Why do we still have this nonsense? Why not just pause the official game clock whenever there's a referee stoppage for bookings, red cards, penalties and whatnot?

Imploding Turtle wrote:Why do we still have this nonsense? Why not just pause the official game clock whenever there's a referee stoppage for bookings, red cards, penalties and whatnot?

There was a logical explanation befofe. But i agree. Would stop most of the time wasting.

Works perfectly well in rugby league and Yawnion

Imploding Turtle wrote:Why do we still have this nonsense? Why not just pause the official game clock whenever there's a referee stoppage for bookings, red cards, penalties and whatnot?

Simple answer TV. ie the paymasters.
There is no way they would allow games to massively extend.

HunterST_BFC wrote:Simple answer TV. ie the paymasters.
There is no way they would allow games to massively extend.

Do what the Americans do and have adverts during the games stoppages

HunterST_BFC wrote:Simple answer TV. ie the paymasters.
There is no way they would allow games to massively extend.

But if stopping the game clock for situations that are *supposed* to incur stoppage time anyway, then if the current system was working the game wouldn't be extended.

It'd get rid of the controversy, and we could even have a clear end to the game defined too, like in "Yawnion" where the game continues beyond the 80th minute while the ball remains in play.

Its what this leads to. We stop the clock so there's no time wasting but then we lose momentum cos teams p*ssing about and not rushing wont be seen as much of a problem. Then small breaks in play become the norm and then somewhere down the line we are getting towards timeouts and ad breaks for the TV stations.

Sure in its simplest form now it can look a reasonable idea but you have to think a bit further ahead and the direction these kind of tweaks will take us

Devils_Advocate wrote:Its what this leads to. We stop the clock so there's no time wasting but then we lose momentum cos teams p*ssing about and not rushing wont be seen as much of a problem. Then small breaks in play become the norm and then somewhere down the line we are getting towards timeouts and ad breaks for the TV stations.

Sure in its simplest form now it can look a reasonable idea but you have to think a bit further ahead and the direction these kind of tweaks will take us

You can still book players for time wasting, or penalise them with revocation of things like free kicks if they take too long.

Imploding Turtle wrote:But if stopping the game clock for situations that are *supposed* to incur stoppage time anyway, then if the current system was working the game wouldn't be extended.

It'd get rid of the controversy, and we could even have a clear end to the game defined too, like in "Yawnion" where the game continues beyond the 80th minute while the ball remains in play.

Will this impact on Early leavers?

Imploding Turtle wrote:You can still book players for time wasting, or penalise them with revocation of things like free kicks if they take too long.

Course you can but the emphasis will reduce and overtime I think it will become less of an issue. At the same time it will play into the hands of the money men running the game.

Imploding Turtle wrote:You can still book players for time wasting, or penalise them with revocation of things like free kicks if they take too long.

Not for holding it in corners though. Which obviously they can do

Also teams will still slow down at subs to kill momentum

Devils_Advocate wrote:Course you can but the emphasis will reduce and overtime I think it will become less of an issue. At the same time it will play into the hands of the money men running the game.

I don't care about the effect on the money men running the game.

Imploding Turtle wrote:I don't care about the effect on the money men running the game.

Strange comment. Its got nothing to do with the effect on them, its the opportunity it can give them to push the game in a direction that will have a negative effect on us the fans

BFC would lose the fee off GM fitted furniture Ltd, we'd never vote for it.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Not for holding it in corners though. Which obviously they can do

Also teams will still slow down at subs to kill momentum

They do that anyway, and it has the same effect anyway. This idea isn't intended to prevent time wasting directly, it's intended to disincentive it.

If adding 30 seconds per sub was accurate then replacing that with simply stopping the game clock instead would make no difference to the amount of actual football played. What is would do is, as i said, disincentivise time wasting more than stoppage time disincentivises it, and it would be more accurate than adding stoppage time.

One point about slow walking substitutes though, if a player knows that a substitution is going to add a fixed amount of time to the stoppage time (and he wants to waste time) then he can take as long as he wants over that time and know that only 30 seconds will be added. It also means that he will definitely milk it since why spend 10 seconds jogging off the pitch if it's going to add 30 seconds anyway. May as well walk.
So i'm unmoved by the 'momentum' argument.

Imploding Turtle wrote:They do that anyway, and it has the same effect anyway. This idea isn't intended to prevent time wasting directly, it's intended to disincentive it.

If adding 30 seconds per sub was accurate then replacing that with simply stopping the game clock instead would make no difference to the amount of actual football played. What is would do is, as i said, disincentivise time wasting more than stoppage time disincentivises it, and it would be more accurate than adding stoppage time.

One point about slow walking substitutes though, if a player knows that a substitution is going to add a fixed amount of time to the stoppage time (and he wants to waste time) then he can take as long as he wants over that time and know that only 30 seconds will be added. It also means that he will definitely milk it since why spend 10 seconds jogging off the pitch if it's going to add 30 seconds anyway. May as well walk.
So i'm unmoved by the 'momentum' argument.

But I thought substituted players are meant to leave the field via the nearest touch line now? A rule I’ve yet to see implemented. Or was this not brought in?

RammyClaret61 wrote:But I thought substituted players are meant to leave the field via the nearest touch line now? A rule I’ve yet to see implemented. Or was this not brought in?

I think that was injured players being subbed, but you might be right.

I think it's important we retain at least a bit of nonsense in the game.

tim_noone wrote:Will this impact on Early leavers?

Not sure, but we could then have another made up table on "where we should be" regards expected stoppages for, and expected stoppages against.

I'm all for it.

How did the ref in the Chelsea v Ajax match come up with 4 mins?
5 second half goals, 2 red cards, VARs and substitutions.