Time wasting in football

if you can't perform in the alloted time
---
That's the whole point, it's not the alloted time. It's 60 minutes out of 90. Stopping the clock would give every team the exact same amount of time in play.

"Inbefore (U20589)

posted 12 hours, 15 minutes ago

Cut the halfs to 35 min a half and stop the clock when the balls not in play stadium clock hooked to fourth officials clock give them something to do stopping starting it in and out of play, cut the time keepers are allowed to hold onto it by half and im happy."

There was a rule brought in in the World cup, USA 94!..

The Keeper was given 6 seconds to get rid of the ball after picking it up!..

Odd because its never been used!..

I've been in North America for close to thirty years now and have had plenty of chance to ponder and debate the merits of sports here compared to the sports I grew up with. Stopping the clock when the ball is out of play seemed like it would be a positive and I remember becoming a strong advocate a couple of World Cups ago after seeing the excessive time wasting while watching with Canadian friends. I haven't changed my stance, but have tried to play devil's advocate to try and find the downside. Here's a couple of things I thought of.

A team that is being run ragged could use stoppages to their advantage to slow/change the momentum. Or, how about a team that plays like Bielsa's Leeds stretching the breaks out to the max just so they can refresh and keep their foot on the gas even more - hang on, that's actually a positive at the moment . The point is it would alter the pace of the game, as coach's seek to do what they always do and work the rules to their advantage. I think you would have to have a secondary rule limiting the stoppage time, but where would you draw that line? If 30 seconds was the max time allowed for a throw-in, then it's likely that could just end up being the norm, especially in light of my second point.

TV companies would love if they could stop the game to increase ad revenue. A 30 second max limit for a throw-in could easily become more of a minimum, mandatory TV time-out. Lack of predictable stoppage time was always touted as a key reason hindering the growth of football in North America, so I can't imagine a rule change like this wouldn't be exploited by the money men.

Anyway, I haven't necessarily changed my stance, and maybe the above points don't outweigh the benefits, but I do think there could be a "be careful what you wish for" angle to this.

Good points, Canada. The constant stoppages and ad breaks in American sports make it difficult to watch for me.

The time to take a throw in wouldn't change in this instance. It would still be expected like now that it's taken straight away, no 30 second break. And theoretically, players could still be booked for taking too long, even with clock paused.

I think teams are well within their right to slow the pace of the game down. But every match would still have 70 or 80 minutes or play without fail, whichever half lenght was chosen.

comment by steross17 (U6898)
posted 1 day, 12 hours ago
Taking the ball to the corner infuriates me, like you said where is the entertainment value in that!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it is all about winning

comment by Best Fans - ¡Leeds Carajo! (U2196)
posted 1 day ago
if you can't perform in the alloted time
---
That's the whole point, it's not the alloted time. It's 60 minutes out of 90. Stopping the clock would give every team the exact same amount of time in play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it is if you have control of the ball

if your are in possession of the ball, you can do wtf you like, i have no issue with this so called time wasting at all, it's all part of the game, it is not cheating, it is control

Taking 30 seconds for every throw in, goalkick and faking injuries to get treatment time is cheating. It's why it can be punished with a yellow card.

I'm not talking about taking it in the corner. The ball is in play in that instance.

The game is supposed to be 90 minutes, not 60.

Time wasting is not "so-called" though, is it, Kamara? Players can get booked for doing it now. It's just that the regs are not applied evenly, if at all.

As a paying customer, I'd prefer not to watch well paid players noncing about wasting time, preventing me from profiting fully from the purchase I'd made.

That's like going into a pub on a Friday and asking for a pint and the barman only gives you two thirds of the pint you've paid for because ignoring the standard measures legislation that is in force nationally is just part of the business, no?

Difference is that the standard measures regs are enforced to such an extent, with some pretty heavy penalties for transgressors, that most publicans will pour you the pint you've paid for, fair and square, cos they don't want the grief. The regs act as a deterrent to the point where it's taken for granted that such "dark arts" are not worth even a second thought.

It's human nature, unfortunately, to game any system for advantage. It's what we do best. We need protecting from ourselves.

don't be so daft, these days it is about winning not entertaining, unfortunately as you it is what it is, stop moaning, yes we want to be entertained however they do what they do to win, will to agree to disagree