Why isn't a stop/start clock used in football matches?

shamblertine

As in, when the ball isn't in play, time is stopped. Therefore there is no need for extra time, the match simply ends at 90 minutes. It would stop managers/fans whinging about too much/too little extra time, and would also help to stop time wasting by players taking too long to take corners/throw in's/goal kicks etc.

So what reason is preventing FIFA from introducing this?

JPA

If added time was literally the time when the ball isn't in play matches would be about 110 minutes.

CHD

JPA wrote: »

If added time was literally the time when the ball isn't in play matches would be about 110 minutes.

More than that probably

shamblertine

well then just make matches 80 minutes or 75 minutes

JPA

shamblertine wrote: »

well then just make matches 80 minutes or 75 minutes

Ok, lets completely change football. For no reason.

podge018

think a ball is generally in play for around 50 minutes of a match.

keane2097

JPA wrote: »

Ok, lets completely change football. For no reason.

He's actually given several obvious reasons that are clearly valid...

It would stop managers/fans whinging about too much/too little extra time, and would also help to stop time wasting by players taking too long to take corners/throw in's/goal kicks etc.

Mars Bar

I think for those "Drogba" moments where he is down for 2 - 3 minutes for a little clip at the heel might not do any harm.

I dunno if it would work though...We wouldn't have half the drama otherwise.
I quite like the drama.

Third_Echelon

podge018 wrote: »

think a ball is generally in play for around 50 minutes of a match.

yeah, that's pretty much it alright. Average of 22 minutes or so per half the ball is actual play....

leninbenjamin

podge018 wrote: »

think a ball is generally in play for around 50 minutes of a match.

sometime it falls even lower than 40.

I think the main reason football never went that route is because the fixed 90 suits the TV schedulers much better than a stop start clock.

It works incredibly well in rugby. It's very simple. The ball being out of play means the time goes on. In rugby the referee calls "time off" when there is an injury or he needs to discipline a player. In soccer the clock could auto stop after a goal is scored/when a substitution is taking place and then when the ref calls "time off" to discipline a player etc.


Soccer could take a number of directives from rugby alone which would really improve it as a sport. Unfortunately too many of those involved in the game are a tad too traditional/closed minded for this.

dyl10

I don't see any reason to implement this.
Slow playing a throw in or taking your time with a kick out is part of every game on a Sunday morning.

Wasting time as a goalkeeper, pretending to be injured is quite fruitful.

GLaDOS

dyl10 wrote: »

I don't see any reason to implement this.
Slow playing a throw in or taking your time with a kick out is part of every game on a Sunday morning.

Wasting time as a goalkeeper, pretending to be injured is quite fruitful.

So is diving, doesn't mean it should be part of the game

dyl10

ScienceNerd wrote: »

So is diving, doesn't mean it should be part of the game

Slow play is accepted by the vast majority of players and in my years playing DDSL and LSL, I've never once heard of a player or a manager complaining about time wasting in the broader sense of the game.

Diving is typically looked down upon by people involved in, and fans of the game in Britain and Ireland.

thomond2006

Because FIFA are idiots who insist on living in the past. :rolleyes:

NaiveMelodies

Football needs its drama, so do its fans. The game would be lost without its controversy.

Mr Alan

football with a stop clock would be about 3 hrs long!

no thanks

ccosgrave

Deleted User wrote: »

It works incredibly well in rugby. It's very simple. The ball being out of play means the time goes on. In rugby the referee calls "time off" when there is an injury or he needs to discipline a player. In soccer the clock could auto stop after a goal is scored/when a substitution is taking place and then when the ref calls "time off" to discipline a player etc.


Soccer could take a number of directives from rugby alone which would really improve it as a sport. Unfortunately too many of those involved in the game are a tad too traditional/closed minded for this.

That's exactly what I was thinking: stop the clock solely for injuries or to discipline players. As for time-wasting re-starting from dead balls, that can be penalised the same way it currently is, similarly to how it is in rugby.

That said, to me, the idea would work and is certainly feasible, it just isn't particularly necessary.

yahoo_moe

ccosgrave wrote: »

That's exactly what I was thinking: stop the clock solely for injuries or to discipline players. As for time-wasting re-starting from dead balls, that can be penalised the same way it currently is, similarly to how it is in rugby.

That said, to me, the idea would work and is certainly feasible, it just isn't particularly necessary.

Isn't that what makes it necessary? Or at the very least, a good idea?

Take away the controversies over added time (it's not like the Manchester derby is the only time that's been an issue) without turning the game into a game of 'plays' a la NFL (as would happen if you stopped the clock every time the ball left the field of play).

keane2097

The argument that incorrect decisions etc shouldn't be irradicated because they add to the "drama" of the game seems to me to be only possible when the mind behind it is deranged beyond belief.

It is so retarded that it would be laughable if not for the fact that it seems to be genuinely used as a barrier to progress in a wide variety of issues the game has.

The mentality is almost frightening tbh...

starbelgrade

Deleted User wrote: »

It works incredibly well in rugby.

Being fat & having cauliflower ears also works well in rugby.