Kill the clock when the ball goes dead?

Crapjob Sean

I think Paul might be reaching here

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/05/19/its_time_to_cut_the_swindle_an.html

It's time to cut the swindle and get our 90 minutes of football

Matches are being padded out by players trundling over for throw-ins or nattering about free-kicks and so on. Why is this acceptable?
Paul Doyle
May 19, 2008 12:41 PM

Inviting Americanisms into the holy land of English sport can earn you a fatwa from football fans, who are among the most fundamentalist people on the planet. But good ideas are good ideas even if they don't come from the Establishment, and bad practices are bad practices regardless of tradition. It's time to change, and we could start by changing ... time.

Fans will fork out fortunes to watch Wednesday's Champions League final but they will only get about two-thirds of the advertised action. During the second leg of Manchester United's semi-final with Barcelona the ball was only in play for 62 minutes and 38 seconds; worse, the next night the other semi-finalists treated us to 73min 36sec - including extra-time. One of the most common criticisms of US sports by kneejerk naysayers on this side of the Atlantic is that they are ruined by constant stoppages. And while it's true that gridiron jocks can't seem to perform unless interrupted every 10 seconds by schmaltzy corporations peddling their wares, brass bands booming across the pitch and cheerleaders wiggling and jiggling like wind-up titillators, it's also true that American spectators do at least get what they're promised - it may take five hours but eventually they will see 60 minutes of football.

Over here, by contrast, a purported 90-minute match is padded out by players trundling over to take throw-ins or nattering about free-kicks and so on. Why is this acceptable? Cinema-goers wouldn't tolerate movies being filled out with footage of actors rehearsing their lines or sleeping with the casting director (actually they probably would in some cases, but you get the point).

Referees may add the odd minute onto the end of the first half and append two or three to the second period but that is mere camouflage for an institutionalised swindle.

The solution is simple: kill the clock when the ball goes dead. In fact, the clock should also be stopped when the ball is in goalkeepers' hands, since players aren't allowed to challenge them. All those six-second spells of nothingness accumulate, aggravating the rip-off.

Referees have enough to be getting wrong without having to forget to constantly stop their watches so time-keeping should be entrusted to someone else, perhaps the fourth official or maybe a fifth. Fans could track it on the scoreboard or stadium clock. When 45 minutes of genuine play has elapsed, a rugby league-style hooter could signal half-time. Same at the real end of the second period. Yes, the fatigue factor would probably increase but that would multiply space and excitement - or if that all proved too much for the players, maybe we could consider trimming 10 minutes off a match time: 80 actual minutes would still be more than we currently get.

And there you have it, minimum interference with the game for maximum positive change.

Galvasean

Interesting point, but I cant see the powers that be enforcing it.

astrofool

It would need to be changed to 30/35 minutes a half, I wouldn't bother subtracting the goalkeeper time, give them 6 seconds and book them if it's still in their posession (and they're unchallenged). The rest would be to stop time as soon as the ball goes dead, and restart it when the kick is taken.

leninbenjamin

i've thought about this before, but i've come to the conclusion that having a clock stop every few seconds would only result in massive exploitation by the commercial forces. it's just too tempting.

i would however introduce clock stopping for certain incidents; injuries where the medical personnel are called onto the field, and goals (can often see up to 2 minutes wasted trying to settle the teams back down to restart).

Smegball

Just leave it the way it is, no need to stop the clock IMO.

CHD

Stop messing with Football and leave it alone

Xavi6

I can see where he's coming from. I know with the AFL over here the clock stops all the time so consequently what is supposed to be an 80 minute game takes about 150 minutes to complete. Fans do get their money's worth.

Having said that football is a 90 minute game. It kicks off at 3pm and finishes at about 4.52 when injury time is added. That's the way it should stay.

iregk

Well if in order to do this you'd need to shorten the match to say a 30-35 min half that averages out the same lenght of time your getting anyway so whats the point?

As players already feel the strain of playing at times 50+ games a season imagine the added injuries and fatigue of having to actually play the full 90mins. As it stands the rule of football is not actually 90mins of playing football. Its 90mins game time. Game time includes throw ins, free kicks etc...

As has been said aswell. When the clock goes dead in the NFL you get a barrage of Gateorade, Duracel, Burger King etc... do you really want to sit there on Sky Sports and get hammered with ads every time a ball goes for a throw? The one right at kick off is frustrating enough, you know the one: "The players are on the pitch and now on super sunday its United v Chelsea and its live, right after this ford mondeo ad".

IrishMike

Players are still running left right and centre when the ball goes dead though.
If the clock was stopped then a half would be 55 or 60 mins long.
Would lead to more injuries due to game lengths being 20% + longer.
If they shortened the half to 35mins then fans would feel cheated and there would be uproar.
Think its a complete non starter to be honest.

Chong

Paul Doyle to be honest has lost the plot, on the Football Weekly podcast this week he was bleating on about keepers should not be allowed to pick up the ball or catch it, as it takes away from the game. He said too much time is spent by keepers catching the ball and holding it up.

Pepe LeFrits

The point is to stop time wasting.

I agree with him that the clock should stop when the ball goes out of play, but the game should consist of two 30 minute halves. At present the average football match only has the ball in play for about 55 minutes of it. Seeing 3 or 4 minutes time added on at the end of a half is a joke.

I also think that like rugby, the game should also end when the ball is put out of play.

Sherifu

Yellow cards are there for time wasting.

Mr. Presentable

The solution is in fact to put a wall (perspex) around the pitch so the ball never goes out of play.

And each side should have its own ball to stop time wasting in-play.

Crapjob Sean

Sherifu wrote: »

Yellow cards are there for time wasting.

Bit of a blunt instrument, no?

IrishMike

Cruijff wrote: »

Paul Doyle to be honest has lost the plot, on the Football Weekly podcast this week he was bleating on about keepers should not be allowed to pick up the ball or catch it, as it takes away from the game. He said too much time is spent by keepers catching the ball and holding it up.

I honestly was talking about that a few weeks back and think it would be a brilliant idea.
Most keepers now punch the ball anyway and if the keeper was not allowed
catch the ball it a lot of attacks that are normally broken up would continue.
Would give teams who play attacking football the upper hand which is what
everyone wants to see.

Sherifu

Crapjob Sean wrote: »

Bit of a blunt instrument, no?

I don't think so.

iregk

IrishMike wrote: »

Most keepers now punch the ball anyway and if the keeper was not allowed catch the ball it a lot of attacks that are normally broken up would continue. Would give teams who play attacking football the upper hand which is what everyone wants to see.

You ever played in goal?

In the past keepers caught the ball a lot more often that much is true. Today they simply can't as the ball is moving so much more in the air and simply getting a hand to it these days is good skill.
Diving for and actually catching a ball is an art form just as much as a striker scoring a great goal is.

Are we getting to a stage where we decide what constitues good skill and what doesn't? Why not ban keepers all together sure they just get in the way of the proper skill anyway...

We are gradually getting to the Nike idea of perfect football. Soon there will be no tackles allowed and you basically have to sit back and admire people like Ronaldo doing 100 step over rather than having the tenacity to actually put a foot in. Me personally I love watching a well drilled single movement defensive unit just as much as I enjoy fluid attacking play. Its ALL part of football, not just attacking play.

citytillidie

Nothing wrong with it leave it alone