Reply With QuoteIt's also illogical for teams to score in the 95th minute when it's a game of 90 mins.
And the concept of scoring in the "45th minute + 3" when there is a 48th minute in the second half is rather silly.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
I reckon so. Last week there were 2 games that went into 112 minutes - that's almost a quarter of a 90 minute game. Only 2 matches had less that 10 minutes. Very soon the 90 minute mark will be meaningless, and players will actually waste more time. Sides will also either waste time or not waste time later on in games depending on how the game is going. Across all games, the extra time was always greeted with cheers/boos and the tension mounted, and the crowd often became vocal for the 1st time in a game. I can see that stopping. Also, people will drift away at 90 minutes. 'I'll hang around for 4 or 5 but not 10 or 12. Bad, bad decision..
It's also illogical for teams to score in the 95th minute when it's a game of 90 mins.
And the concept of scoring in the "45th minute + 3" when there is a 48th minute in the second half is rather silly.
There's always been time after 90 minutes for as long as I've been watching football.Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie
And 45+3 is there to distinguish it from 48, and gives more information than just 45.
I'm not defending huge amounts of injury time, but both of these things are fine.
3 options
- add on the right amount of time
- stop the clock
- accept that football matches are actually about 50 minutes and that in certain circumstances teams take the absolute piss and can manipulate results quite easily.
I am glad they are doing something. I would like to see clock stopped at subs or any stoppage over 30 seconds say and get harsher on yellows for time wasting when the clock isn't stopped.
Isn't it strange how nobody has ever got cramp when their team is losing?
referees are useless - remember the 6 second rule ? Players have been taking the **** and they'll find a way to do it again. For example, you are winning away from home. 8/9 minutes come up on board. You get cramp, take time with throw ins, etc, etc. You know the referee won't caution you because he'll just add time onto added time, but the [home] crowd will become less animated as the time drags on, and the frenzied 'last couple of minutes' never happens..
Stop the clock like in other sports might be a viable alternative.
The problem with added time is that as soon as it starts the game changes completely- the team winning gets deeper and deeper and the game gets manic.
I'm generally in favour of the new approach to added time. I agree with Warnock for once.
But it is interesting how often referees have blown up exactly at the end of the specified added time period, regardless of how much additional time has been lost through late subs, goal celebrations and traditional time wasting. I think the ref gave an extra minute at Elland Road following their equaliser but that wasn't normal in the first round of league games.
The clock should stop when the action does. For once, American Football is more logical in that respect.
No. It just shows how lax refs have been in the past to eradicate it from games. And still the greatest waste of time has not been addressed viz the 60-75 secs refs take for a free kick outside the box.
StT.
<><
As per my 2nd post. There are perfectly good rules and measures in place already.
Stopping the clock is so obvious and easy to do, and if a Warnock team is taking the piss, keep it stopped an extra 10 seconds when they are deliberately time wasting, people will soon get the message.
The rules have changed get on with it! (everyone not you Eric)
I’ve never heard a good reason why the clock isn’t stopped so it just seems odd to me as it’s the most logical thing to do
If u stopped the clock every time the ball went dead the game would go on for at least 125/20 minutes and the players would cramp up.
Not really. The clock would be stopped in uniform with the time that refs effectively currently use as a timer in order to add on for injuries and time-wasting. Dead ball situations such as throw-ins, corners and goal kicks can be ignored as they are now. At present, added time can be more than the stipulated duration announced just before the 90th minute is supposedly up - as more injuries and time-wasting can take place thereafter.
The amount of added time will drop as players realise time wasting is pointless
Isn’t it only time that should have been added in previous seasons anyway through blatant time wasting? It’s just that specific time wasting has been highlighted.
I’ve always felt that we concede far more last minute goals than anyone else. But that’s probably just my pessimistic outlook following the city!
A tricky one for our minibus driver back to the Butchers in Rhiwbina!
How long does he have to wait ....
I'm sure our organisers will sort it out!
I always believed the reason against stopping the clock which seems the best option to me is that the professional top level game had to be the same as those played at Poncanna, but since there is no VAR or goal line technology at recretional pitches I guess that rational has gone.
For once Rugby has got it right, let the ref just stop the clock
It’s ages since I went to a live rugby game, so I don’t know if those in the ground know exactly how much time there is to go like the TV audience does - if they don’t, it would be easy enough to do so. I’ve been banging on about how you never saw the advertised ninety overs in a day in the Ashes. That’s what happens in football, games never last anything like ninety minutes and if the new interpretation means we see closer to ninety minutes of actual football, then I’m in favour of it- hopefully, teams will realise all of the time wasting (game management they call it these days) is not working and the amount of added time may start to return to how it was years ago.
Still think that rugby’s got it right though.
The ball was in play for an average of 55 minutes in the Premier league matches last season. Anything that gives better value to the paying public is a win-win for me.
It's comparable to the cricket and a full 90 overs not being bowled in a day during the Tests. The public are being short-changed.
I don’t really care about rugby but I've always thought football has been lagging behind with their tech. The use of the stop clock, mic'd up refs, TMO (VAR), concussion subs and sin bins. The latter would be quite controversial but I would be open to sin bins being introduced for blatant diving proven by VAR.
Saying that though there is something magic and exciting about the ambiguous injury time if you're last gasp defending or searching for a goal. But maybe its time to move on?
I've always thought sin bins for a cynical foul (tug back etc) would improve close games. I hate the way attacking play is deliberately broken up and that action pretty much goes unpunished (unless a yellow card with 3 mins to go counts as a punishment).
I’d be keen on this too. The tactical foul is very annoying if on the other side. I recall Bale vs USA in the dying moments of that World Cup game getting deliberately taken out.
Also another factor to think about is these rules do seem to benefit the better teams which could lead to less smaller teams causing upsets. The ‘time management’ seems essential if you're playing against superior opposition and within a shout of a result.
Oops. Apologies. Didn't read your second post.
StT.
<><
Posting Permissions
