Of course we are being ripped off what with the price for shirts, tickets food and drink etc. But, highlighted in the Premier league this weekend is the actual in play football we actually watch. The Villa v Sunderland game ran for 98:38 minutes. But Villa fans travelled all the way to Sunderland to see 48:52 minutes of actual in play football. The Liverpool v Everton game had 26 second half actual play minutes. The best in play football time in a PL game this weekend was 62:13 minutes. Is that value for money? Do referee's need to account for more stoppages, should the whole concept of football change and we have a guaranteed 35 mins of football each half with the clock being stopped every time the ball goes out or play or do we accept that it has always pretty much been like this and keep things as they are? Thoughts...
Yeah gottsay that idea of a guaranteed 35 mins sounds very good. Fairest way. It's so easy to just stop the clock every time play stops.
I must admit, I have never really left a game thinking 'oh I didn't see that much actual football ' But when you see some of the figures, 48 minutes of game time is alarming, literally just a half of a match.
This is an interesting subject. As I don't got to live games anymore, due to a lot of circumstances I won't go into here, I watch all on the telly, if it's not Saints I very often switch off or do something else whilst the game is on, they are so boring and have so much 'no action' in them. I almost hardly ever watch Premier League games nowadays. I turn off Saints games for another reason.
I’m sure whenever this idea is floated the argument against it is it would need to be adopted at a much lower level as well, and that is what ruins the stop the clock idea. Maybe since VAR a precedent has been set at higher levels where it can be implemented pretty easily and don’t have to bother at lower leagues (I’m talking like semi pro standard)
There's a very simple way to increase the minutes of the ball in play - book the ****ing goalkeeper the first time he takes 5 minutes to take a goal kick, warn him the second time and then send him off the third time. Referees have also stopped making subbed off players leave the field at the nearest touchline.
If there aren't restrictions on a pitch being used in particular time-slots, I think this could be done at any level (theoretically). The referees should be wearing a straightforward watch with the ability to stop and start. The problem lies with remembering to do it! It would probably not work in reality below a semi-professional level.
rugby seems to manage it fairly well with stopping it for anything that needs set up or a "word or two" and it doesn't need to go all the way down the tree at once as it could trickle down from the top
Has anyone done the “meaningful play” timings on games with Russell Martin in charge of one of the teams?
Don’t follow rugby at all so no idea about the number of stoppages etc, but using the rough maths based on the numbers given in the OP you’d be looking at a game taking around double the length of real time. Sure there would be some speeding up as there would be no point in taking ages to waste time. Be interesting to know how much time that actually takes up vs just setting up for dead ball scenarios (throws/free kicks/goal kicks) and subs. I’d imagine you’d probably still be looking at 45 mins at least in real time to get a 90 min game in
The list of reasons for stoppages wouldn't be directly comparable - setting up a lineout is not the same as thrown in. What currently requires a ref to whistle a restart in a game? Otherwise definitely injuries, subs, any var, penalties and corners would be in my list of stoppages as it stops any time wasting crap around them all
It is a problem that needs attention but it was a much bigger one prior to the back pass rule came into effect in 1992. I once played a video of a whole match in fast forward and all you saw was the ball being passed to the GK and him picking it up and holding the ball for as long as possible before hoofing it upfield.
On rugby, I just looked at the live text coverage of a random Six Nations game. Kicked off at 16:45, half time was 17:32. Second half started at 17:46, full time was 18:31. So 45 mins and 47 mins of actual time for 40 mins of play. But I don't know what rugby stops the clock for and even aside from the nature of the sport, the matches definitely have far fewer injury stoppages - the players don't roll around on the floor pretending to be injured every time someone touches them and physios are allowed to come on the pitch while play continues.
Well yeah but if the clock stops then players wouldn’t fake injury constantly you’d think. Can see it still being a thing from a tactical “slow the game down” type of thing but not trying to run the clock down. Same with throw ins/goal kicks taking ages
Maybe. I guess the question is how much of that is players trying to waste time. I've always had the feeling a lot of it is more that players throw themselves to the ground to get free kicks. Then they try and make it all look more believable by rolling around a bit, staying on the floor for a while or having the physio come on. A bit like calling in sick for 2 days in a row instead of just one, to make your illness seem more believable. According to Google, in rugby the clock only stops for the TV ref, for substitutions, for injuries or at the referee's discretion when other incidents cause delays. It doesn't stop for the ball going out of play, scrums or lineouts or kicking at goal. But of course the refs get much more respect in rugby so the players probably get on with it more. They also don't end the match bang on 80 minutes so there's a bit less incentive to waste time anyway. I wonder if anyone has looked at this stuff over time. Was the ball in play more in the 60s or the 80s? Presumably you could go through old televised matches to get some idea.
Funnily enough I read somewhere a while back that it was being considered believe it or not. That would make it like ice-hockey, with the two approximately 15 minute breaks, a 60 minute game takes roughly two-and-half-hours in the UK but having said that there is no time wasting. There even used to be a rule that if didn't pass it over the halfway line when you could, so not under pressure in your half or anything, you could get called for delay of game. Imagine that in football???
