Injury Time

[eez-eh]

How do the “ball in play” folks propose this works in the lower reaches of the game? There’s no fourth official at these games (sometimes not even linesmen if you go down far enough) so who keeps track of the clock if the ref isn’t doing it? How do fans know how long is left when there’s no clock in the ground?

[craigkillie]

23 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

How do the “ball in play” folks propose this works in the lower reaches of the game? There’s no fourth official at these games (sometimes not even linesmen if you go down far enough) so who keeps track of the clock if the ref isn’t doing it? How do fans know how long is left when there’s no clock in the ground?

They don't care about the lower reaches of the game.

[craigkillie]

33 minutes ago, Hawkeye the Gnu said:

Telt………….

If they all left the field in one quick synchronised movement there probably wouldn't be a need for any stoppage time, full stop. The stoppage time exists because things like substitutions take time. However, a single stoppage where both teams have two subs each is going to be much faster than four separate stoppages.

[Bobby_F]

3 hours 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.

That's clearly not what I said.

And clearly some things have to be subjective.

Things like the ball being over the line, offside, and how long the game should last aren't though.

They do this in the NFL, NBA and NHL and if anything it seems to add to the excitement in close games.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Bobby_F

[Bobby_F]

2 hours ago, Aim Here said:

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.

Yeah, that's kinda what I was saying, and vice versa if the ref decides to stop the game early with the losing team attacking.

Just don't understand why some people don't seem to want clarity in an area that can be made clear.

[Bobby_F]

1 hour ago, eez-eh said:

How do the “ball in play” folks propose this works in the lower reaches of the game? There’s no fourth official at these games (sometimes not even linesmen if you go down far enough) so who keeps track of the clock if the ref isn’t doing it? How do fans know how long is left when there’s no clock in the ground?

That's correct.  My Paisley and District Sunday League career mainly had no linesmen.

We did still play the offside rule though.

The ref mainly called offsides.

I'd imagine the ref would hit stop/restart on his watch.

Not as good as a stadium clock, but the basic idea that all games should be of the same length would still stand.

[flyingscot]

1 hour ago, eez-eh said:

How do the “ball in play” folks propose this works in the lower reaches of the game? There’s no fourth official at these games (sometimes not even linesmen if you go down far enough) so who keeps track of the clock if the ref isn’t doing it? How do fans know how long is left when there’s no clock in the ground?

At the lower reaches of the game fans currently don't know injury time either. 

[eez-eh]

30 minutes ago, Bobby_F said:

That's correct.  My Paisley and District Sunday League career mainly had no linesmen.

We did still play the offside rule though.

The ref mainly called offsides.

I'd imagine the ref would hit stop/restart on his watch.

Not as good as a stadium clock, but the basic idea that all games should be of the same length would still stand.

Don’t you think that the referee constantly stopping and starting their watch is going to be a bit distracting for them?

Edited February 8, 2023 by eez-eh

[Doonhame Buddie]

2 hours ago, eez-eh said:

How do the “ball in play” folks propose this works in the lower reaches of the game? There’s no fourth official at these games (sometimes not even linesmen if you go down far enough) so who keeps track of the clock if the ref isn’t doing it? How do fans know how long is left when there’s no clock in the ground?

It will work the same way VAR works in those lower reaches. 

[eez-eh]

3 minutes ago, Doonhame Buddie said:

It will work the same way VAR works in those lower reaches. 

So your proposal is to have different ways of timekeeping depending on what level of football is being played.

Sounds absolutely rubbish to me.

Edited February 8, 2023 by eez-eh

[Staggie52]

2 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

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. 

If we get about 55 minutes now, and we’re looking for the new scheme to produce 60 minutes in about the same time we seem to gain 5 minutes, which is roughly what’s added to a game anyway. 
of course if you’re looking to waste some of that 5 minutes you head to the corner flag every opportunity you get, or pass it amongst yourselves, back to the keeper who hold the ball at his feet waits until someone come then picks it up etc. Time can be wasted while the ball’s in play and there’s no rules against it.

 

[Bobby_F]

45 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

Don’t you think that the referee constantly stopping and starting their watch is going to be a bit distracting for them?

They usually blow their whistle to stop and then blow to restart so it's a press of a button at the same time - hmmm fair point !

Seriously though I'm pretty sure in the amateur game refs literally do stop/restart their watches for subs and injuries rather than just randomly guess how long might be due to be added.

Would be interesting to know how the 4th officials decide how long to add.  I'm sure they must have some guidelines. 

[Bobby_F]

22 minutes ago, Staggie52 said:

If we get about 55 minutes now, and we’re looking for the new scheme to produce 60 minutes in about the same time we seem to gain 5 minutes, which is roughly what’s added to a game anyway. 
of course if you’re looking to waste some of that 5 minutes you head to the corner flag every opportunity you get, or pass it amongst yourselves, back to the keeper who hold the ball at his feet waits until someone come then picks it up etc. Time can be wasted while the ball’s in play and there’s no rules against it.

 

And nor should there be, but that's missing the point.

And at the moment, in those 5 minutes you could - in theory - make 2 separate subs; take 2 minutes to take a couple of throw ins and a goal kick.

That's often how a lot of added time is spent - some refs add extra, some don't.

All I'm suggesting is a way that makes this clear and consistent, and it's really not that difficult to implement as many sports have it.

[Bobby_F]

43 minutes ago, Bobby_F said:

They usually blow their whistle to stop and then blow to restart so it's a press of a button at the same time - hmmm fair point !

Seriously though I'm pretty sure in the amateur game refs literally do stop/restart their watches for subs and injuries rather than just randomly guess how long might be due to be added.

Would be interesting to know how the 4th officials decide how long to add.  I'm sure they must have some guidelines. 

Decided Google must know - and turns out the 4th official has nothing to do with it. Ref does all the time keeping and then tells the 4th official the minimum amount, and he holds up the board.

Every day is a school day.

Some other interesting stats on that page.

18 minutes on average of each game taken up waiting for throw ins and free kicks to be taken.

https://www.football-stadiums.co.uk/articles/injury-time/

[VincentGuerin]

18 minutes ago, Bobby_F said:

18 minutes on average of each game taken up waiting for throw ins and free kicks to be taken.

 

This is part of the game and is absolutely no problem whatsoever.

[Bairnardo]

7 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

This is part of the game and is absolutely no problem whatsoever.

The only timing change I would entertain would be a referee enforced set time for GKs, throw ins etc. Rip the pish and it goes the other way, or booking, whatever flavour you like best. This sort of rule already notionally exists for 6 seconds ball in hand for keepers. 

I honestly have no fuckkng idea why anyone wants to pick an arbitrary time and force it regardless of how long the match takes to complete, rather than keep the game time manageable, and keep the football free flowing by minimising time wasting via currently available means.

 

I mean who genuinely thinks 2 hours to complete 60 mins play time, because players have carte blanche to f**k about to their hearts content because it all gets added on at the end, will result.in a better product

[VincentGuerin]

32 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

The only timing change I would entertain would be a referee enforced set time for GKs, throw ins etc. Rip the pish and it goes the other way, or booking, whatever flavour you like best. This sort of rule already notionally exists for 6 seconds ball in hand for keepers. 

I honestly have no fuckkng idea why anyone wants to pick an arbitrary time and force it regardless of how long the match takes to complete, rather than keep the game time manageable, and keep the football free flowing by minimising time wasting via currently available means.

 

I mean who genuinely thinks 2 hours to complete 60 mins play time, because players have carte blanche to f**k about to their hearts content because it all gets added on at the end, will result.in a better product

I don't think a set time is really necessary. The six-second rule is never enforced, and a time limit for throw-ins wouldn't be either. So why bother?

The rules as they are are fine, refs just need to be strong and consistent on time-wasting, and do it right from the start of the game.

[Richey Edwards]

Injury time was devised in the early 20th century to help reduce fossil fuel consumption. There is no real need for it these days.

[Doonhame Buddie]

3 hours ago, eez-eh said:

So your proposal is to have different ways of timekeeping depending on what level of football is being played.

Sounds absolutely rubbish to me.

I haven’t said ‘play for 90 minutes’ should only apply to a particular level of the game, but…..

We already have different ways of adjudicating questionable decisions, different numbers of match officials, different skill levels, different attendances.  

I fully agree players in the lower reaches might not have the levels of fitness to sustain a full 90 minutes but I doubt the same amount of time wasting and play acting is evident in those leagues. 

[Monkey Tennis]

5 hours ago, Staggie52 said:

pass it amongst yourselves, back to the keeper who hold the ball at his feet waits until someone come then picks it up 

 

Yes conceding an indirect free kick in your own box would be an excellent way to close out a tight match.