Time to do away with Stoppage Time?

[John L]

Time to do away with Stoppage Time? - or at least control its abuse in games?

Nearly every game I've seen, the first half usually has only 1 minute of Stoppage Time - Goals, controversial calls, PKs, multiple injuries, etc may abound, but there's only ONE minute - Nothing happens in the Second half except for a few subs, and we get 3 or 4 minutes of Stoppage Time -

Yesterday's game was atrocious - 6 minutes in the second half - That's such a blatant attempt to give Chelsea more time to tie the game -

If we're going to keep it, then there has to be strict limits on its length and only specific circumstances that put it over 3 minutes - Like a 15 minute delay in getting an injured player off the field

[Chewmylegoff]

Time to do away with Stoppage Time? - or at least control its abuse in games?

Nearly every game I've seen, the first half usually has only 1 minute of Stoppage Time - Goals, controversial calls, PKs, multiple injuries, etc may abound, but there's only ONE minute - Nothing happens in the Second half except for a few subs, and we get 3 or 4 minutes of Stoppage Time -

Yesterday's game was atrocious - 6 minutes in the second half - That's such a blatant attempt to give Chelsea more time to tie the game -

If we're going to keep it, then there has to be strict limits on its length and only specific circumstances that put it over 3 minutes - Like a 15 minute delay in getting an injured player off the field

getting rid of it is just stupid, because then one team can just waste half the game pretending to be injured.

it would be nice if they just calculated it properly though, i agree.

earlier in the season i went to QPR v Burnley. there were about seven injuries in the first half which added up to nearly 10 minutes of stoppages including three minutes alone for the burnley keeper to be stretchered off. 2 minute added on.

second half - no injuries to speak of - 2 minutes. WTF?

[Oscar]

They've got stop watches don't they, why not just stop that watch whenever the ball isn't in play? Would eliminate the wasting of time by any team as well, because there'd be no point.

[Chewmylegoff]

They've got stop watches don't they, why not just stop that watch whenever the ball isn't in play? Would eliminate the wasting of time by any team as well, because there'd be no point.

that's what they do in rugby (well not out of play, but whenever there's an injury) - it works much better.

pity the game itself is rubbish.

[Pelle...grino]

Im quite happy with the way it is.

[Cassano]

Getting rid of it would be stupid, because what if you were on a breakaway but then the game was called because when you were about to score and the 90th minute came.

[BocaFan]

Getting rid of it would be stupid, because what if you were on a breakaway but then the game was called because when you were about to score and the 90th minute came.

That's what they used to do in MLS. And, yes, it was Stupid.

[Germanshepherd]

Yesterday's game was atrocious - 6 minutes in the second half - That's such a blatant attempt to give Chelsea more time to tie the game -


There have been 2 people running over the field yesterday. The stoppage time was justified, from my point of view.

[Excape Goat]

That's what they used to do in MLS. And, yes, it was Stupid.

Yes, I agreed. It sounded so nice to have a real clock on the score board. In reality, it is better to have the ref keeping it. Really..... you know the game is finished because the players cannot do anything about it when he is 50 yards from the goal with 30 seconds left..... never mind 10 seconds!!!

[Karl K]

They've got stop watches don't they, why not just stop that watch whenever the ball isn't in play? Would eliminate the wasting of time by any team as well, because there'd be no point.

My solution is this:

A. Stop the clock ONLY for (1) injuries (2) substitutions and (3) fan interference like we saw yesterday.

B. Play ends at a point AFTER 90 minutes (or 45 in the case of the half), always IN the run of play, when, in the judgment of the referee, a goal scoring opportunity is not "imminent."

(By the way, a "non-imminent" situation in the run of play is when virtually EVERY competent ref ends games anyway as a matter of practice. Almost all think, "Well, I wanted to add 2 minutes, it's slightly past that, but they've got the ball I'll give 'em one more run at it." )

Examples:

--At 89:50, team wins ball in the center circle, plays the ball over the top, to onrushing striker, who shoots, and save for a corner kick. At 90:05, Corner kick is taken, ball is cleared up to center circle, whistle blows, game over.

--At 89:50, team wins ball in the center circle, plays the ball over the top, to onrushing striker, who shoots, and save for a corner kick. At 90:05, Corner kick is taken, ball is cleared but to attacker outside of box, shot taken, miss, out for goal kick. Goal kick, whistle blows, game over.

-At 89:45, team is in attacking third, controls possession for 30 seconds, then loses ball on tackle, ball is possessed by opposition defense in their third , whistle blows, game over.

-At 89:45, team is in attacking third, controls possession for 30 seconds, then loses ball on tackle, ball is sent up field to marked striker. He flicks on ball to teammate, who turns, passes back, whistle blows, game over.

--At 90:15, after having controlled ball in the final third for the past 20 seconds, ball is crossed, player is fouled in box. PK. PK Converted. Ball gets kicked off, whistle blows, game over.

--At 90:15, after having controlled ball in the final third for the past 20 seconds, ball is crossed, deflected for corner. Corner taken, another deflection, another corner. Corner taken, another deflection, another corner. Now at 91:00. Corner taken, grabbed by keeper, punted out, whistle blows, game over.

--At 90:15, after having controlled ball in the final third for the past 20 seconds, player is fouled, for close in free kick. Ball goes into box, cleared bye defense, but out to touch in final third for throw by attacker. Attacker gets the ball in, it is held, held, back to thrower for cross. Cross in, rattles, cleared up field by defense, whistle blows, game over.

With this approach, virtually all games would end in the 91st minute, and the rest in the 92nd, but at a point where no team would think it was somehow "robbed" of a chance to score, in the waning moments of the game, and cheated by a blaring horn.

[RichardL]

They've got stop watches don't they, why not just stop that watch whenever the ball isn't in play? Would eliminate the wasting of time by any team as well, because there'd be no point.
...because the ball is out of play for about 1/2 an hour in every game. It'd only work if you also changed the game to last 60 minutes rather than 90.

As for carrying on when time is up if a goal is possible......wtf? If the time is up, it's up. Blow the whistle. The game has ended. Clive thomas did that in the 1978 world cup, and some team 'scored' about 2 seconds after the whistle - then moaned that the goal should have been given. Why? The game is over.

[KUNDRY]

Simply stop the clock when a player is injured. Anything that gives refs less power is good.

[Gioca]

Simply stop the clock when a player is injured. Anything that gives refs less power is good.

I tried to do that in my referreeing days. It leaves the door open to "technical problems" like forgetting to restart your stopwatch. It's better just to add some time.

[Oscar]

because the ball is out of play for about 1/2 an hour in every game

If the ball is out of play that long in the matches you watch, then that's all the more reason to stop the time, because there's some criminal wasting of time going on. :eek:

[aloisius]

It’s not time wasting it’s simply the time that passes while the ball is not in play.

That means the time between the moment the ball goes out of play and the moment when the throw-in is taken, the time between a foul and the restart etc. That on average takes up 30 minutes of a game. Pure play is about 60 mins.

[lanman]

If the ball is out of play that long in the matches you watch, then that's all the more reason to stop the time, because there's some criminal wasting of time going on. :eek:

It's the same everywhere - I would be surprised if games anywhere regularly saw more than 65 minutes of action. I remember when Vialli came over to England and commented that one of the hardest things he found about games over here was that there was typically 60-65 minutes action in a game whereas in Italy it was around the 55 minute mark

[BocaFan]

Nearly every game I've seen, the first half usually has only 1 minute of Stoppage Time - Goals, controversial calls, PKs, multiple injuries, etc may abound, but there's only ONE minute - Nothing happens in the Second half except for a few subs, and we get 3 or 4 minutes of Stoppage Time -


If the average game has 5 subs, at 30 seconds each, that's 2.5 minutes. So that explains the difference b/w the usual 1 minute added time in first-half versus 3 to 4 minutes added in the second-half.

[Oscar]

It's the same everywhere - I would be surprised if games anywhere regularly saw more than 65 minutes of action

Again, isn't this all the more reason to stop the time when the ball is out of play?

Getting the ball back into play from the moment it's gone out, shouldn't have to last more than 10 seconds tops (I think there may even be a rule that it may only last so many seconds, meh let somebody else look it up :D ) when it does that it requires a half hour every game (1/3 of the whole match, yowza) something isn't right.

edit: in terms of injuries; a big number of the 'injuries' probably wouldn't take place anymore because it wouldn't be killing any time like it does now. And if somebody is really injured, why should the teams in that game play less time, than teams in a match that didn't have lenghty injury treatments?