Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?
Callumcafc
Posts: 63,755
The amount of added time at this World Cup makes it clear that FIFA believe gamesmanship to be an issue.
One proposed solution is a 60-minute 'stop-clock'. With the ball in play in the Premier League this season for an average of 55 minutes per match (shortest 41 mins, longest 65 mins), would moving to a system where the clock stops every time the ball goes out of play make sense for the professional level of the game? As with Rugby, the half/game would end when the ball first goes out of play beyond the 30/60 minute mark.
Worth making the change? Does it make the game better? Or is it just unneeded tinkering with a timekeeping system that's worked for decades?
2
Comments
-
I raised this very subject almost exactly three years ago:
https://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/87266/how-many-minutes-of-football-do-you-reckon-you-saw-today/p1
1 -
Good idea. Should maybe be trialled in a cup competition.1
-
if football wants to move with the times, then yes, in my opinion.0
-
I think timekeeping is one thing the referee can do without. We definitely need clarity about how time added is calculated. At the moment I assume the referees try and manage it their head. I like the 60 minute rule, but anything that brings clarity would be good.
4 -
Most clubs in the higher divisions have a ‘big’ screen and a running clock from kick off so that’s a good place to start. I doubt it would be rocket science to add a function for the clock to be stopped any time the game is stopped for a player to be treated for an injury, a substitution takes place or the ball goes into the crowd, and restarted again when the ball is kicked. A yellow card for a player or two when a team is deliberately delaying at a throw in or goal kick should be encouraged a bit more.2
-
In principle yes, but I can see many a fan leaving to catch their train on time, and missing late goals / incidents If this is put in place, not necessarily a reason not to do it though, but honestly, how much time do we want to spend at Charlton!1
-
Maybe 4 x 15 minute quarters - teams changing ends each time. Allow the coach to challenge a decision by throwing a towel onto the field of play and also give them time outs before set plays.No, No, No - blatant time-wasting should be penalised with a yellow card - every time. That's it.8
-
I think it’s more to do with FIFA trying to justify their 100 minute idea that they floated earlier this year. As usual with them, driven by money.Callumcafc said:The amount of added time at this World Cup makes it clear that FIFA believe gamesmanship to be an issue.One proposed solution is a 60-minute 'stop-clock'. With the ball in play in the Premier League this season for an average of 55 minutes per match (shortest 41 mins, longest 65 mins), would moving to a system where the clock stops every time the ball goes out of play make sense for the professional level of the game? As with Rugby, the half/game would end when the ball first goes out of play beyond the 30/60 minute mark.Worth making the change? Does it make the game better? Or is it just unneeded tinkering with a timekeeping system that's worked for decades?1 -
No, it might improve the top level ie World Cup, Premier league etc but the beauty of football is its the same game from the Sunday league to the Premier league.
Goal line technology and VAR don't change the rules, or laws of the game. Anything that does needs to be implementable everywhere.
That's the beauty of football and why it's still "the peoples game".5 -
Thing is, teams would still delay set pieces etc to try to change the oppositions momentum, but if the score board clock stopped when the ball goes dead then everybody knows what is going on.
I think the clock should stop for all subs and goals, but for throw ins, free kicks and corners it should carry on for say 10 seconds before stopping.2 - Sponsored links:
-
IMO, yes.0
-
@letthegoodtimesroll . Give the timekeeping responsibility to the 4th official, whose stopwatch is wired to the stadium clock so we all see when he has stopped. Bang on 90 mins, final electronic whistle sounds, even if ball is in flight from a corner. Like in ice hockey.SomervilleAddick said:I think timekeeping is one thing the referee can do without. We definitely need clarity about how time added is calculated. At the moment I assume the referees try and manage it their head. I like the 60 minute rule, but anything that brings clarity would be good.
Then a clear definition of what constitutes stoppage events, written down and shared with the world. For some time I’d noticed that in some European leagues, average stopping time was clearly lower than in England. Sometimes in first half, none. Never see that in England do we, but if there is no injury and no sub, why should there be? If the stadium clock were involved, actually everyone in the stadium would know the answer to that.Couple of seasons ago after Charlton got done in the 6th minute of the 4th minute of injury time, I raised the (general) issue of this with Matt Slater of the Athletic and he told me it would make a good article. Given this World Cup I doubt he needs me to point out that it just got even better.1 -
At the moment Bob, "blatant time wasting" is subjective, which in turn leads to inconsistencies, either perceived or actual.bobmunro said:Maybe 4 x 15 minute quarters - teams changing ends each time. Allow the coach to challenge a decision by throwing a towel onto the field of play and also give them time outs before set plays.No, No, No - blatant time-wasting should be penalised with a yellow card - every time. That's it.
The Laws of the Game do not state a timescale by which a throw, goal kick, corner kick etc must be taken.0 -
How low down the pyramid can you implement that?PragueAddick said:
@letthegoodtimesroll . Give the timekeeping responsibility to the 4th official, whose stopwatch is wired to the stadium clock so we all see when he has stopped. Bang on 90 mins, final electronic whistle sounds, even if ball is in flight from a corner. Like in ice hockey.SomervilleAddick said:I think timekeeping is one thing the referee can do without. We definitely need clarity about how time added is calculated. At the moment I assume the referees try and manage it their head. I like the 60 minute rule, but anything that brings clarity would be good.
Then a clear definition of what constitutes stoppage events, written down and shared with the world. For some time I’d noticed that in some European leagues, average stopping time was clearly lower than in England. Sometimes in first half, none. Never see that in England do we, but if there is no injury and no sub, why should there be? If the stadium clock were involved, actually everyone in the stadium would know the answer to that.Couple of seasons ago after Charlton got done in the 6th minute of the 4th minute of injury time, I raised the (general) issue of this with Matt Slater of the Athletic and he told me it would make a good article. Given this World Cup I doubt he needs me to point out that it just got even better.1 -
No thanks.1
-
In the Preston game that caused me to start the thread I mentioned above the 2nd half was of 53 mins 6 secs duration, the ball was in play for 22 mins 45 secs. It was not in play for 30 mins 21 secs. And those figures do not take into account the time when the ball was taken into the corner late on for "legitimate" time wasting. There were a staggering 69 interruptions during the course of the half.
There is an issue with how far down one goes to implement this for sure. But professional football where people are expected to pay, let's face it, serious money to be entertained cannot be seen to be selling the so called "beautiful game" so very short.0 -
PL and the clubs in the 3 EFL divisions should all be told they have to put it in place, that’s where it matters and it raises the bar for how the game should be played. Having a big electronic clock that the 4th official, if not the ref, can operate shouldn’t be that expensive but if a club can’t afford one then they should stick to those leagues lower down the pyramid that can’t implement it.Cafc43v3r said:
How low down the pyramid can you implement that?PragueAddick said:
@letthegoodtimesroll . Give the timekeeping responsibility to the 4th official, whose stopwatch is wired to the stadium clock so we all see when he has stopped. Bang on 90 mins, final electronic whistle sounds, even if ball is in flight from a corner. Like in ice hockey.SomervilleAddick said:I think timekeeping is one thing the referee can do without. We definitely need clarity about how time added is calculated. At the moment I assume the referees try and manage it their head. I like the 60 minute rule, but anything that brings clarity would be good.
Then a clear definition of what constitutes stoppage events, written down and shared with the world. For some time I’d noticed that in some European leagues, average stopping time was clearly lower than in England. Sometimes in first half, none. Never see that in England do we, but if there is no injury and no sub, why should there be? If the stadium clock were involved, actually everyone in the stadium would know the answer to that.Couple of seasons ago after Charlton got done in the 6th minute of the 4th minute of injury time, I raised the (general) issue of this with Matt Slater of the Athletic and he told me it would make a good article. Given this World Cup I doubt he needs me to point out that it just got even better.1 -
Premier League has already said it won’t be adopting this approach.0
-
And while they are at it, clubs should start putting the in game stats up on the big screens. The data is already being generated by others such as the tv companies. A constant visible reminder throughout the game that your team has had poor possession, no shots etc and has spent more time in its own half might generate a bit more effort and an earlier response from a manager whose view of the game can often seem about 15 minutes behind what most in the crowd has already worked out is bleeding obvious1
-
So us then...letthegoodtimesroll said:
PL and the clubs in the 3 EFL divisions should all be told they have to put it in place, that’s where it matters and it raises the bar for how the game should be played. Having a big electronic clock that the 4th official, if not the ref, can operate shouldn’t be that expensive but if a club can’t afford one then they should stick to those leagues lower down the pyramid that can’t implement it.Cafc43v3r said:
How low down the pyramid can you implement that?PragueAddick said:
@letthegoodtimesroll . Give the timekeeping responsibility to the 4th official, whose stopwatch is wired to the stadium clock so we all see when he has stopped. Bang on 90 mins, final electronic whistle sounds, even if ball is in flight from a corner. Like in ice hockey.SomervilleAddick said:I think timekeeping is one thing the referee can do without. We definitely need clarity about how time added is calculated. At the moment I assume the referees try and manage it their head. I like the 60 minute rule, but anything that brings clarity would be good.
Then a clear definition of what constitutes stoppage events, written down and shared with the world. For some time I’d noticed that in some European leagues, average stopping time was clearly lower than in England. Sometimes in first half, none. Never see that in England do we, but if there is no injury and no sub, why should there be? If the stadium clock were involved, actually everyone in the stadium would know the answer to that.Couple of seasons ago after Charlton got done in the 6th minute of the 4th minute of injury time, I raised the (general) issue of this with Matt Slater of the Athletic and he told me it would make a good article. Given this World Cup I doubt he needs me to point out that it just got even better.0 - Sponsored links:
-
it would certainly help to stop timewasting, BUT who stops and starts the clock?0
-
I think it's a terrible idea. It will create confusion, move the elite sport even further away from grassroots football, make games last much longer (why hurry to take a free kick, ever?), make the game more Americanised and away from its origins, cause lengthy breaks in the game, and make the game more appealing to television viewers and less appealing for live crowds (as the tv viewers will have greater access to information on timing data).
For all these reasons, I expect it to be adopted, very soon.2 -
You're simply making game lengths 60mins and stopping the clock if the ball goes out of play. How will it create confusion? Ball in play, clock ticks on, ball out of play, clock stops. I think a 5yr old could grasp that concept.Chizz said:I think it's a terrible idea. It will create confusion, move the elite sport even further away from grassroots football, make games last much longer (why hurry to take a free kick, ever?), make the game more Americanised and away from its origins, cause lengthy breaks in the game, and make the game more appealing to television viewers and less appealing for live crowds (as the tv viewers will have greater access to information on timing data).
For all these reasons, I expect it to be adopted, very soon.
Game length could be longer but could also be shorter depending on how long the ball is in play for. You'd hurry to take a FK because it could gain you an advantage, no different to how it is now. Same with throws, corners or goal kicks.
Why would it cause lengthy breaks? They're surely less likely as teams who are trying to run down the clock know they now can't. Faking injuries, leaving throws for other players, keepers dicking around swapping sides for goal kicks. It takes all that away. If teams are deliberately doing it to break the momentum of another team, out comes the yellow cards.1 -
They need a clock for all the time wasting every goalkeeper does week in wee out and they continually get away with it until they go behind then the decide to get a move on. The law should change to allow just 10 seconds to take the kick once they have the ball. Makes my blood boil.1
-
Yellow cards could solve a lot of time wasting problems0
-
Just like the 6 second for a keeper to release the ball law has been strictly implemented since it’s introduction.Acab said:They need a clock for all the time wasting every goalkeeper does week in wee out and they continually get away with it until they go behind then the decide to get a move on. The law should change to allow just 10 seconds to take the kick once they have the ball. Makes my blood boil.1 -
Exactly. All these suggestions wouldn't be needed if 1) Refs were consistent 2) The "competition organisers" published what would, and won't, attract added time.paulbaconsarnie said:
Just like the 6 second for a keeper to release the ball law has been strictly implemented since it’s introduction.Acab said:They need a clock for all the time wasting every goalkeeper does week in wee out and they continually get away with it until they go behind then the decide to get a move on. The law should change to allow just 10 seconds to take the kick once they have the ball. Makes my blood boil.0 -
Do this and we will get TV time outs within a year!!! (Not that it concerns us at the moment!)0
-
Let me exaggerate the point in order to make it. What's to stop a player taking half an hour over a throw, if he has teammates trying to run off injuries?cafcpolo said:
You're simply making game lengths 60mins and stopping the clock if the ball goes out of play. How will it create confusion? Ball in play, clock ticks on, ball out of play, clock stops. I think a 5yr old could grasp that concept.Chizz said:I think it's a terrible idea. It will create confusion, move the elite sport even further away from grassroots football, make games last much longer (why hurry to take a free kick, ever?), make the game more Americanised and away from its origins, cause lengthy breaks in the game, and make the game more appealing to television viewers and less appealing for live crowds (as the tv viewers will have greater access to information on timing data).
For all these reasons, I expect it to be adopted, very soon.
Game length could be longer but could also be shorter depending on how long the ball is in play for. You'd hurry to take a FK because it could gain you an advantage, no different to how it is now. Same with throws, corners or goal kicks.
Why would it cause lengthy breaks? They're surely less likely as teams who are trying to run down the clock know they now can't. Faking injuries, leaving throws for other players, keepers dicking around swapping sides for goal kicks. It takes all that away. If teams are deliberately doing it to break the momentum of another team, out comes the yellow cards.1 -
There are penalties associated with delaying the restart of the game in other sports that have a stopped clock to avoid situations like this. Within reason, for injuries etc.Chizz said:
Let me exaggerate the point in order to make it. What's to stop a player taking half an hour over a throw, if he has teammates trying to run off injuries?cafcpolo said:
You're simply making game lengths 60mins and stopping the clock if the ball goes out of play. How will it create confusion? Ball in play, clock ticks on, ball out of play, clock stops. I think a 5yr old could grasp that concept.Chizz said:I think it's a terrible idea. It will create confusion, move the elite sport even further away from grassroots football, make games last much longer (why hurry to take a free kick, ever?), make the game more Americanised and away from its origins, cause lengthy breaks in the game, and make the game more appealing to television viewers and less appealing for live crowds (as the tv viewers will have greater access to information on timing data).
For all these reasons, I expect it to be adopted, very soon.
Game length could be longer but could also be shorter depending on how long the ball is in play for. You'd hurry to take a FK because it could gain you an advantage, no different to how it is now. Same with throws, corners or goal kicks.
Why would it cause lengthy breaks? They're surely less likely as teams who are trying to run down the clock know they now can't. Faking injuries, leaving throws for other players, keepers dicking around swapping sides for goal kicks. It takes all that away. If teams are deliberately doing it to break the momentum of another team, out comes the yellow cards.
In football, that might look like surrending your set piece to the other team if you don't restart the play within 30 seconds.
On the flip side, that feeds into your argument that it further separates the elite game from the grassroots.
I'm personally on the fence but I would be interested to see it in action. It's the kind of thing I'd want to see tested in a competition like the Pizza Trophy.1
