The turtle Posted October 22, 2022 Report Share Posted October 22, 2022 Something that gets talked about a lot. Many solutions, ball in play 70 min games , etc etc. Today was a great example of why time should be taken out of the referees hands and given to another official. 10-12 mins would not have been a shock today. I've seen slight improvements this season , but today was silly. The sooner we start getting up to 10-15 mins added on, the sooner players stop bother to waste it. Really felt reading were the worst I've seen at it in a while , absolutely everything was taking forever. However , the fact is they beat the referee as only gave 5 mins means well done to them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bar BS3 Posted October 22, 2022 Report Share Posted October 22, 2022 We didn't manage a shot on target in over 100 minutes today. What makes you think an extra 5 mins would make much difference..? 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cidercity1987 Posted October 22, 2022 Report Share Posted October 22, 2022 Part of the game now and every team does it including us, unless you're Man City Solution is to play 60 min games with the clock stopping at every foul every offside and every time the ball goes out 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted October 22, 2022 Report Share Posted October 22, 2022 I didn’t think they were too bad to be fair - seen much worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curr Avon Posted October 22, 2022 Report Share Posted October 22, 2022 14 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said: We didn't manage a shot on target in over 100 minutes today. What makes you think an extra 5 mins would make much difference..? Exactly, they should take time off! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dolman Pragmatist Posted October 22, 2022 Report Share Posted October 22, 2022 Time wasting is always fine if you’re winning… 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The turtle Posted October 22, 2022 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2022 7 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said: We didn't manage a shot on target in over 100 minutes today. What makes you think an extra 5 mins would make much difference..? I don't, but whether or not a team has managed a shot on target shouldn't factor in to time added on. Using that logic , ref should just blow on 90, due to 0 shots on target. 6 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said: Part of the game now and every team does it including us, unless you're Man City Solution is to play 60 min games with the clock stopping at every foul every offside and every time the ball goes out It's part of the game because players know, no matter how bad they act .. The additional time is never even close. Be surprised if it's even 50%. If they knew there was no gain , probably would not do it half as much as would be no point. 9 minutes ago, Alex_BCFC said: I didn’t think they were too bad to be fair - seen much worse. Totally seen worse . But that last 30 mins they were horrible . Don't think 5 mins was close to enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted October 22, 2022 Report Share Posted October 22, 2022 All teams time waste when they’re winning - it’s called game management and particularly last season it was one element of City’s games that has really pissed Nige off……….……. City are much better at it now thankfully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted October 22, 2022 Report Share Posted October 22, 2022 5 minutes ago, The turtle said: I don't, but whether or not a team has managed a shot on target shouldn't factor in to time added on. Using that logic , ref should just blow on 90, due to 0 shots on target. It's part of the game because players know, no matter how bad they act .. The additional time is never even close. Be surprised if it's even 50%. If they knew there was no gain , probably would not do it half as much as would be no point. Totally seen worse . But that last 30 mins they were horrible . Don't think 5 mins was close to enough. Think it was about right - 6 mins. Sadly we wasted more of our own time for being shite for 87 minutes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The turtle Posted October 22, 2022 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2022 1 minute ago, Alex_BCFC said: Think it was about right - 6 mins. Sadly we wasted more of our own time for being shite for 87 minutes. Clearly I'm alone in this thought. Turtle back to the shell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheltons Army Posted October 22, 2022 Report Share Posted October 22, 2022 4 minutes ago, The turtle said: Clearly I'm alone in this thought. Turtle back to the shell I don’t think you are alone in your thoughts at all Turtle , I think most would agree on subject of time wasting Just think today was probably not the best time to get people interested ! They were meant to be cracking down on it this season but I’ve seen little if no evidence 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1960maaan Posted October 22, 2022 Report Share Posted October 22, 2022 33 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said: Solution is to play 60 min games with the clock stopping at every foul every offside and every time the ball goes out Fifa suggested this about 4/5 years ago, not sure what happened to the idea. At first my knee-jerk reaction was NO ! But when you look into it it makes sense. The average time of "ball in play" in the Prem is around 55 mins, a few years back around the time of the suggestion, L2 dropped to 50 minutes . If you had a hard rule for 55 minutes ball in play you know where you stand. 22 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said: Time wasting is always fine if you’re winning… I watched the Reading channel (my Robins TV went down 15 mins from time) The main Coms was delighted when from an easy standing catch their keeper fell to the ground holding the ball. TBF he did say he hated it when other teams did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
italian dave Posted October 22, 2022 Report Share Posted October 22, 2022 25 minutes ago, The turtle said: Clearly I'm alone in this thought. Turtle back to the shell 19 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said: I don’t think you are alone in your thoughts at all Turtle , I think most would agree on subject of time wasting Just think today was probably not the best time to get people interested ! They were meant to be cracking down on it this season but I’ve seen little if no evidence Yes, I agree with what you say - but as SA says, probably not the day for it. There was only one team going to score in whatever time was added on……and they did! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exAtyeoMax Posted October 23, 2022 Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 10 hours ago, 1960maaan said: Fifa suggested this about 4/5 years ago, not sure what happened to the idea. At first my knee-jerk reaction was NO ! But when you look into it it makes sense. The average time of "ball in play" in the Prem is around 55 mins, a few years back around the time of the suggestion, L2 dropped to 50 minutes . If you had a hard rule for 55 minutes ball in play you know where you stand. I watched the Reading channel (my Robins TV went down 15 mins from time) The main Coms was delighted when from an easy standing catch their keeper fell to the ground holding the ball. TBF he did say he hated it when other teams did it. Do they have lots of added time because of VAR? I don’t watch the Prem so don’t know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlesh*t Posted October 23, 2022 Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 12 hours ago, cidercity1987 said: Part of the game now and every team does it including us, unless you're Man City Solution is to play 60 min games with the clock stopping at every foul every offside and every time the ball goes out Why 60 minutes? Surely if the game is meant to be 90 minutes do what you have suggested but with 90 minutes instead of 60? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted October 23, 2022 Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 We did it very well against West Brom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1960maaan Posted October 23, 2022 Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 1 hour ago, exAtyeoMax said: Do they have lots of added time because of VAR? I don’t watch the Prem so don’t know Judging by this article (sorry about the source) then no. 50 minutes ago, Littlesh*t said: Why 60 minutes? Surely if the game is meant to be 90 minutes do what you have suggested but with 90 minutes instead of 60? For the ball to be "in play" a whole 90 minutes, the 'game' would last about 3 hours. A bit like NFL games. They time the game properly, their 60 minutes can last over 3 hours to complete. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Humble Realist Posted October 23, 2022 Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 We have an awful team for delaying the restart. By that I mean little kicks of the ball when a foul is given , little tricks to be in between the player and the ball, picking up the ball so a player cant take a free kick. Every team does it but I hate it..I'd much rather all teams cut it out but no one should pretend we arent as bad as most Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pezo Posted October 23, 2022 Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 Fairly sure we were the biggest waste of time yesterday. Serious lack of urgency to our play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exAtyeoMax Posted October 23, 2022 Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 1 hour ago, 1960maaan said: Judging by this article (sorry about the source) then no. For the ball to be "in play" a whole 90 minutes, the 'game' would last about 3 hours. A bit like NFL games. They time the game properly, their 60 minutes can last over 3 hours to complete. Perhaps if the ref was to add time for VAR, VAR would clean up its act and be used quicker and I was going to say, efficiently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlesh*t Posted October 23, 2022 Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 2 hours ago, 1960maaan said: Judging by this article (sorry about the source) then no. For the ball to be "in play" a whole 90 minutes, the 'game' would last about 3 hours. A bit like NFL games. They time the game properly, their 60 minutes can last over 3 hours to complete. I get what you are saying but surely if we are classifying it as a 90 minute game then let's make it be that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-S-M Seagull Posted October 23, 2022 Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 Goal keepers wasting time really annoys me. Simple save yet they all throw themselves to the floor and then roll around and then take ages to get up. 30 or 40 seconds the ball can be in their hands. We need to go back to the 8 seconds or whatever it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted October 23, 2022 Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 Counted Lumley yesterday with the ball in hand. 12 seconds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1960maaan Posted October 23, 2022 Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 17 minutes ago, Littlesh*t said: I get what you are saying but surely if we are classifying it as a 90 minute game then let's make it be that. When you think about it, it's always been a game over 90 minutes not a game of 90 minutes. They have never played a full 90, it's just now with the more added time that we are aware of it. Growing up the Ref just added what he wanted, the introduction of the 4th official and his board meant we were aware of what was added. Now that time wasting has become more obvious, the ball in play thing has also become more obvious. I think the 60 minutes is a good idea, and you actually get more football. There will still be time wasting "in play", but taking time over throws and kicks would , or should be cut out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedLionLad Posted October 23, 2022 Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 5 hours ago, Littlesh*t said: Why 60 minutes? Surely if the game is meant to be 90 minutes do what you have suggested but with 90 minutes instead of 60? That would make most games over 2 hours long and that would affect the live TV schedules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Cyril Posted October 23, 2022 Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 18 hours ago, 1960maaan said: The main Coms was delighted when from an easy standing catch their keeper fell to the ground holding the ball. TBF he did say he hated it when other teams did it. Give teams permission to tackle the keeper when he is in possession like in the old days. Big chunk of time wasting solved as well a resurgence of the entertainment gold watching keepers play on with broken necks.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.