game last fucking forever, to no massive benefit.

As others have pointed out, the easy solution is refs start using the tools they have to combat time-wasting. Book the keeper the first time he does it, not in the 92nd minute. Book every player who kicks the ball away (fucking rife these days). Book players for standing over a free-kick to stop opponents playing the ball quickly.

Use your fucking cards. There is absolutely no reason for us all to spend a whole day watching a game of fitba.

I certainly do understand that, but part of it IS about wasting time.  And if we can remove that in a relatively simple way, why wouldn't we.

From my perspective the fewer things that are down to the subjective views of a group of officials on a given day, with a given set of trams, the better.

Make that part of the game the same for everyone - every game.

[Bobby_F]

13 hours ago, ropy said:

It’s not the same issue, but why do stadium clocks stop at 45 minutes in the first half and 90 in the second?

If the 4th official holds up 4 minutes why can the clock not run on to 49 minutes?

This was asked at the St Mirren AGM a couple of weeks ago.

And apparently it's a UEFA (or mabye FIFA?) directive.  Stadium clocks cannot show added times.

Seems bizarre, but it's out of the hands of the clubs.

Perhaps because of the very issue we're discussing - that the ref can pretty much decide how much he does/doesn't want to add.

On Saturday I think there'd have been some complaints from the Saints players and fans when, 1-0 down and in possession of the ball, when everyone in the stadium sees he's blown his whistle before the 'minimum 3 minutes' had been played.

Could you imagine that in an OF game with just a goal between the teams?

[kingjoey]

23 minutes ago, Charles Stiles said:

I never said it didn't. I just expressed an opinion about it but thanks for your valuable input anyway.

Thanks for thanking me.

[Staggie52]

56 minutes ago, Bobby_F said:

I rest my case !

If you think the fact that many rules are subjective makes a case for having 90 minutes ball in play time at every game then I suggest you think again. IMHO it would ruin the game as a spectator sport. I have no problem with officials having to make judgements as they do in the majority of sports.

[Aim Here]

1 hour ago, Bobby_F said:

This was asked at the St Mirren AGM a couple of weeks ago.

And apparently it's a UEFA (or mabye FIFA?) directive.  Stadium clocks cannot show added times.

Seems bizarre, but it's out of the hands of the clubs.

Perhaps because of the very issue we're discussing - that the ref can pretty much decide how much he does/doesn't want to add.
 

Surely because there's an increased risk of crowd trouble when the stadium clock goes over the added time limit, and the winning team's fans start demanding the game stops immediately.

[Pete the Jakey]

2 hours ago, craigkillie said:

The game ending injury to Kevin Nisbet happened in the first half, so I'm not sure why that would have been added on at the end. Four of the subs happened at the same time too.

The first half added time was 1 minute, Nisbet was on the deck for longer than that notwithstanding other stoppages such as the goal celebration.

Are you suggesting the 4 subs left the field in one perfectly synchronised movement? Have you ever been to a football match? 

 

[Nowhereman]

52 minutes ago, Staggie52 said:

If you think the fact that many rules are subjective makes a case for having 90 minutes ball in play time at every game then I suggest you think again. IMHO it would ruin the game as a spectator sport. I have no problem with officials having to make judgements as they do in the majority of sports.

I don't think anyone has suggested 90 minutes of ball in play but 60 minutes would likely mean games being roughly the length they are now and would stop time wasting at a stroke as there would be no point. 

[Hawkeye the Gnu]

17 minutes ago, Pete the Jakey said:

The first half added time was 1 minute, Nisbet was on the deck for longer than that notwithstanding other stoppages such as the goal celebration.

Are you suggesting the 4 subs left the field in one perfectly synchronised movement? Have you ever been to a football match? 

 

Telt………….