PaulMdj
Well-known member
Yes it would help, but even last time you didn’t answer how it’s any different to Rugby playing on until the ball goes dead after the hooter, could be 2 seconds, could be minutes.
Swango1980
Well-known member
Is that a problem though? There is still certainty that when the ball goes out, it is game over.Yes it would help, but even last time you didn’t answer how it’s any different to Rugby playing on until the ball goes dead after the hooter, could be 2 seconds, could be minutes.
venger
Well-known member
Any striker to tottenham after defoe/keane and before harry kaneView attachment 61327
Any they missed out on?
Another list
Premier League's 50 worst transfers of all time
All right: We've covered the best deals in PL history, but what makes a bad deal? Whatever the reasons behind them, here are the 50 worst since the league began in 1992.www.espn.co.uk
PaulMdj
Well-known member
So why is it a problem in Football, the 4th Official shows the board saying (for example) 2 minutes, that means a minimum of 2 minutes will be added on by the Referee.
There may or may not be time wasting during that 2 minutes.
When the Referee blows his whistle for full time, the game is over, the point of certainty has been reached!
What the point of certainty is not the debate, it is the not knowing how long it will take to reach it.
For that there is no difference between the Sports.
Swango1980
Well-known member
The bit in bold highlights that there is NO point of certainty. That point is only reached once the full time / half time whistle is blown. But there is no certainty within the game, and that is what clearly frustrates a lot of fans. It is why they question how much the referee has added on, and is it too much or too little. And it is why we are having this converstation on this forum. Some see it as an issue that can be improved.
At some point in the past, no board with injury time was even shown. I guess there were lots of groans of frustration that the injury time was completely unknown, and perhaps some fans just argued football is a different sport, and that is they way we must continue? Despite that, they eventually introduced the board displaying injury time, and that was an imporvement. So, adding a visible time clock just seems to be an advance on that. And with the technology now available in all the best stadiums, there doesn't seem to be a tech reason for it not to exist. It is infinitely easier to implement than VAR.
I'm not bothered if they play until the ball goes out (after 90 mins), or the game simply flat out ends after 90 minutes, regardless of what is happening. The only thing that needs to be carefully considered is how the clock stops and starts throughout the game. I wouldn't want it to stop every time the ball is out, because I don't want football games to last as long as Amwerican Football games. But they could stop the clock once the ball is out of play for 5 or 10 seconds. It would just take some analysis of existing football games to understand what would be considered normal and what is excessive.
PaulMdj
Well-known member
This is changing the point, I answered you about the ball going dead being the point of certainty, exactly the same thing as the Ref blowing his whistle to signal full time, ie both signal the end of the game regardless of what has gone on previously.
I do agree about the time wasting and how that is looked at, and it certainly needs improving.
Swango1980
Well-known member
If the half is simply over when the clock reaches 45 / 90, then everyone knows when the game will end.
If they decide to let play continue until ball goes out of play, it adds excitement in the fact that, depending on the state of the game, the team in possession may just kick the ball out of play, or push to keep possession and create a scoring chance. The team without the ball may aim to get the ball and kick it out of play, or win the ball, keep it in play and score themselves. When both teams want to get a winning goal, it makes it an interesting tactical choice. Does the team in possession try and score, but risk losing possession and getting countered?
In both cases, fans, players and managers are not in any doubt about when the game will end, or what needs to happen for the game to end. Whereas at the moment, once the alloted injury time is up, we have no idea if the ref will blow in the next second, allow an attack to proceed, or even let the game continue and develop into another attack after the game is restarted. The game can sometimes end minutes after the alloted time, especially in this day and age of VAR checks, and players going down "injured" in the injury time. I believe these are the aspects of the current way of doing things that annoy many people?
PaulMdj
Well-known member
I agree with the bit in bold, so what happens if a player gets injured during this time or an attacking team wins a free kick? Just say unlucky the balls dead.
Part of not knowing exactly when the whistle will blow is also exciting for fans, as you say your team is attacking and you may have one last chance from the corner you’ve won or free kick on the edge of the box etc.
I genuinely don’t believe there is an issue with how long play will continue unless you are that team trying to hang on to a slender lead and the majority of games end near enough when the injury time is up.
Swango1980
Well-known member
There would just need to be careful consideration to certain aspects. If they decide to let play continue until the ball goes dead, for example, then if the defending team fouls a player in the attacking team, the free kick is permitted. Thus, a half cannot end on a foul (or an injury).
Your middle line is the one I'm not sure with, but I can only answer from my own perspective. I hate not knowing when the referee will blow the whistle. Emotions range from frustration to anxiety, but excitement is definitely never one of them. I have never got the impression fans, in general, get excited about the uncertainty of when the game would end? But, if that was the general feeling amongst fans, then it would have been better had they never introduced the board telling us how much injury time is expected in the first place. Then fans could have several minutes of thinking their team might carve our a few chances to score.
Lucifer MorningStar
Well-known member
What about if the keeper has the ball and his team only need a point to secure league position or his team are 1-0 up. All he has to do is throw the ball into touch, same goes for a player anywhere on the pitch they just hoof it into touch to end the game in their favour! No thanks that’s just open to abuse and not in the spirit of playing a competitive match.
Nothing wrong with playing to the whistle , definitely a case if it’s not broke don’t try to fix it on that one.
Nothing wrong with playing to the whistle , definitely a case if it’s not broke don’t try to fix it on that one.
PaulMdj
Well-known member
Officials have clear guidelines of how much to add on for certain events, subs etc.
The 4th Official keeps a record, that’s why it’s a minimum and Refs have the final say.
Keepers taking their time at goal kicks, Refs holding up fingers to signify countdown, Football is trying, I just believe there’s no definitive answer to suit everyone.
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
Is that not what happens in rugby ?
But I don’t think the game going until the ball goes out would work in football
Rugby they stop the clock for many things
Football they add time on etc
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
Lucifer MorningStar
Well-known member
I’ll reiterate my earlier point. Who cares what happens in Rugby, this is football and playing to the whistle is not an issue that needs fixing.
It’s open to abuse and fans will then complain they’ve been cheated by someone throwing the ball out. It’s not broke, don’t fix it.
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
Well if it’s after the time has expired then how will they have been cheated
But that’s why it doesn’t work in many sports apart from Rugby etc because of the patterns of play
Lucifer MorningStar
Well-known member
Don’t see the issue with it. He had a problem with the previous manager and stuck to his guns not to play for them on principle of his own personal reasons. That management team has gone so he’s made himself available, he’s a good right back, can also cover at CB. Trent has been overlooked as he’s been woeful at best this season and doesn’t look like regaining any form.
Now I know you’re being pedantic, same fans that can’t accept time added on, will call a shirt pull or push on their player as a foul but claim to have been hard done by if given against them. Fans will feel cheated because it’s very different someone purposely throwing a ball out knowing that ends the game compared to a referee officiating blowing a whistle. If you can’t see that then you’re merely trying to push a point for the sake of it, again it’s not broke it doesn’t need fixing.
Your last line also confirms things don’t work like they do in rugby due to how it’s played so why implement something into a sport that doesn’t work with the same style of play where advantage is meant to be gained from a dead ball. Genuinely got nothing else to add on this subject now because we’re just going round in circles.
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
Neilds
Assistant Pro
There is never the right amount of time added on in football. Guidelines say an extra 30 seconds for a substitution or a goal but these events are usually much longer and sometimes you get 5 minutes added on when there has been 5 goals and 8 subs. Even when there is a substitution in added time, often the referee will blow exactly on time.
Lucifer MorningStar
Well-known member
Ooh bold letters.. or commonly known as the typing version of shouting
You asked why would it be seen as cheating I gave the reasons why and just added my thoughts on why they’d feel that and why it wouldn’t work. Please accept my humble apologies for replying and explaining myself in a post you quoted me on
And on that I’m definitely out
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
Ooh bold letters.. or commonly known as the typing version of shouting
You asked why would it be seen as cheating I gave the reasons why and just added my thoughts on why they’d feel that and why it wouldn’t work. Please accept my humble apologies for replying and explaining myself in a post you quoted me on
And on that I’m definitely out
Was an error on bolding out the bit I was replying too
Again as is said I don’t think it would work in football
But in other sports where it is time done and play on until the ball is dead then the defending team will kick it dead the game , it’s not cheating , why would they keep it alive just so the oppo might be able to score
