Mr Kettle caused a little steam to be let off yesterday....

[RobM]

"Football should just be 30 minutes per half with the clock stopped every time there is a stoppage of some sort or the ball goes out of play."

Yes, I agree with this, it would stop time-wasting at goal kicks, for example.

"The whistle goes at the next stoppage after 30 minutes is up."
No. It could happen that a defender deliberately handles the ball on the goal line to prevent a winning goal - but the match has ended before the penalty can be taken.

 

[AndyT]

"The whistle goes at the next stoppage after 30 minutes is up."
No. It could happen that a defender deliberately handles the ball on the goal line to prevent a winning goal - but the match has ended before the penalty can be taken.

Good point, Rob.

Maybe tweak to read "As soon as the ball goes out of play"

 

[londonblue]

Football should just be 30 minutes per half with the clock stopped every time there is a stoppage of some sort or the ball goes out of play.

The whistle goes at the next stoppage after 30 minutes is up.

But that's pretty much what we have now. Football is a 60 minute game played over 90 minutes. The only difference is that we don't have to keep stopping the clock.

 

[AndyT]

Which is my point. Why have it all randomly added on, when there's an easy system to use. Works in other sports.

Think the ball in play average is around 25 minutes per half, so 30 minutes would give us extra value.

It would eliminate time-wasting overnight and the 4th official would just be the official time-keeper and maybe have his timing device linked to the stadium clock, so we can all see how long is left.

 

[londonblue]

Which is my point. Why have it all randomly added on, when there's an easy system to use. Works in other sports.

Think the ball in play average is around 25 minutes per half, so 30 minutes would give us extra value.

It would eliminate time-wasting overnight and the 4th official would just be the official time-keeper and maybe have his timing device linked to the stadium clock, so we can all see how long is left.

It's not random. It wouldn't eliminate time wasting because most of that time is added back. Players would continue to do the same because what they really want to do is break up play. That will still be possible.

 

[AndyT]

Is it though.

There's plenty of cases where time is wasted in the time added on period and matches still finish as soon as the time added on originally is completed.

There was a game in La Liga the other night, where the referee didn't add any time on at all in the second half, despite there being several substitutions and three goals, plus a sending off.

 

[londonblue]

Is it though.

There's plenty of cases where time is wasted in the time added on period and matches still finish as soon as the time added on originally is completed.

There was a game in La Liga the other night, where the referee didn't add any time on at all in the second half, despite there being several substitutions and three goals, plus a sending off.

Are you a referee? I'm not, so I don't actually know what the rule about added time is. If you are, then I bow to your better knowledge. However, even if you are right, all that means is that the ref got it wrong, not that the laws need to change.

 

[AndyT]

No mate, I'm not a referee.

It's just an idea to make time-keeping in matches a bit more simpler and take that role out of the hands of the referee on the pitch.

It won't happen, as it would be too big a leap from tradition, but it would make the process easier if it was. It works in other team sports where there are stoppages and the clock stops for these.

 

[londonblue]

No mate, I'm not a referee.

It's just an idea to make time-keeping in matches a bit more simpler and take that role out of the hands of the referee on the pitch.

It won't happen, as it would be too big a leap from tradition, but it would make the process easier if it was. It works in other team sports where there are stoppages and the clock stops for these.

In your opinion. In my opinion it's pretty simple as it is. After all, how can stopping the clock make things less complicated than just keeping it running?

 

[AndyT]

It was just a thought I had to avoid the Trevor Kettle scenario again, but it sounds like all referees keep their timing accurate, so there's no need to change it from what we have now, I guess.

I think, though, it would give a better balance to the games, knowing 'ball in play' timings are uniformed throughout the leagues.

 

[southendkid]

In your opinion. In my opinion it's pretty simple as it is. After all, how can stopping the clock make things less complicated than just keeping it running?

Because stopping the clock means you know that the ball has been in play for 30 minutes exactly, with our current system we're just guessing, and that guess is always wrong. The idea that refs know exactly how much time the ball has been in play is rubbish, with our current system the actual match time varies wildly from game to game. Someone looked at the 2010/11 premier league season and found some matches finished with only 44 minutes of the ball being in play, whilst there were other matches where the ball was in play for 66 minutes. When there can be up to a 22 minute difference between the true length of a match something is wrong.

http://www.soccermetrics.net/team-performance/effective-time-in-football

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

That time is not added, despite what it's called. It replaces time that has been lost. Therefore a half lasts 45 minutes of play except to complete a penalty kick. This came about in 1891 or so when a penalty was awarded in a match and a defender deliberately kicked the ball out of the ground. By the time it had been retrieved, the match finished.

This is genius defending.

 

[OldBlueLady]

This is genius defending.

And probably where the much maligned Luke Prosser gained his influence from! :winking: