Jump to content
I am no longer developing resources for Invision Community Suite ×
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

Match timekeeping

Ripley

By Ripley
in General Football Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Ripley

Ripley

Posted
Posted

Clive Thomas was always a self-regarding idiot but one thing he got right was to blow for time while that corner kick was in the air that deprived Brazil of a goal in the World Cup.

 

90 minutes is 90 minutes. Not a second more or less. Laws of the game. It has always seemed to me that, regardless of how many decisions a referee can get wrong during a game, the one thing he can do is time 90 minutes correctly to the second. There is nothing about letting a passage of play continue, allowing time for a set piece etc.

 

Are we (should we be) really heading towards a system of a timekeeper, independent of the match referee? If it means next time the ball goes dead after time up, then fine, surely?

New York Red

New York Red

Posted
Posted (edited)

I don't see the problem with having an official timekeeper. It would definitely stop this f*cking bullsh*t. Today was an absolute disgrace.

 

If you know what you stop time for, like injuries, substitutions, etc, then why not just have some bloke officially recording it?

Edited by New York Red
Rory Fitzgerald

Rory Fitzgerald

Posted
Posted

Andy Gray made a good point. If you are to add on time for goal celebrations - fine, just say so. But for a ref to take it upon himself to decide such issue is not on.

 

FWIW, as an ideal, I think excessive celebration is a form of time wasting and should be added on. BUT, its either in the laws or its not and people get p!$$€d when one ref apply the rules rigidely and another ref uses the maximum amount of his 'common-sense' he is allowed - it grates on me.

 

Why dont ex players become refs at the age of 35/36, get 3 years training and then you get 6 good years out of them. Perhaps, the arguement is their impartiality, that could kill that idea actually :(

Nerik

Nerik

Posted
Posted

Best would be to have two halves of 20 or 25mins EFFECTIVE play. Anytime the ball goes out, a goal is scored or a player needs treatment, time is stopped.

Logic

Logic

Posted
Posted

In the huge sport that is Handball.....

 

There's a special timekeeper and the time is viewable by the audience. Which means they can "remind" the timekeeper when he needs to stop the time or when he should keep it going.

 

I like that system and would want it implemented in football with the addition of new and very clear rules on when to stop the time.

 

Now people need to guess if the ref added time for this and that. It's yet one more thing of the rules of football that are idiotic.

 

Just make the f*cking rules clear cut! Then most of the arguments and bickering would stop.

 

E.g. If the ball hits the hand it should be a freekick/penalty. None of this "ball to hand, hand to ball or deliberate" BS. If the ref sees the football hit the hand of a player he should blow the whistle.

Red Kent

Red Kent

Posted
Posted

Rugby League have had official timekeepers for years. Visible to all. That is the way forward. Also I used to be a ref and when play was stopped for what ever reason. There were times when I forgot to restart my watch and had to guess the remaining time left. I wonder if that happened today.

Earl Hafler

Earl Hafler

Posted
Posted

I think it illustrates that in some areas, football is still in the 19th century.

 

You can appeal a red but not when it's 2 yellows. why ? Are the refs too busy too review their poor decisions ? And if a ref has seen an incident but decided not to act, nothing can be done after the game. More horses***. Bosingwa should have been suspended for his assault on Benayoun.

 

And the lack of video evidence is pathetic

JRC

JRC

Posted
Posted

MOTD2's attempts to justify the added time were craven and pathetic. 56 seconds from Bellamy's shot crossing the line until play restarted yet the standard 30 seconds for a substitution. A goal is also supposed to be 30 seconds, isn't it? I've never see time added on argued from the point the ball goes out of play (they'd play for about 3 hours if that were the case). I'd certainly like to see how many games have had over 90 seconds of time added on to the added on time, no mater how many substitutions or goals are scored - I'd guess it would be...none.

Rory Fitzgerald

Rory Fitzgerald

Posted
Posted

Havent seen MOTD2 but Atkinson has opened a can or worms on this one I suspect. He has deviated from the norm spectacularlily and the goal showed it up - never liked him anyway and it stems from that foggy night at Anfield when he called off the game vs Arsenal and the players used him as target practice, actually, that brought a smile to my face :lol:

Stevie H

Stevie H

Posted
Posted

biggest problem with added/injury time is that it's so arbitrary. you can waste time booting a ball for a throw-in into row Z and the referee isn't compelled to add any time for it, but if a player goes down injured and requires treatment then the ref will tell players that he's adding time for it. once the fourth official has held up the board for however many minutes added time that should be the limit, and he should blow a whistle or honk a f***ing airhorn when that time has elapsed. if a goal is scored in that added 2/3/4 minutes then tough. at least it'd be some degree of consistency.

Chili Palmer

Chili Palmer

Posted
Posted
biggest problem with added/injury time is that it's so arbitrary. you can waste time booting a ball for a throw-in into row Z and the referee isn't compelled to add any time for it, but if a player goes down injured and requires treatment then the ref will tell players that he's adding time for it. once the fourth official has held up the board for however many minutes added time that should be the limit, and he should blow a whistle or honk a f***ing airhorn when that time has elapsed. if a goal is scored in that added 2/3/4 minutes then tough. at least it'd be some degree of consistency.

 

 

agree with this, its this 'a minimum of...' that just allows them to do whatever the f***ing like. whats the point of telling anyone then?

Ripley

Ripley

Posted
  • Author
Posted
And sometimes they don't even play the 'minimum' time! Remember the 2007 European Cup final?

I prefer to remember the 6 (SIX!) minutes of added time in the 05 SF against Chelsea.

 

Where did that come from?

Duncan Disorderly

Duncan Disorderly

Posted
Posted

It's called "injury time" so it should be time added on for just that. Everything else that happens during the game is part of the game. If it really came down to it, they should have an ice-hockey/basketball style blower at the very second that injury time elapses, that would cut out the crap.

JRC

JRC

Posted
Posted
I prefer to remember the 6 (SIX!) minutes of added time in the 05 SF against Chelsea.

 

Where did that come from?

A pitch invasion by 2 Catalan seperatists or something waving a flag which took 2-3 minutes to clear, alongside the usual stuff?

ManxRed

ManxRed

Posted
Posted
This coming weekend in the Premiership you will find that all of the games will have longer than what is normallty expected added time.

 

Correct. We should refer to this, from this point forward, as the 'current climate'

Duncan Disorderly

Duncan Disorderly

Posted
Posted
Correct. We should refer to this, from this point forward, as the 'current climate'

It is a good climate for them. Plenty of berries around and you can blast the oven, turn it off and leave them in it overnight. Hey-presto...currants!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Home

Notifications

PMs
×
×
  • Create New...