Injury Time

[Clangers]

1 hour ago, Ranaldo Bairn said:

Mods, I must protest.

In all of civilisation, the game of kings is known correctly as "Headers and Volleys".

I have to admit I feel dirty now! But I have to give a greenie to a Bairn and second his protest!

[VincentGuerin]

3 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I'd no idea that Volleys and Headers had so many laws.

 

2 hours ago, Ranaldo Bairn said:

Mods, I must protest.

In all of civilisation, the game of kings is known correctly as "Headers and Volleys".

You're both perverts.

It's 'heeeeidy volley'.

Edited February 9, 2023 by VincentGuerin

[Ranaldo Bairn]

1 hour ago, Clangers said:

I have to admit I feel dirty now! But I have to give a greenie to a Bairn and second his protest!

[RawB93]

6 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

 

You're both perverts.

It's 'heeeeidy volley'.

Heads and V’s. 

[Charles Stiles]

17 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

if it’s a “deliberate trick” to circumvent the law then It’s covered under law 12 as Unsporting behaviour 

Didn't realise that was still a thing. It must have last been used in 1976. The amount of free kicks would be cranked up to 11 if they bothered to apply it these days. Well maybe only 10 now that Porteous has left.

[craigkillie]

13 minutes ago, Charles Stiles said:

Didn't realise that was still a thing. It must have last been used in 1976. The amount of free kicks would be cranked up to 11 if they bothered to apply it these days. Well maybe only 10 now that Porteous has left.

The rule is applied, it's just that this scenario doesn't actually ever happen. There are not vast swathes of players across the country flicking the ball up and heading it to their keeper to catch. They just pass it to the keeper and the keeper boots it up the park.

[Charles Stiles]

3 hours ago, craigkillie said:

The rule is applied, it's just that this scenario doesn't actually ever happen. There are not vast swathes of players across the country flicking the ball up and heading it to their keeper to catch. They just pass it to the keeper and the keeper boots it up the park.

Good grief.

[Pete the Jakey]

Case in point tonight, Accies vs Hearts:

8 second half subs, and a 2 minute pause to clear a smoke bomb after the second goal. Let’s see how much added time is played.

[Pete the Jakey]

5 minutes 3 seconds. Make of that what you will. 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

On 10/02/2023 at 21:29, Pete the Jakey said:

Case in point tonight, Accies vs Hearts:

8 second half subs, and a 2 minute pause to clear a smoke bomb after the second goal. Let’s see how much added time is played.

Technically Hearts made two double substitutions so it would only be 6 substitution events, one goal(with a flare) and no red cards

five minutes seems about right 

 

[eez-eh]

On 10/02/2023 at 21:29, Pete the Jakey said:

Case in point tonight, Accies vs Hearts:

8 second half subs, and a 2 minute pause to clear a smoke bomb after the second goal. Let’s see how much added time is played.

 

On 10/02/2023 at 21:50, Pete the Jakey said:

5 minutes 3 seconds. Make of that what you will. 

What I make of it - “who cares?”

[coprolite]

Aside from there not really being much of a problem, or at least one that couldn’t be solved by consistent application of existing rules, stopping the clock would cause its own issues.

If there was no time to waste while the ball was out of play there’s no reason to hurry things along and the periods of dead time would drag. I can easily imagine a team that’s knackered taking a few minutes for a substitution or longer than they already do to take a throw in. It’s not inconceivable that end to end time could increase more than it already has. Can imagine two and a half hours in and someone’s been down with cramp for five minutes, for the fourth time, with 2:46 on the timer. f**k that. 

[Bobby_F]

23 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Aside from there not really being much of a problem, or at least one that couldn’t be solved by consistent application of existing rules, stopping the clock would cause its own issues.

If there was no time to waste while the ball was out of play there’s no reason to hurry things along and the periods of dead time would drag. I can easily imagine a team that’s knackered taking a few minutes for a substitution or longer than they already do to take a throw in. It’s not inconceivable that end to end time could increase more than it already has. Can imagine two and a half hours in and someone’s been down with cramp for five minutes, for the fourth time, with 2:46 on the timer. f**k that. 

You do I hope realise that's never going to happen?

In fact it's as likely as the 2:46s of play over 150 minutes of real time.

I realise that's an exaggeration for effect, but I'd imagine referees would still have sanctions if they thought people were taking the piss.

The difference is that the games would always have the same amount of actual play time.

[DA Baracus]

No need to stop the clock when the ball is out of play.

Think how it works now is fine and there is no reason to change it. In fact, I'd genuinely question those who want to stop the clock when the ball is out of play, as I'm not sure they're actually fans of football.

[craigkillie]

8 hours ago, eez-eh said:

 

What I make of it - “who cares?”

Apart from anything, it was 2-0 and the game was done. Surprised it was even as many as five minutes in those circumstances.

[Monkey Tennis]

8 hours ago, coprolite said:

Aside from there not really being much of a problem, or at least one that couldn’t be solved by consistent application of existing rules, stopping the clock would cause its own issues.

If there was no time to waste while the ball was out of play there’s no reason to hurry things along and the periods of dead time would drag. I can easily imagine a team that’s knackered taking a few minutes for a substitution or longer than they already do to take a throw in. It’s not inconceivable that end to end time could increase more than it already has. Can imagine two and a half hours in and someone’s been down with cramp for five minutes, for the fourth time, with 2:46 on the timer. f**k that. 

Yip, I think there would be a real danger of that.  Look at how long NFL games take.

If they introduced crap like Time-outs etc, it would completely alter the experience of going to a match, and not in a good way.  

I can see such nonsense emerging for a World Cup though.  Sponsors and suchlike might prefer that to 10-15 mins of stoppage time each half, meaning they can't prostitute themselves for almost an hour at a time.  

 

[AJF]

Semi-topical, I think we can all appreciate the below examples of time wasting that has led to increased injury time

 

[VincentGuerin]

13 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

 

If they introduced crap like Time-outs etc, it would completely alter the experience of going to a match, and not in a good way.  

 

 

This hadn't occurred to me until a mate mentioned it on Friday before the Hearts game. This stopping the clock nonsense would 100% lead to timeouts, as coaches would begin by informally using them anyway when making subs etc, and refs, who are weak and often in awe of The Fitba People, would let them away with it until they were official.

It's a very, very obvious consequence. However, the very obvious negative consequences of VAR were well pointed out before its implementation, but the sad sacks got their way, so who knows?

[Leith Green]

13 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

This hadn't occurred to me until a mate mentioned it on Friday before the Hearts game. This stopping the clock nonsense would 100% lead to timeouts, as coaches would begin by informally using them anyway when making subs etc, and refs, who are weak and often in awe of The Fitba People, would let them away with it until they were official.

It's a very, very obvious consequence. However, the very obvious negative consequences of VAR were well pointed out before its implementation, but the sad sacks got their way, so who knows?

In rugby, where they can stop the clock, world rugby did some analysis on top level matches last year and determined that there was an average 46 minutes (out of 80) of what they call dead ball time - basically because their coaches work out how to waste time whether thats in the spirit / rules of the game or not.

That sport tried to regulate time wasting and has found that it doesnt really work and they now need to change the laws annually to keep up with "clever" tactics dreamed up by coaches to kill the game. 

Look at International rugby - the game is really won in the period up to the mid 70s minute now, and its all about having possession at that point and not conceding a pen.  Its all fine and dandy if your team are at the 76 minute mark with the ball and you can kill the match until the time goes red...................but it loses the excitement of the injury time goal that we have in fitba.

[VincentGuerin]

9 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

In rugby, where they can stop the clock, world rugby did some analysis on top level matches last year and determined that there was an average 46 minutes (out of 80) of what they call dead ball time - basically because their coaches work out how to waste time whether thats in the spirit / rules of the game or not.

 

This is the issue. The people who play and coach fitba don't give a f**k whether it's good to watch or not. It's a completely different thing for them, they are just there to win and make money regardless. It's why players sign for the Old Firm, it's why players dive and hound the referee.

The more chance we give them to stop the game, the worse it will get. And there are already loads of good things designed to make the game work.

We have the passback rule, we have an offside rule that favours attackers more so than at any time in the past and to the maximum level it realistically could, we have red cards for fouls from behind, we have vastly improved pitches that favour teams actually playing fitba. The game is fine.

Added to this that refs have the power to book players for wasting time and there is and should be no problem whatsoever. Just use the cards.

One thing I'd change is extending the six second rule for keepers to ten seconds, but actually enforcing it. Six is a bit too quick when a keeper has to scan the pitch and make a decision etc, but I think ten would be reasonable. After ten seconds, give a free-kick.