Stopping clock

[Finchley Seagull]

They scored after 5'15 extra minutes. He signalled a minimum of 5. We have nothing to complain about on that score. Should have just kept the ball instead of buggering about in the corner & gifting them a goal kick.

According to the BBC, it was 5'45 when they scored. I realise it is a minimum so they can add on what they like but if they randomly find an extra 45 seconds from nowhere why bother putting up the number of minutes? We should just play whatever the referee feels like playing.

 

[Finchley Seagull]

Often we have been gratful that 5 minutes are annouced as the extra time. Hard to swallow letting in the goal 6 minutes after the 90 but it was our fault not the Refs.

As in my other post, my issue is not where he got 5 minutes from (we had said about 4 and then Bruno went down for about a minute just before the board went up so fine), the issue is where he got the extra 45 seconds from which they scored as nothing happened in injury time to justify that.

 

[stripeyshark]

The five minutes came from the six substitutions, one goal, three or four injuries requiring treatment (Bridcutt, Orlandi, at least one other) and the referee making it quite clear he was watching the time the Albion were taking on a couple of corners in the second half.

Hope that clears it up for you.

On the BBC text commentary, the goal was scored on 90+5:46.

 

[kevo]

As in my other post, my issue is not where he got 5 minutes from (we had said about 4 and then Bruno went down for about a minute just before the board went up so fine), the issue is where he got the extra 45 seconds from which they scored as nothing happened in injury time to justify that.

Yes, quite... I wonder what the referee's explanation is? Oh, they are not allowed to be interviewed.

 

[bobzam]

The five minutes came from the six substitutions, one goal, three or four injuries requiring treatment (Bridcutt, Orlandi, at least one other) and the referee making it quite clear he was watching the time the Albion were taking on a couple of corners in the second half.

Hope that clears it up for you.

But you watch any game and they never seem to apply those rules, injury time always seems to be 3 or 4 mins regardless of goals and subs.

 

[kevo]

But you watch any game and they never seem to apply those rules, injury time always seems to be 3 or 4 mins regardless of goals and subs.

Four goals in the second half against Wolves - was any time added on for those? I doubt it. I was thinking probably four minutes yesterday, and with another set of officials it probably would have been... and the 45 seconds added on 'until they scored' is still a mystery.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The rules state the stoppage time is the minimum amount of time to be added on and the referee has the final decision on when to blow the whistle. Some referees will blow the whistle exactly to the second of what was shown on the board , some will wait until the ball goes out of play , allow a corner to be taken or see if an attack fizzles out , some will add on extra for time wasting during the second half.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Four goals in the second half against Wolves - was any time added on for those? I doubt it. I was thinking probably four minutes yesterday, and with another set of officials it probably would have been... and the 45 seconds added on 'until they scored' is still a mystery.

There was only 3 minutes stoppage time at Wolves , they equalised with a minute of stoppage time left. We only needed to hang onto the lead for 4 minutes at Molineux.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

In that BBC article on Fergie time the other day they said it was a common misconception that there was a set amount of time added on for each substitution.

The PGMO would disagree with that, although it does say that ref uses it as a rule of thumb and can add extra if a player is dawdling when being subbed, so it could be more.

BBC Sport - QA: What are the rules for stoppage time?

 

[kevo]

The rules state the stoppage time is the minimum amount of time to be added on and the referee has the final decision on when to blow the whistle. Some referees will blow the whistle exactly to the second of what was shown on the board , some will wait until the ball goes out of play , allow a corner to be taken or see if an attack fizzles out , some will add on extra for time wasting during the second half.

All of which confirms how random it is, really. With another ref, the game would have ended and we'd have three points, and a few of us would have got slightly less drunk last night...

 

[CorgiRegisteredFriend]

I guess a minimum of 5 minutes does literally mean up to 5 mins 5 9 seconds. Even so it seemed more like 6- 7. Then the ref blew the whistle as soon as we kicked off after the goal - always a massive piss take.

 

[fly high]

As others have said, it's our own fault we lost 2 points, we let them keep coming at us for the last 5 - 10 minutes instead of playing keep ball, so it doesn't really matter is the ref added an exta 45 seconds, we only have ourselves to blame.
Getting back to the original question, yes in principle but no 30 minutes seems too short, 35 or 40 would be better. Stop the clock for all injuries & substitutions. Would also have to stop the clock when the ball is dead for free kicks & corners as these can take longer to set up. If the clock isn’t stopped for goal kicks & throw ins there’d have to be a time limit or players (and fans keeping the ball) would delay it too much. Like rugby when the hooter sounds play should continue until the ball is dead unless the ref awards a penalty, in which case it can be taken. We wouldn’t end up with all these arguments about too much or too little added time.

 

[CorgiRegisteredFriend]

As others have said, it's our own fault we lost 2 points, we let them keep coming at us for the last 5 - 10 minutes instead of playing keep ball, so it doesn't really matter is the ref added an exta 45 seconds, we only have ourselves to blame.
Getting back to the original question, yes in principle but no 30 minutes seems too short, 35 or 40 would be better. Stop the clock for all injuries & substitutions. Would also have to stop the clock when the ball is dead for free kicks & corners as these can take longer to set up. If the clock isn’t stopped for goal kicks & throw ins there’d have to be a time limit or players (and fans keeping the ball) would delay it too much. Like rugby when the hooter sounds play should continue until the ball is dead unless the ref awards a penalty, in which case it can be taken. We wouldn’t end up with all these arguments about too much or too little added time.

If the clock was stopped for every dead ball then added on time would be around 10 mins per game. How would the early leavers cope with that?

Back to yesterday- yes we should have played differently for the last ten minutes and scored in the many opportunities we had- but we all know that.

 

[fly high]

If the clock was stopped for every dead ball then added on time would be around 10 mins per game. How would the early leavers cope with that?.

Then 80 minutes a game with the extra 10 would work out about right. The clock would show how many minutes played so the early leaves can still judge when to go. Anyway sod the early leavers, what they want is irrelevant.

 

[brightonbaz]

You see what happens with the current system.....always discussion about what should or should not have been allowed for with added time.....stopping clock 30 mins per half and there are absolutely no arguments after the game about what was and wasn't right. Its so clear cut and simple and it needs to be part of the modern game.

Next time you watch a live game go through the process of running a clock yourself.....if you get 60 mins of ball in play over 90 mins then your doing well.....

 

[Ali_rrr]

To be honest, as much as it hurts, Buckley's goal was like 90+8, can't imagine the Doncaster fans were too pleased with that...

 

[brightonbaz]

To be honest, as much as it hurts, Buckley's goal was like 90+8, can't imagine the Doncaster fans were too pleased with that...

Exactly my point......stopping clock is the best solution for all clubs and their fans....there can be absolutely no arguments at the end of a game and no moaning about injustice with the amount added on for subs etc. Just think no more grief when a player dawdles across the pitch because he's been substituted...., no more time wasting during throw ins etc. etc.

 

[jgmcdee]

I agree with the stopping clock idea. One of many things that Rugby (amongst other sports) have right. It just negates so many of the things that players do today that are against the spirit of the game, and reduces some of the unnecessary conflict. More football, less gamesmanship.

Anyone have any good reasons why they shouldn't adopt this system (as opposed to reasons why they won't, which are myriad and will no doubt carry the day).

 

[Buffalo Seagull]

The AFL does it slightly different over here, so that the crowd at the game and people watching on tv see different things. On tele, you see the clock start at 20 mins and count down, stopping whenever one of the umpires blows his whistle for time off and starting again when play restarts. However at the game the clock starts at 0 and just counts up without stopping (most quarters end up going for about 32-34 minutes). It means that when there are close finishes, the crowd at the game still have that tense atmosphere of not knowing when the final siren is going to sound, but the process is still open and consistent.

 

[pasty]

I'd like to see an independent time keeper, or the 4th official, to have responsibility for time, stopping and starting a clock whenever he normally would, and have it linked to a digital display all can see. No ambiguity then.