"Young people's interest" has nothing to do with any of this. Young people can't afford to go to the games. You want youth buy-in? Make it so they can actually buy their way into the stadium. If tickets were £10, kids'd be there every weekend. If they're £150, the seats will just have bored middle management types and contest winners. Every other issue on "interest" is secondary.
Agreed. can apply that to TV as well a lot of younger people don't have the spending power to pay the eye watering amount for sky before you then get BT sport and Amazon to not even watch a majority of your team's games
"Young people's interest" is what F1 used to abandon under the previous owner and resulted in the sport's fanbase declining each year. Most sports fans became ones because they've been exposed and entertained since they're children.
What’s needed is referees to show some bravery when it comes to dealing with time wasting. Booking a player for time wasting with less than 10mins to play is just a token “look at me, I dealt with it” gesture, warn a player the first time and book him the second, if he chooses to do it a third time then he’s clearly a sandwich short of a picnic. That’s what football fans want, not losing 30mins of play and gaining extra television adverts no doubt!
@Blue It’s one of my pet hates, that and the whole “we can’t do anything about diving”. Solution to diving is retrospectively have referees watch each match, any play acting caught should see a 1 match ban, the second time a 2 game ban and so on, the minute a star player gets a 5 game ban for diving the club will wonder why they’re paying him to sit in the stands. It won’t take long to eradicate diving.
@@nicholasperry4730 I think you’d be surprised if all referees clamped down on time wasting most fans would be all for it. It’s a gripe that even the fans of the team doing it have. As long as the referee gives a clear warning then everyone watching will know of that if the goalkeeper decides he can’t possibly take his goal kick from that side of the 6 yard box, or that player must ensure the ball is completely dry before he dare takes throw in then they’re going to get booked, and it’s all their own work.
@Blue completely! A player emphasising contact, or going down under limited contact isn’t diving in my eyes, but jumping over a leg that’s nowhere near you is clearly a dive and screw a yellow, it deserves a ban!
Some players waste time by lying on the floor appearing close to hospitalisation before getting up and running around like new born lambs. Last week Lo Celso pretended he had broken his ankle after running into Allisson. When he got nothing for it, he stopped pretending. Something to make players accountable for this pathetic behaviour might cut down on the time they waste.
One of the good things about VAR is that it has definitely reduced the amount of diving, although as it has been switched to focus mainly on goals/penalty shouts it has definitely not got rid of it all together
Players faking head injuries is a recent trend that's caught on as well. Richarlison the other week heading the ball away, unchallenged from a corner sprints up the pitch to get involved in a counter attack and then when Everton lose the ball 5 seconds later, he falls to the ground like a sack of potatoes. They know that the ref has to stop the game and granted they always do. I'd seriously consider 5 game bans for faking head injuries as we don't want a situation where a ref doesn't believe a player has a real head injury because 2 players have faked one already in a game
Just a suggestion, with the sin bin of rugby in mind: if a player has been lying on the grass for 10 seconds or more, he/she will have to go off the pitch, take it easy, and he can come back on again after 15 minutes on the 'recovery bin'. Players that really are injured will go off anyway, the fakers will make sure they get up in time again, or else they primarily screw their own team over by being down 1 (wo)man.
NCAA Soccer (university leagues) in the US has been playing 40 minute halves with a stopped clock for decades. Look there to see what this looks like in practice.
@@fazman72 it’s a throwback to the days before technology came into the elite game, which is pre goal line technology. Before that the ideal was that football was essentially the same at all levels. The stopping clock is not practical in parks football.
I feel like discussions around time wasting always come about towards the end of the season, teams are more desparate to get wins and/or stop wins for opposing teams so deploy more of the time wasting methods.
Last year in the Netherlands there was the Future of Football Cup, with youth teams as PSV, Leipzig and Club Bruges. They 'tested' out 5 new rules, including the pure playing time of 30 min a half. Other rules were; throwing in is kicking in, unlimited changes, yellow card is 5 mins out and with a free kick you can dribble immediately. All matches can be found on UA-cam and are interesting (and entertaining) to watch.
oh ffs, i remember dutch/italian clubs in Australia would implement the kick in rule during junior tournaments, the coaches didn’t know what was going on and they would run rings around us before we even realised the ball had went out lol
I remember playing in a tournament like that in Sacramento California maybe 8 years ago. It made for very good games and honestly more running than a regular game. The last 15mins of a 90min game is the best though, opportunists make their move
I remember keeping time once in a Bundesliga match (Bayern vs Bayer) that was shown on live TV around the year 2000, the actual play time was around 54 minutes when the final whistle blew...it's ridiculous.
What makes time-wasting attractive for teams is the fact that officials have never added extra time corresponding to the time wasted. If the officials start doing that, we might see 10-15 mins added as extra time. They should add fines for team captains as done in Cricket for slower than expected game progress (teams need to bowl X overs/hour on avg). Example, the team captain is penalized if a team causes >5/10 mins of added time in the match, after removing delays due to injuries/VAR checks.
but as they just said in the video, the actual time added should be closer to 30 minutes. why do all that when you could just do a stopped clock? that also takes it out of the officials hands so we wouldnt have “fergie time” bs or refs ending matches before the minimum allotted extra minutes
@@randommage1 I would say that the 90 minutes are not intended to be pure gameplay. Also with current rules you pretty much know that a game takes 2 hours of your time (with some exceptions) It you stop the clock that can vary drastically ,which is not ideal for the fans or the TV stations.
You would still get the time added for injuries and stoppages but the amount of time where the ball isn't in play might go down from 30 min to 20 min, it would decrease any incentives.
@@randommage1 The thing is stopping the clock will still not decrease time wasting by a lot. Teams would still waste time for the mental aspects, to wind up opposition, to reduce intensity and have a breather when being barraged with attacks. To remove such time wasting, there is a need to disincentivize time wasting apart from just saying that playing time will be consistent. Plus will also give predictability to the overall game duration - TV broadcasters won't want to schedule matches which might finish in 120 mins or 180 mins, with actual playing time remaining 90 mins in each (obviously extra time/pens adds time, but in that case the playing time is also more). They love their scheduled, pre-planned programming.
@@AniketGarg07 what you just described is every knockout stage match ever. Some end in 90 mins, some go to extra time and take 120 mins and some go to penalties and take even longer. Large differences between game duration are a thing already.
An option to keep the running clock: 1. Have an extra ref who is a dedicated time keeper 2. Any stoppage that lasts longer than X seconds is immediately added to stoppage time. X would vary based on throw in, goal kick, goalie with ball in hands 3. Don’t bother with time wasting yellows 4. If player has an injury or “injury,” they can’t enter the field for 5 minutes after they leave
Or, just stop the clock. Why overcomplicate it when a stopped clock eliminates those issues completely. Added time is a complete joke, always has been.
another way to increase in game time could be to make VAR more efficient, or have harsher laws against time wasting (but that would be difficult to draw a specific line on)
@@limbeboy7 the problem is that when refs enforce the rules, and we end games with 5 or 6 red cards for time wasting, they'll get accused of 'ruining the game' or 'making it all about them' at which point the FA ill tell them not to bother again.
I agree with Colina, we need to get used to seeing large amounts of stoppage time. Instead of stopping a visible clock they should start one every time there’s a stoppage. Fans can then see the visual accumulation, at the end of each half the clock runs backwards and stops at every stoppage (preventing a re-accumulation of time) until the time is completed. In practice - let’s say there’s 15 minutes of stoppages for injuries, bookings, setting up free kicks, VAR etc. Once 45 minutes passes a clock runs backwards from 15 minutes, a player takes a shot which goes over the bar and the clock stops until the GK takes a kick to put the ball back in play. The final challenge is encouraging referees to communicate and direct the game to move quickly so what would initially be an average of 15 minutes perhaps dropped to 10 minutes perhaps for games without incidence.
Stopping the clock for throw ins, goal kicks, substitutions, VAR checks & stoppage due to injuries would be the best immediate solution to this problem
Playing time can only have improved because they didn’t have the laws we have today. For example in the 80’s there was no back pass rule so teams like Liverpool just used to hold possession by passing it back to the keeper who would pick it up and pass it to his defender. You could say they won a lot by boring their opponents to death.
@@iwantgoals1566 But... Your comment is an example of increased playtime. Playtime is exactly that, time spent actually playing the game. 15 minutes of backpassing is dull as heck, but it is 15 minutes of playtime (as far as the statistics are concerned), as opposed to time spent faffing about during throw-ins, set pieces, pretend/exaggerated injuries, or VAR rulings.
@@user-kh7zf You’ve picked that apart very pedantically because I didn’t specify whether or not I meant dead ball time. But the video itself also mentioned time wasting actions. Time wasting actions include backpassing without any intention of making an attacking play. That’s part of the reason it was ruled out of the game.
@@iwantgoals1566 I'm not sure how it is pedantic to think playtime means playtime. Time wasting and dead ball time are not one and the same, and measures to tackle dead ball time dont always tackle time wasting. But to stick to your narrative of time wasting, unless they come up with strict rules regarding time wasting that have little to no room for interpretation, time wasting has and will continue to become more problematic as the stakes rise to ridiculous heights
@@user-kh7zf But you know time wasting isn’t genuine play time. Yes the ball is moving but not with the intention of actively scoring a goal and that’s what I meant. Semantics aside, I’m speaking less about stopping time wasting all together and more about significantly reducing time wasting. If you can get a yellow card for time wasting now there are other measures you can take to reduce it.
I think it's a great idea. As a football fan I hate to see timewasting techniques! But as an amateur referee myself it would be really hard to manage without someone else controlling a stadium clock. That's my only concern: how amateur referees should be able to actually do this in real time by them self.
It could be done the same way as amateur basketball. You have a dedicated time keeper whose job is solely to start and stop the clock. The referee referees and the timekeeper keeps time.
In amateur rugby you can have an assistant referee that does just that, or the central referees do it for themselves, it does not look like they are struggling and the rules about when stopping the clock are easy to understand for the ref and the players
In amateur basketball, the same issue is present, yet they still use a stopping clock. How? Very simple. Someone else does control the clock. It’s an extremely simple job. You literally stop the clock whenever you hear the ref’s whistle or if the ball goes out of play, and you start it again on the ref’s whistle or when the ball is back in play. It can literally be performed by any neutral individual, and it does not require a trained referee. You still have a linesman for your games, right? If there’s no one that can be provided to fill the role of handling the clock, the linesman can do it with a stopwatch.
I think it shouldn't be one extreme or the other: I would test stopping the clock for substitutes, when the ball goes out for a goal kick or corner, injuries, and in the case of throw-ins make a time limit like the 6 seconds for goalies but ACTUALLY enforce it and turnover the ball if they violate it and a yellow after a second offense (see how that data works out after a youth tournament or test series and then tweak it instead of guessing the changes or being too radical). American college soccer uses the stopping clock (Ref gives a hand signal to booth guy for stopping and restarting the clock) for injuries and major stops on a count down clock from 90 mins and I didn't mind it while watching when in college because the time wasting is annoying
I think that would work well, there is nothing more frustrating when watching a game, than when a keeper catches a ball and dives on the ground wasting 30 seconds, that sort of stuff makes me want to turn the tv off.
agreed, I also want to see time stopped as a first step of combating time wasting, who needs extra time when you can prevent the teams from running the clock
If you increase playing time by another 10 minutes, it would knacker out the players. The injuries would pile up and the intensity of the game would greatly diminish. With or without time wasting, 60 minutes of playing time is par for the course in football. Reducing dead time and playing more would simply mean more injuries, less intensity. Don't even get me started on the whole inquiry time!!! Its about as random and moronic as anything any sport has ever seen. Knowing how football works, this 60 minutes would be realized in year 2045.
@@JW-be8wf I understand where you are coming from which is why I am not in favor of stopping the clock for everything to actually get 80 or 90 minutes of real play, but with the introduction of 5 subs in the game then I think getting it up to 70ish mins using any or all of the tactics I listed would be fine. It is mostly the larger organizations' faults for more injuries like UEFA expanding the champions league schedule and the league cup having two legs in some rounds. Work together and it can improve the game without harming players further
It's a good idea to look to increase game time and speed up the game. I hardly see yellow cards for time wasting even though it happens often. I looked up the match stats for that 2018 Cardiff - Burnley game and sure enough Morrison didn't get a yellow even though it sounds like he deserved it. A stopping clock does seem to make some sense, you made some great examples of how widely used it is in other sports. Implementing it in football would require a dedicated person focused solely on managing the clock just like in basketball, hockey etc.
Let's be honest here, it was Warnock ball vs Dyche ball, timewasting wouldn't change the fact that it's just hoof ball for 90 mins (or 42 mins as it turned out). Plus we take long throws, not exactly time wasting, we even lost the game! Silly
There's a slight misunderstanding of how it's done in rugby (league at least). The clock doesn't stop automatically, the ref just has the power to stop the clock at any time. Transferred to football, this would most likely be done when a player goes down injured, or obvious attempts to slow it down at set pieces for instance.
30 minute halves, no injury time, clock stops when the ball goes out after 30 minutes the second half ends the next time the ball goes out of play regardless VAR running constantly and communicating with the referees to reduce delay for checks
Needs a two-pronged approach: put in a stopping clock with 60 or 70 min playing time AND be stricter on time-wasting behaviour. You don't want the stopping clock to be an excuse for players to slow down the game even more. By introducing the stopping clock you take away the reward for time-wasting, by being strictet you punish time-wasting; carrot and stick.
there would no longer be time wasting behavior if the clock is stopped though, it would no longer serve a purpose. Players dont time waste to catch their breaths, they time waste because they know the ref won’t give the correct amount of extra time anyways. if that incentive is gone, then the only way to time waste would be to keep possession
As an American who loves Football ⚽ I think a clock is long overdue. It's so frustrating to watch a match and know that the time of actual play fluctuates from game to game. It's so inconsistent and it's actually unfair to all clubs. You should have every second to either win the game or lose it. It's really a joke. Another thing I'd like to see is a throw in timer. It should be like the NBA where you don't have all day to get the ball in play. A 10-15 second timer from the time they receive the ball to throw it back in would stop the time wasting and it will force pace and actually make throw ins a bit more strategic. I see so many lazy throw ins in football because they have all day to throw it back in. Adding a timer will ramp up the pressure of those throw ins and suddenly the game becomes even more intense.
Harsher punishment for diving is the change I'd like to see the most. Make a reviewing committee of each match to determine whether players dived and then give corresponding punishments for it... such as banning that players 1 match the next time they face the team they just played.
They tried this with the Future of Football Cup in the Netherleands. Gianni Infantino was curious and kept an eye on it. Having watched all of the matches myself, it can definitely work.
As a Philadelphia Sixers fan, I'm honored that you used our team as your representative basketball player. But also, trust me on this one, you don't want stopped clocks. That gives room for ads and they absolutely ruin watching the game. If you want more play time, have refs be braver carding time wasting (cap it if you have to ie you've got 10 seconds to take a throw in or card or something), and increase added time at the end of halves. If you want people to not waste their money you could, idk, lower the ticket prices? Please stop trying to overfix something to the point of making things worse.
This has nothing to do with football or supporters. It’s about Americanising the sport and introduce commercial breaks. Then the paying customers would be forced to sit through advert breaks rather than throw ins or substitutions.
My first few years on the youth team we played with no “stoppage time” but stopped the clock anytime the ball was out of play or there were substitutions. Frankly, that’s the best way to play! And since we are speaking so hyper technical by having VR reviews, why not adjust the clock to be more meeting for meaningful and true for time of play as well.
There's no need to go to extremes. A few changes here and there can add dramatic minutes back to the game. Stopping the clock on Subs is a must. For injured players. The amount of time they are injured on the field is the amount of time they have to remain off field. Min of 1 minute. With exceptions for head injuries and collisions. Time kept by the 4th official. Still only the ref can allow the player on. The clock stops with all var checks and goals scored.
randomly remembered dzeko and his completely shattered shoulder that kept him on the ground for a good two hours, which then magically healed itself as soon as he was off the pitch and wanted to get back in the game.
Are we seriously pretending this isn't about advertising? Stopped clock and nothing happening: cut to an advert. NFL even has TV time outs specficially for it. As much as I admire the cutting down the replay analysis time. The good thing about two 45 minute halves is you broadly know how long a game will take and when it'll finish. This allows transport to be planned etc. If there's a stopped clock a 30 minute half could be anywhere from 35/40 mins to over an hour and ultimately make a game take longer. Please don't mess with our game
You do realise there's a diffrence between stoping the time and a timeout right. For example basketball stops the clock during free throws and when the ball is out of bounds not a single ad. highly doubt anyone can fit an ad in 6 seconds of stopped clocked just saying.
I think this is inventing a problem where none exists. I've never watched a game of football and thought that there wasn't enough play going on. Sure, timewasting by the winning team towards the end of a match is a problem, but you deal with it by actually sanctioning simulation and dithering, not by tearing apart a fundamental aspect of the game. I like the idea of better accounting for stoppages by the granting of more injury time: that would be more in the spirit of the game, and make things more exciting by allowing more time for stellar comebacks like Real Madrid v Man City in the second leg of the Champions League semifinal this year. Stopping the clock like in rugby would make the game completely different, and crucially less predictable. Rugby games go on arbitrarily long on a regular basis because they stop the clock, whereas in football it's much less variable, and that makes it more convenient for everybody.
If you dont see it as a problem fine its your opinion. Just letting you know me and tons of other people are tired with the playing time being cut short due to all the stoppages. That to me, is the main problem. We saw the video, and 30 minutes are lost on average. Now imagine how much exiting football we never got to see in that huge amount of lost time. Ultimately you cant stop time wasting with harsher punishments. Players will simply adapt and be more subtle more inconspicous with it, and now it gets into really sticky territory of leaving it to the judgement of a ref. Do we as fans truly want our match outcomes to be decided by refs. Like a player leaving the match because he took 15 seconds complaining or just quickly went back to complain for a second time right before the play resumes, really? However all this becomes irrelevent if the clock just stops when the whistle blows, couldnt be simpler.
It's not about how long the ball is actually kicked, it's about what a team can achieve in 90 minutes. Statistics can't always be the reason for drastic change. And don't get me started on ticket pricing...
I'm sure one of Wengers ideas was to have the match still 90mins, but with the ball in play time tracked. At the end of the 90 mins if there was not a minimum of 75 mins of ball in play time then time would be added to make this up,
Yes, or something that legislates that the lead official can not end the half until 30 or 35 minutes of live ball time has occurred. I will say this, though: I do not have an issue with timewasting with the ball in play i.e. sitting on the ball. You have the lead, you've earned the right to do that in my opinion.
I used to ref kids football and would get told off by agitated parents for always adding 5-10 minutes of stoppage time because I stopped the clock when the ball wasn’t in play, but the kids always preferred it because it meant they got to play what felt like more football
As an American, the main reason why I stopped watching NBA, NFL, and MLB is because I got so bored with the game being stopped and going to a commercial break every 5 minutes, causing games to last well over 2 or even 3 hours. Football does not have this problem. The stoppages in play are more or less natural and the games end within 2 hours. Adding a stopped clock opens the door to the possibility of games dragging on for ages, and guess what, time wasting is even worse towards the end of games (the final 2 minutes of NFL and NBA games are more like 10 minutes at least). Players time wasting is a part of the game. Maybe there are ways to keep it from getting excessive, but any change that results in league games lasting longer is not ok.
College soccer in the US uses a countdown clock, which stops when the ball is not in play I believe- that should provide more than enough data to analyze the effectiveness of such a system compared to the standard time keeping method.
I’ve just been reading Doctor Sócrates by Andrew Downie and I was surprised to see he campaigned for football to be 9-a-side to improve entertainment and attacking. Would love to see you do a video on that too.
If you found Socrates interesting research about the Democracia Corinthiana meaning Corinthians Democracy where the players had a saying on how the club was run
Am I the only one who thinks changing to 60 minutes with a stopped clock doesn't change anything? The same amount of play occurs and if anything the stoppages will only take longer since there's no impetus to be quick about taking a throw-in, for example. I understand that some games may currently be a few minutes longer than others, but it seems like a lot of upheaval and upsetting of traditionalists for an effectively minor change.
At the moment there is a lack of correlation between effective playing time and additional time added, which results in different amounts of effective playing time per game. The proposed change would eliminate this difference, and would result in games that have a duration of 80-110 minutes of "real clock" time. (I like this proposal).
Well I would say when you see things like a 42 minute game being played, forcing them to play an actual full game should be a welcome change. I would like to see more data on the subject though and the range of the 98% confidence intervals... But just logically thinking not sure why we are counting time between goals, time where officials are doing VAR or booking players, etc, as time being played
The easiest solution is a stopping clock, which is managed by an extra 5th referee on pitch side that stops the clock every time the ball goes out, or the referee blows his whistle for an offside or foul or for a substitution or injury. The clock is not started till the goalkeeper kicks the ball into play, or the player throws the ball into play, or till the referee doesn't initiate play again in case of a VAR check or till a substitution is done. Important thing to note is that the timing of the whistle by the referee becomes important and crucial, so FIFA must make sure of fair referees.
But not for throw in and goal kicks. They just need to be quicker times for the player being active meaning putting in time wasting. I think football needs an alternative system to yellow cards as well.
At this point is important to point out that things in Portugal take their own time, which means your not likely to see the results of anything within the next couple of seasons. Plus, football in Portugal is deeply corrupted, so there’s a lot of people who are quite happy to just let things be as they are now. Change is needed, but change is very hard.
The truth is that they want to increase the number of matches played by reducing the game to 60 minutes to mint more money. It has nothing to do with fans or players and certainly not younger generations interests.
Sure it can, but the biggest problem with stopping time is they will squeeze ads in at anytime possible. In NFL the official game time is 60 mins, but in total the game ended in 3 HOURS, with ads sometimes even cut in game events, it's a fking nightmare.
Not the same. In the NFL those ad breaks are brought on by timeouts. There are no timeouts in soccer the broadcast would continue only the clock stops thats it.
Pretty sure i saw ad breaks during referee discussion deciding penalty etc, also when teams change from offense, defense, and special teams, also most of the time they cut the kickoff(ir whatever it's called) to sqeeze in more ad time.
@@myst7042 Those are quasi timeouts in football. A better example is the clock stopping but no ads during downs before the snap. And the ref reviews are the same. But a normal stop in play has no ads.
Be careful what you wish for. Just like the CL and WC. The executives will see the time stoppage as an opportunity to show Ads, make more money. Making the game even longer with mid-stop ads
Interesting anecdote about a game I played in with a hard stopping clock. We were down 1-0 the whole game, but then with five seconds left the ball falls to our center forward in the box... and the buzzer sounds and the game is over.
And that's why you don't change the rules of the beautiful game. Agüero against QPR? Would have never happened. United's treble? Would have never happened. Rory Delap's career? Erased from history. I can't stand people who think any of these silly changes are a good idea, just play and if you lose accept it and don't blame it on 150 year old rules
When a team is playing down time, it is both trying to reduce playing time and disrupt any dynamic/flow/momentum the opponent tries to create to score a goal. The second aspect can't be sorted by the discussed measures
Adding 10 second clocks for corners, throw ins, goal kicks and free kicks could fix the problem, if the ball isn't kicked within 10 seconds possession is given to the other team.
That wouldn't solve anything; set pieces can easily take more than 10 seconds even when the team is in a hurry. Or you don't want teams to have their best headers, their centre backs up there when they receive a corner? Or you don't want to give time to the referee to measure 10 yards for a free kick wall? No offense, but that kind of dogmatic approach would create more problems than it would solve.
@@andrew7taylor I fully agree. For throw-ins in particular, a time limit could increase the turnover rate significantly enough to make a noticeable change in the dynamic of the game. Teams would have an incentive to press harder for throw-ins to potentially force an error. I don’t have anything against pressing football, quite the opposite actually, but I don’t want it to become commonplace for teams to concede chances from their own throw-ins. You can’t rush these things, but you can’t just let them have all day either. For me, the solution is to stop the clock but still book players who take a long time to bring the ball back into play. While a stopped clock no longer makes it possible for a team to run down the clock with the ball out of play, it does not stop them from keeping the ball out of play for longer than necessary in order to slow down the momentum of the other team. This can only be dealt with by direct officiating by the main referee. If a player has the ball in their hands for like 20 seconds on the touchline, book them even if the clock was off.
Unintended consequence of cutting out time-wasting is that the league would get less competitive. Nobody likes time-wasting but you'd be removing a tool poorer sides have to protect rare leads and giving them nothing in return. Definitely a consideration.
One big way of reducing time is having it where the main referee doesn’t run over and watch video (VAR) reviews. Us spectators are able to see enough replays within 30 seconds of the incident to know the correct call, just have it where the VAR makes the decision like a linesmen and the main referee defers to his judgement
just do it! Who, other than e.g. an Everton fan in a Liverpool game, enjoys watching a goalie lie on the floor, then "contemplating" to play a ball short, while then in every case sending them slowly away and kicking it away as far as possible. It's the plague.
I’m not a fan of this personally because of how much it could change the entire game. It’s already difficult as it is to retain possession from a throw-in, to the point where some teams have dedicated coaches that work specifically on plays from throw-ins. I think a time limit on throw-ins in particular would cause turnovers from throw-ins to occur significantly more frequently due to the pressure of the time limit and the incentive to press harder on throw-ins. I like a stopping clock more because it entirely disregards the time that is spent by the ball in the hands of the thrower. The referee should still be able to book a player for taking an unreasonable amount of time to get the ball back in play, like 30 seconds, but those 30 seconds would no longer be accounted for in playing time anyway. The task goes from policing time wasting to policing sportsmanship with a stopwatch, which I believe is far easier to achieve.
*Time wasting is part of the sport* It's a tactic usually used by underdogs to hold on to a win against the big sides. One could argue that big teams passing it around the back is time wasting.
I am with you on this. Football is the game it is because anyone can play it. Its rules are, essentially, simple and this allows, as you say, underdogs to triumph over bigger teams. If you face a stronger team, a team that would beat you because they are faster, stronger, more skillfull than you, then you have to come up some other way to beat them. The lenght of the game gives it its jeopardy as far as I can see.
The ball in play stat won’t change, teams who are winning or who play very defensive will still slow the game down and kick the ball out of play or dive etc.
Timewasting isn't as big of an issue as its being made out to be here. Gamesmanship is part of the sport, and it often allows smaller teams to grind out results against more dominant sides
If they change the game to 60 minutes, then the average time of game in play will be 17 minutes. You can't stop intentional delays, not to mention showboating.
I think this could work tbh. teams wouldn't be encouraged to waste time and the changes in approach would only be for the better. correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't injury time be obsolete in this format? because when the ref blows the whistle to stop the game after a foul or an injury the clock should be stopped right? so the net time loss would be nonexistent
It could if they switch to 4 quarters at 25 mins each plus stoppage time. This will get rid of hydration break but also incorporate 2 extra quarters to help with tactics but also this would benefit the media as they will have a few minutes to air commercials and fans could visit the food courts. This would be better for the viewers
would be cool to see a “review” system be put in place for VAR. Like how it is in tennis. Each team gets 3 “reviews” in a game if they think there was a handball/offside/foul whatever. Dunno whether it would be positive or negative; players could cheat after the third and final review has been called, or it would limit the amount the amount of diving/time wasting/aggro with the referee etc.
When it comes to VAR, they should stop the clock like they do in hockey, it just makes the most sense. When it comes to free kicks and throw in's, a clock must be introduced in order to speed up the game, if you're too slow, you get a yellow card. I think those are the 2 easiest and immediate solutions for clock management
I think it's worth considering how the leniency in the laws of football toward time-wasting allow teams with less talent and resources to rob superior sides. It's a matter of opinion as to whether that outcome is desirable, but behind almost every David-and-Goliath story in football is copious time-wasting and a lucky goal. If you like to see weaker teams upsetting stronger ones, even a little, you should hesitate to endorse a change in the rules that would curtail those upsets so severely.
Personally I would rather see the best team on the night win. Whether they are David, Goliath, or somewhere in between. Lucky goals and "negative" tactics are part of the game but I feel like measures should be taken against blatant time wasting
Please don't support this idea, they will try to turn it into American sports with ad breaks every time they stop the clock. Ice hockey even have a 2 minutes break just for ads. There are ways to boost play time that are not an excuse to play more full on ads. Imagine the nightmare ''THIS CORNER IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY GOODYEAR''
What should done? Easy...shot clock to reduce time wasting when ball goes out of play or when a foul is committed to hurry the team along. Obviously for serious injuries this wouldn't apply. No need ro reduce the overall match time.
The fairest thing to do would be to stop the clock anytime there was a stoppage in play. The team who is ahead has an unfair advantage because they can waste time and the ref will only add maybe 5 mins to a half whereas they should be adding 15 mins. Stopping the clock when the ball is out of play will also reduce the amount of time wasting there is because then there is no incentive to keeping the ball out of play. If a team is time wasting then the ref can still book them for a delay of game.
British rugby league now also has the shot clock for scrums and dropouts, and a 6 again rule that keeps the game moving rather than stopping it for every penalty
Maybe this would make the diving better but the actual time being played stays the same, right? We will still have slow throw ins to catch a breath, VAR checks and potentially longer injury stops because there is no time pressure if your team is behind. I feel like this could backfire massively. Just start booking dives. Have the VAR check for dives. Or have the players pay a fine after the game if the dived especially badly. We do it for other unsportsmanlike behavior.
As a Portuguese Fan that deals with this time wasting non-sense every weekend, I am 100% on favour of the 60 minutes clock-stopping game (as it is done in futsal). But I would like to see more: clear foul simulations being analysed by VAR as well and punished with yellow cards, players actually being punished for time-wasting even with clock-stops, players on the bench being forbidden to get up during the game if they are not warming-up... Another major change could also be deducting 1 point when your team does more than 35-40 fouls per/game
It’s hard to say for certain until we actually see it get tried and tested in actual matches, but I don’t think it will make a huge difference on the feel of the game at all. We essentially already have 30 minute halves on average in the modern game if we account for all the time wasting, so all this would do is create a standard for it. No more controversial 42 minute games as outliers. Given that players play approximately 60 minutes as we stand today, I don’t think a transition to exactly 60 minutes (or potentially 70 with 35 minute halves) would be unreasonable. In practice, halves would probably still be about 45 minutes long. The time it takes for a throw-in or a set-piece wouldn’t just magically disappear, but it would no longer be accounted for on the clock. If anything, halves might be marginally shorter because players would no longer have a reason to delay getting the ball back in play, but why would we complain about that?
I support the rugby format and once the time finishes play continues until the ball if off the field, creates dramatic ends wen the team in position needs an equalizer after the clock strikes 90:00.
It wont stop timewasting imo, teams will still run the ball in the corner when 1-0 up and will still be slow on goalkick etc, why? well because it does much more than just waste time, look at mourinhos chelsea vs liverpool in 2014, they timewasted from the first second of the game, but not because they wanted to run down the clock, but because it frustrated liverpool and broke up their flow. Teams would still use it for this reason and that can only be changed by timing the throw ins like footsal, tho i personally just wouldnt touch it as its part of the game
Back in the early 2000s when I was a ref we talked about this a lot. But the mantra of the time, a time before goal line technology was the first non human intervention into the officiating of matches, was that all football was the same. A game in the park ran to the same rules as the World Cup final. Sure, you had more officials, but the rule book was the same. This ideal was first lost with goal line technology. Not only was this different to parks football, it was different to one league below the elite. Then came VAR, further removing the universality of the game. The stopping clock would make the grass roots game even more removed from the elite. It’s simply not practical at a local league level to expect a ref, who is on their own with no assistants, to implement a stopping clock. It’s hard enough to time keep a match under the current rules. So you end up football up to a certain level being a game of 90 minutes and at one level above it being a game of 60. Maybe, as the game is no longer universal at all levels anyway, this is not a problem, but that gives some idea as to why this has never been seriously considered.
Because the transfer window is a misnomer. It is really a registration window. Any club can buy any player at any time. But you can only register them and start to play them during the "transfer window".
if I'm correct it's more then make public announcements and agree fees and terms in principle but the transfer still wouldn't officially go through in terms of the players ability to register to play for there new club until the next available registration period. I think we laregly talk about transfer windows but it's more about those windows of registration, you can agree to buy a player whenever what your buying is the right to register them in your squad of players which can only be done at certain times of the year.
@@danpreston564 yeah they do, the above comment is correct, it is more of a “registration” window. for ex., Barca signed a player (arda turan) during a “transfer” ban, but could not register him until the ban was lifted.
This is a major issue that really needs to be addressed. Many matches I have watched that contain little football because one team is running down the clock at every opportunity. It’s a guess, but I think if more active playing time was seen across the initial 90 mins then far less cup matches would go to extra time / pens as well.
The difference is that it would now be consistent. The ball will be in play for 30 minutes in the first half, and 30 more in the second half. Every single time. There would be no room to play for a draw or hold a lead by perpetually playing for throw-ins and taking ages to get the ball back in play. Things like the AFCON controversy where a match (I believe it was between Mali and Tunisia) was ended prematurely, restarted, then ended prematurely once more, would no longer be an issue. Whether 30 minutes is the right number or not is debatable, but it’s a great choice for a trial run based on the amount of football already played in an average game. I doubt it would be a huge change for the players and fans to adapt to. With the managers and the decision makers at IFAB, along with the FAs and UEFA, the picture becomes a bit more convoluted.
well not always, the Burnley game was 42. it would make all games equal time with the ball on the pitch. it would also reduce the incentive to waste time since there is no reward for it.
On average yes but on a game by game basis it can vary drastically like the 42 minute example. If clock stopped than everyone would be on a level playing field
I have been saying for a long time that it would make football a lot better if they introduced a rugby style clock. Could you imagine at the end of a game that is 2 - 2 and both teams desperately need 3 points as they are trying their hardest to keep the ball alive so they can get another opportunity to score. Or if a team is defending a 1 goal lead but are trying their hardest to win the ball back so they can kick it into touch. Would make the ends so much exciting
Having a stopping clock would be fantastic! Because you always guarantee 90minutes of playing time. Then when the clock hits 90 the next time the ball goes out of play the game finishes. Shortening games to 60 minutes doesn't make sense really. As most leagues across Europe have adopted 5 subs so players can get a rest for the more hectic game schedule we have in the modern game. Then that would surely have to cheapen ticket prices? Fans wouldn't want to pay the same amount for less football?? But, clubs aren't likely to implement cheaper prices on tickets. Keep 90 minute games, have a stopping clock (that makes so much more sense). Have 5 subs across all leagues and cup competitions around the world. It could even be implemented that if there is excessive diving or holding the ball in the corner could be a bookable offence too. If there is no punishment for it players are likely to continue in the behaviour.
But the ball is only in play for 60 minutes now across 90 minutes. The Portugese suggestion is to only track the time the ball is in play. This will guarantee that the ball is in play for 60 minutes. There still might be 30 minutes of the ball not being in play - so the game might still be 60 minutes of play across 90 minutes just like before - only now it is with zero incentive to waste time. Ninety minutes of active play like you suggest is going to be +50% more than it is already. Imagine the injuries.
The problem with keeping the matches 90 minutes with a stop clock is that the matches would go on for 2 hours and with the amount of matches teams have these days, the players would be dead by April. Making it 60 or 70 minutes long might help them cope with the number of matches a season.
@@Zergsays Exactly, 90 minutes of pure playing time will just keep increasing the risk of injuries for players, I'm not sure if they'd even have enough stamina to go through pure 90 minutes each time
I’m not sure you understand what an average of 30 extra minutes of active playing time per game would do to the players, especially considering how packed the schedule already is for them. In case you forgot, they are humans, not just pawns for our entertainment.
@@Zergsays I respectfully disagree. With the introduction of 5 subs that will help nullify the problem of injuries. I understand the point that is being made, but, also point out a bigger problem. Fixture congestion. The schedule needs fixing to accommodate more breaks for players to recover properly. 90 minutes of playing during a game with a 15 minute break for half time should more than be enough be elite athletes.
perhaps would be less divisive as trials for u16 or youth leagues? might be a too controversial of a stretch for the major tourneys in the long term though, 90 minutes has always been the longstanding format at the core of football for so long after all
You have to mention that mlb implemented a runner on second base on extra innings for the regular season since 2020. But baseball has games that can last through 20 innings or more. But it has reduced this with the second bar runner introduction
I understand the issue and again, a brilliantly informative video from the legends at Tifo. Unfortunately though, the stop-start clock idea is a non-starter (pun intended). The biggest issue is if you have 30 minutes 'in play' time with a stop-start clock, you remove the traditional 45 minute halves. And this has consequences for matches that are played at the same time (World Cup, Euros, CL, Premier League, etc.). Say you have PL games at 3pm on a Saturday and it's the last game of the season, where a title or relegation is decided. The games kick off and Game A has more stop-starts than Game B. This means Game A is still in play AFTER Game B has blown for half time, and the same for full time. Theoretically the real time differences for a football match with 30 minutes in play time with a stop start clock could be: Game A: 3pm start, 4pm finish (if there is 30 minutes of stoppages) or Game B: 3pm start, 3.30pm finish (if there are not stoppages whatsoever) Which means the teams in Game A have an advantage because they will know the score of Game B before it has ended and change their play accordingly if they need to score or not. So in fact it would lead to more time-wasting as you really want to know what the result of the other game is first so you know where you stand, even though the kicked off at the same time.
You have this to a lesser extent anyway, one game might have 6 minutes stoppage time in the first half and 6 in the second half. You're probably more likely to see these two games finish at the same time as there'd be no incentive for a game that's close to see time wasting as there's no advantage.
Its literally impossible to have no stoppages in a half and at most there d be 15 minutes of stoppage in a half. So you're looking at more like 8-15 minutes of stoppage so you could potentially have 7 minutes differential. But that happens all the time already with injury time. United literally were winning the 2012-13 title when their last match ended, then lost it to City when their match ended 5 minutes later.
In Scotland, if a team outside of Celtic score early against Rangers, they immediately start wasting time. It doesn’t matter if it’s the 1st, 10th or 85th minute, the usual tactics get deployed to waste every second possible. Goal kicks are notoriously bad. It is absolutely soul crushing and stopping the clock when the ball isn’t in play would cut that out entirely. It would force teams to actually play football in order to beat teams rather than winning by running down the clock. I’m all for it. However, I think 40 minute half’s would be better rather than 30.
Effective playing time, by itself, would only makes games longer, not shorter. Using the NBA as an exemple, a 48 minute game spread over four 12-minute quarters usually takes close to two and a half hours! The key is to introduce EPT AND change the rules so that teams are punished for time wasting.
There is also long term physical stress exposure to the players. 60mins mitigates it a little. Over the course of a season, there is a lot more time to recover. And they can play a bit harder. And if its a tactical snooze fest. At least its for 30 mins.
"Young people's interest" has nothing to do with any of this. Young people can't afford to go to the games. You want youth buy-in? Make it so they can actually buy their way into the stadium. If tickets were £10, kids'd be there every weekend. If they're £150, the seats will just have bored middle management types and contest winners. Every other issue on "interest" is secondary.
Agreed. can apply that to TV as well a lot of younger people don't have the spending power to pay the eye watering amount for sky before you then get BT sport and Amazon to not even watch a majority of your team's games
Yeah exactly, I'm a Swindon Town fan and the under 18s tickets was £8 but it also depends who you support I guess and how much their tickets are
Premiere League prices are just mad. I can go on the stands of a Bayern München game for 20€
@@robertflintoft5614 streaming services >>
"Young people's interest" is what F1 used to abandon under the previous owner and resulted in the sport's fanbase declining each year. Most sports fans became ones because they've been exposed and entertained since they're children.
What’s needed is referees to show some bravery when it comes to dealing with time wasting. Booking a player for time wasting with less than 10mins to play is just a token “look at me, I dealt with it” gesture, warn a player the first time and book him the second, if he chooses to do it a third time then he’s clearly a sandwich short of a picnic. That’s what football fans want, not losing 30mins of play and gaining extra television adverts no doubt!
@Blue It’s one of my pet hates, that and the whole “we can’t do anything about diving”. Solution to diving is retrospectively have referees watch each match, any play acting caught should see a 1 match ban, the second time a 2 game ban and so on, the minute a star player gets a 5 game ban for diving the club will wonder why they’re paying him to sit in the stands. It won’t take long to eradicate diving.
If referees are brave they just get abused by pretty much everyone
@@nicholasperry4730 I think you’d be surprised if all referees clamped down on time wasting most fans would be all for it. It’s a gripe that even the fans of the team doing it have. As long as the referee gives a clear warning then everyone watching will know of that if the goalkeeper decides he can’t possibly take his goal kick from that side of the 6 yard box, or that player must ensure the ball is completely dry before he dare takes throw in then they’re going to get booked, and it’s all their own work.
Yep if you want to run the clock down do it by keeping the ball and actually playing football
@Blue completely! A player emphasising contact, or going down under limited contact isn’t diving in my eyes, but jumping over a leg that’s nowhere near you is clearly a dive and screw a yellow, it deserves a ban!
Some players waste time by lying on the floor appearing close to hospitalisation before getting up and running around like new born lambs. Last week Lo Celso pretended he had broken his ankle after running into Allisson. When he got nothing for it, he stopped pretending. Something to make players accountable for this pathetic behaviour might cut down on the time they waste.
One of the good things about VAR is that it has definitely reduced the amount of diving, although as it has been switched to focus mainly on goals/penalty shouts it has definitely not got rid of it all together
Refs should be more liberal about giving yellow cards to simulation and play-acting injuries.😂
Players faking head injuries is a recent trend that's caught on as well. Richarlison the other week heading the ball away, unchallenged from a corner sprints up the pitch to get involved in a counter attack and then when Everton lose the ball 5 seconds later, he falls to the ground like a sack of potatoes. They know that the ref has to stop the game and granted they always do.
I'd seriously consider 5 game bans for faking head injuries as we don't want a situation where a ref doesn't believe a player has a real head injury because 2 players have faked one already in a game
@@TheSunMoon 100% agree..
Just a suggestion, with the sin bin of rugby in mind: if a player has been lying on the grass for 10 seconds or more, he/she will have to go off the pitch, take it easy, and he can come back on again after 15 minutes on the 'recovery bin'.
Players that really are injured will go off anyway, the fakers will make sure they get up in time again, or else they primarily screw their own team over by being down 1 (wo)man.
NCAA Soccer (university leagues) in the US has been playing 40 minute halves with a stopped clock for decades. Look there to see what this looks like in practice.
Imagine if the system of stopping clock was introduced. Atletico Madrid would run out of business.
Or their revenue would go up because they can promise 12 hour matches every weekend 😅
Atletico would be battling mid table mediocrity in segunda division against Almeria and las palmas
To me its absolutely crazy that this basic idea isn't already being utilised. I wonder why?
@@fazman72 it’s a throwback to the days before technology came into the elite game, which is pre goal line technology. Before that the ideal was that football was essentially the same at all levels. The stopping clock is not practical in parks football.
Bad idea, all American sports stop the clock and they take 4 hrs + to complete. It'll just give TV and advertisers room to add more Ads
I feel like discussions around time wasting always come about towards the end of the season, teams are more desparate to get wins and/or stop wins for opposing teams so deploy more of the time wasting methods.
Tired of losing bëts on football games? Do what my name says. You will like what you see........[
Stoppage time has always been the biggest farce in football
You lose some 10 or 15 minutes per half but the referee gives 2 minutes of stoppage time 😂
Last year in the Netherlands there was the Future of Football Cup, with youth teams as PSV, Leipzig and Club Bruges. They 'tested' out 5 new rules, including the pure playing time of 30 min a half. Other rules were; throwing in is kicking in, unlimited changes, yellow card is 5 mins out and with a free kick you can dribble immediately. All matches can be found on UA-cam and are interesting (and entertaining) to watch.
oh ffs, i remember dutch/italian clubs in Australia would implement the kick in rule during junior tournaments, the coaches didn’t know what was going on and they would run rings around us before we even realised the ball had went out lol
those rules are better fitted for futsal/5 aside however
that sounds infinitely more exciting than the current state of football
I remember playing in a tournament like that in Sacramento California maybe 8 years ago. It made for very good games and honestly more running than a regular game.
The last 15mins of a 90min game is the best though, opportunists make their move
I remember keeping time once in a Bundesliga match (Bayern vs Bayer) that was shown on live TV around the year 2000, the actual play time was around 54 minutes when the final whistle blew...it's ridiculous.
What makes time-wasting attractive for teams is the fact that officials have never added extra time corresponding to the time wasted. If the officials start doing that, we might see 10-15 mins added as extra time.
They should add fines for team captains as done in Cricket for slower than expected game progress (teams need to bowl X overs/hour on avg). Example, the team captain is penalized if a team causes >5/10 mins of added time in the match, after removing delays due to injuries/VAR checks.
but as they just said in the video, the actual time added should be closer to 30 minutes. why do all that when you could just do a stopped clock? that also takes it out of the officials hands so we wouldnt have “fergie time” bs or refs ending matches before the minimum allotted extra minutes
@@randommage1 I would say that the 90 minutes are not intended to be pure gameplay. Also with current rules you pretty much know that a game takes 2 hours of your time (with some exceptions) It you stop the clock that can vary drastically ,which is not ideal for the fans or the TV stations.
You would still get the time added for injuries and stoppages but the amount of time where the ball isn't in play might go down from 30 min to 20 min, it would decrease any incentives.
@@randommage1 The thing is stopping the clock will still not decrease time wasting by a lot. Teams would still waste time for the mental aspects, to wind up opposition, to reduce intensity and have a breather when being barraged with attacks.
To remove such time wasting, there is a need to disincentivize time wasting apart from just saying that playing time will be consistent.
Plus will also give predictability to the overall game duration - TV broadcasters won't want to schedule matches which might finish in 120 mins or 180 mins, with actual playing time remaining 90 mins in each (obviously extra time/pens adds time, but in that case the playing time is also more). They love their scheduled, pre-planned programming.
@@AniketGarg07 what you just described is every knockout stage match ever. Some end in 90 mins, some go to extra time and take 120 mins and some go to penalties and take even longer. Large differences between game duration are a thing already.
An option to keep the running clock:
1. Have an extra ref who is a dedicated time keeper
2. Any stoppage that lasts longer than X seconds is immediately added to stoppage time. X would vary based on throw in, goal kick, goalie with ball in hands
3. Don’t bother with time wasting yellows
4. If player has an injury or “injury,” they can’t enter the field for 5 minutes after they leave
Can't you use the VAR for the time management? 🤷♂️
Why jump all these hoops, just stop the clock LOL.
@@Engraver99 I don’t know why in my head stopping the clock immediately means the game doesn’t flow.
Or, just stop the clock. Why overcomplicate it when a stopped clock eliminates those issues completely. Added time is a complete joke, always has been.
another way to increase in game time could be to make VAR more efficient, or have harsher laws against time wasting (but that would be difficult to draw a specific line on)
Nah give a yellow card for time wasting ppl are gonna sit up quick
why do all that when you could just have a 60 minute stopped clock? then none of that becomes an issue
@@limbeboy7 the problem is that when refs enforce the rules, and we end games with 5 or 6 red cards for time wasting, they'll get accused of 'ruining the game' or 'making it all about them' at which point the FA ill tell them not to bother again.
@@limbeboy7 my perception is that yellows for time wasting only helps the time waster. Refs do a poor job of adding time back on
VAR doesn't even get the calls right. Waste of everyone's time.
I agree with Colina, we need to get used to seeing large amounts of stoppage time. Instead of stopping a visible clock they should start one every time there’s a stoppage. Fans can then see the visual accumulation, at the end of each half the clock runs backwards and stops at every stoppage (preventing a re-accumulation of time) until the time is completed.
In practice - let’s say there’s 15 minutes of stoppages for injuries, bookings, setting up free kicks, VAR etc. Once 45 minutes passes a clock runs backwards from 15 minutes, a player takes a shot which goes over the bar and the clock stops until the GK takes a kick to put the ball back in play.
The final challenge is encouraging referees to communicate and direct the game to move quickly so what would initially be an average of 15 minutes perhaps dropped to 10 minutes perhaps for games without incidence.
Stopping the clock for throw ins, goal kicks, substitutions, VAR checks & stoppage due to injuries would be the best immediate solution to this problem
What has been the average playing time over the past 100 years, for each year? Has it gotten worse?
Playing time can only have improved because they didn’t have the laws we have today. For example in the 80’s there was no back pass rule so teams like Liverpool just used to hold possession by passing it back to the keeper who would pick it up and pass it to his defender. You could say they won a lot by boring their opponents to death.
@@iwantgoals1566 But... Your comment is an example of increased playtime. Playtime is exactly that, time spent actually playing the game. 15 minutes of backpassing is dull as heck, but it is 15 minutes of playtime (as far as the statistics are concerned), as opposed to time spent faffing about during throw-ins, set pieces, pretend/exaggerated injuries, or VAR rulings.
@@user-kh7zf You’ve picked that apart very pedantically because I didn’t specify whether or not I meant dead ball time. But the video itself also mentioned time wasting actions. Time wasting actions include backpassing without any intention of making an attacking play. That’s part of the reason it was ruled out of the game.
@@iwantgoals1566 I'm not sure how it is pedantic to think playtime means playtime. Time wasting and dead ball time are not one and the same, and measures to tackle dead ball time dont always tackle time wasting.
But to stick to your narrative of time wasting, unless they come up with strict rules regarding time wasting that have little to no room for interpretation, time wasting has and will continue to become more problematic as the stakes rise to ridiculous heights
@@user-kh7zf But you know time wasting isn’t genuine play time. Yes the ball is moving but not with the intention of actively scoring a goal and that’s what I meant. Semantics aside, I’m speaking less about stopping time wasting all together and more about significantly reducing time wasting. If you can get a yellow card for time wasting now there are other measures you can take to reduce it.
I think it's a great idea. As a football fan I hate to see timewasting techniques! But as an amateur referee myself it would be really hard to manage without someone else controlling a stadium clock. That's my only concern: how amateur referees should be able to actually do this in real time by them self.
It could be done the same way as amateur basketball. You have a dedicated time keeper whose job is solely to start and stop the clock. The referee referees and the timekeeper keeps time.
Futsal? Amateur play basketball too
In amateur rugby you can have an assistant referee that does just that, or the central referees do it for themselves, it does not look like they are struggling and the rules about when stopping the clock are easy to understand for the ref and the players
In amateur basketball, the same issue is present, yet they still use a stopping clock. How? Very simple. Someone else does control the clock. It’s an extremely simple job. You literally stop the clock whenever you hear the ref’s whistle or if the ball goes out of play, and you start it again on the ref’s whistle or when the ball is back in play. It can literally be performed by any neutral individual, and it does not require a trained referee. You still have a linesman for your games, right? If there’s no one that can be provided to fill the role of handling the clock, the linesman can do it with a stopwatch.
@@alahiri2002 who does it? It’s hard enough to get one ref for most matches. Where to do get a timekeeper? Most matches do not have official linesmen.
I think it shouldn't be one extreme or the other: I would test stopping the clock for substitutes, when the ball goes out for a goal kick or corner, injuries, and in the case of throw-ins make a time limit like the 6 seconds for goalies but ACTUALLY enforce it and turnover the ball if they violate it and a yellow after a second offense (see how that data works out after a youth tournament or test series and then tweak it instead of guessing the changes or being too radical). American college soccer uses the stopping clock (Ref gives a hand signal to booth guy for stopping and restarting the clock) for injuries and major stops on a count down clock from 90 mins and I didn't mind it while watching when in college because the time wasting is annoying
I think that would work well, there is nothing more frustrating when watching a game, than when a keeper catches a ball and dives on the ground wasting 30 seconds, that sort of stuff makes me want to turn the tv off.
agreed, I also want to see time stopped as a first step of combating time wasting, who needs extra time when you can prevent the teams from running the clock
If you increase playing time by another 10 minutes, it would knacker out the players. The injuries would pile up and the intensity of the game would greatly diminish. With or without time wasting, 60 minutes of playing time is par for the course in football. Reducing dead time and playing more would simply mean more injuries, less intensity.
Don't even get me started on the whole inquiry time!!! Its about as random and moronic as anything any sport has ever seen.
Knowing how football works, this 60 minutes would be realized in year 2045.
@@JW-be8wf I understand where you are coming from which is why I am not in favor of stopping the clock for everything to actually get 80 or 90 minutes of real play, but with the introduction of 5 subs in the game then I think getting it up to 70ish mins using any or all of the tactics I listed would be fine. It is mostly the larger organizations' faults for more injuries like UEFA expanding the champions league schedule and the league cup having two legs in some rounds. Work together and it can improve the game without harming players further
Is a stop clock really that extreme if literally every other sport employs one?
It's a good idea to look to increase game time and speed up the game. I hardly see yellow cards for time wasting even though it happens often. I looked up the match stats for that 2018 Cardiff - Burnley game and sure enough Morrison didn't get a yellow even though it sounds like he deserved it.
A stopping clock does seem to make some sense, you made some great examples of how widely used it is in other sports. Implementing it in football would require a dedicated person focused solely on managing the clock just like in basketball, hockey etc.
see a lot of yellows for it, but not in the uk sadly
Let's be honest here, it was Warnock ball vs Dyche ball, timewasting wouldn't change the fact that it's just hoof ball for 90 mins (or 42 mins as it turned out). Plus we take long throws, not exactly time wasting, we even lost the game! Silly
There's a slight misunderstanding of how it's done in rugby (league at least).
The clock doesn't stop automatically, the ref just has the power to stop the clock at any time. Transferred to football, this would most likely be done when a player goes down injured, or obvious attempts to slow it down at set pieces for instance.
no in the NRL there is a genuine shot clock for scrums and drop outs, as well as the stopped clock for injuries etc
Thank god for Jan Vertonghen! He's absolutely right! Just go to a 60 minute stop clock, it's so stupidly easy to fix this issue!!!
I agree yet so many people out there resist it. They think it's "too American" or are worried about TV ads.
30 minute halves, no injury time, clock stops when the ball goes out
after 30 minutes the second half ends the next time the ball goes out of play regardless
VAR running constantly and communicating with the referees to reduce delay for checks
It would be nice to see a friendly pried played like this
2:37 "Now, whether an extra 8 minutes of watching those Cardiff and Burnely teams would've been welcome is another matter"
Broooooo 💀💀💀
Needs a two-pronged approach: put in a stopping clock with 60 or 70 min playing time AND be stricter on time-wasting behaviour. You don't want the stopping clock to be an excuse for players to slow down the game even more. By introducing the stopping clock you take away the reward for time-wasting, by being strictet you punish time-wasting; carrot and stick.
there would no longer be time wasting behavior if the clock is stopped though, it would no longer serve a purpose. Players dont time waste to catch their breaths, they time waste because they know the ref won’t give the correct amount of extra time anyways. if that incentive is gone, then the only way to time waste would be to keep possession
As an American who loves Football ⚽ I think a clock is long overdue. It's so frustrating to watch a match and know that the time of actual play fluctuates from game to game. It's so inconsistent and it's actually unfair to all clubs. You should have every second to either win the game or lose it. It's really a joke.
Another thing I'd like to see is a throw in timer. It should be like the NBA where you don't have all day to get the ball in play. A 10-15 second timer from the time they receive the ball to throw it back in would stop the time wasting and it will force pace and actually make throw ins a bit more strategic. I see so many lazy throw ins in football because they have all day to throw it back in. Adding a timer will ramp up the pressure of those throw ins and suddenly the game becomes even more intense.
Harsher punishment for diving is the change I'd like to see the most. Make a reviewing committee of each match to determine whether players dived and then give corresponding punishments for it... such as banning that players 1 match the next time they face the team they just played.
They tried this with the Future of Football Cup in the Netherleands. Gianni Infantino was curious and kept an eye on it. Having watched all of the matches myself, it can definitely work.
As a Philadelphia Sixers fan, I'm honored that you used our team as your representative basketball player. But also, trust me on this one, you don't want stopped clocks. That gives room for ads and they absolutely ruin watching the game. If you want more play time, have refs be braver carding time wasting (cap it if you have to ie you've got 10 seconds to take a throw in or card or something), and increase added time at the end of halves. If you want people to not waste their money you could, idk, lower the ticket prices? Please stop trying to overfix something to the point of making things worse.
This has nothing to do with football or supporters. It’s about Americanising the sport and introduce commercial breaks. Then the paying customers would be forced to sit through advert breaks rather than throw ins or substitutions.
My first few years on the youth team we played with no “stoppage time” but stopped the clock anytime the ball was out of play or there were substitutions. Frankly, that’s the best way to play! And since we are speaking so hyper technical by having VR reviews, why not adjust the clock to be more meeting for meaningful and true for time of play as well.
There's no need to go to extremes. A few changes here and there can add dramatic minutes back to the game. Stopping the clock on Subs is a must. For injured players. The amount of time they are injured on the field is the amount of time they have to remain off field. Min of 1 minute. With exceptions for head injuries and collisions. Time kept by the 4th official. Still only the ref can allow the player on. The clock stops with all var checks and goals scored.
I feel like you're just advocating for a stop clock, which I agree is not an extreme change considering all other sports use one.
randomly remembered dzeko and his completely shattered shoulder that kept him on the ground for a good two hours, which then magically healed itself as soon as he was off the pitch and wanted to get back in the game.
Are we seriously pretending this isn't about advertising? Stopped clock and nothing happening: cut to an advert. NFL even has TV time outs specficially for it. As much as I admire the cutting down the replay analysis time. The good thing about two 45 minute halves is you broadly know how long a game will take and when it'll finish. This allows transport to be planned etc. If there's a stopped clock a 30 minute half could be anywhere from 35/40 mins to over an hour and ultimately make a game take longer. Please don't mess with our game
You do realise there's a diffrence between stoping the time and a timeout right. For example basketball stops the clock during free throws and when the ball is out of bounds not a single ad. highly doubt anyone can fit an ad in 6 seconds of stopped clocked just saying.
I love this is a football video about stopping the clock when the ball is not in play, but futsal is not mentioned once
I think this is inventing a problem where none exists. I've never watched a game of football and thought that there wasn't enough play going on. Sure, timewasting by the winning team towards the end of a match is a problem, but you deal with it by actually sanctioning simulation and dithering, not by tearing apart a fundamental aspect of the game.
I like the idea of better accounting for stoppages by the granting of more injury time: that would be more in the spirit of the game, and make things more exciting by allowing more time for stellar comebacks like Real Madrid v Man City in the second leg of the Champions League semifinal this year.
Stopping the clock like in rugby would make the game completely different, and crucially less predictable. Rugby games go on arbitrarily long on a regular basis because they stop the clock, whereas in football it's much less variable, and that makes it more convenient for everybody.
If you dont see it as a problem fine its your opinion. Just letting you know me and tons of other people are tired with the playing time being cut short due to all the stoppages. That to me, is the main problem. We saw the video, and 30 minutes are lost on average. Now imagine how much exiting football we never got to see in that huge amount of lost time.
Ultimately you cant stop time wasting with harsher punishments. Players will simply adapt and be more subtle more inconspicous with it, and now it gets into really sticky territory of leaving it to the judgement of a ref. Do we as fans truly want our match outcomes to be decided by refs. Like a player leaving the match because he took 15 seconds complaining or just quickly went back to complain for a second time right before the play resumes, really?
However all this becomes irrelevent if the clock just stops when the whistle blows, couldnt be simpler.
It's not about how long the ball is actually kicked, it's about what a team can achieve in 90 minutes. Statistics can't always be the reason for drastic change. And don't get me started on ticket pricing...
I'm sure one of Wengers ideas was to have the match still 90mins, but with the ball in play time tracked.
At the end of the 90 mins if there was not a minimum of 75 mins of ball in play time then time would be added to make this up,
Yes, or something that legislates that the lead official can not end the half until 30 or 35 minutes of live ball time has occurred.
I will say this, though: I do not have an issue with timewasting with the ball in play i.e. sitting on the ball. You have the lead, you've earned the right to do that in my opinion.
I used to ref kids football and would get told off by agitated parents for always adding 5-10 minutes of stoppage time because I stopped the clock when the ball wasn’t in play, but the kids always preferred it because it meant they got to play what felt like more football
As an American, the main reason why I stopped watching NBA, NFL, and MLB is because I got so bored with the game being stopped and going to a commercial break every 5 minutes, causing games to last well over 2 or even 3 hours. Football does not have this problem. The stoppages in play are more or less natural and the games end within 2 hours.
Adding a stopped clock opens the door to the possibility of games dragging on for ages, and guess what, time wasting is even worse towards the end of games (the final 2 minutes of NFL and NBA games are more like 10 minutes at least).
Players time wasting is a part of the game. Maybe there are ways to keep it from getting excessive, but any change that results in league games lasting longer is not ok.
Thats a really important angle to look at!
College soccer in the US uses a countdown clock, which stops when the ball is not in play I believe- that should provide more than enough data to analyze the effectiveness of such a system compared to the standard time keeping method.
I would love to hear the agruments for NOT implying this rule…. because i cant think of one
I’ve just been reading Doctor Sócrates by Andrew Downie and I was surprised to see he campaigned for football to be 9-a-side to improve entertainment and attacking. Would love to see you do a video on that too.
I don't think it'll be a good idea. Defence is there to balance out attack. You could just end up with a futsal-type scoreline every game.
If you found Socrates interesting research about the Democracia Corinthiana meaning Corinthians Democracy where the players had a saying on how the club was run
Am I the only one who thinks changing to 60 minutes with a stopped clock doesn't change anything? The same amount of play occurs and if anything the stoppages will only take longer since there's no impetus to be quick about taking a throw-in, for example. I understand that some games may currently be a few minutes longer than others, but it seems like a lot of upheaval and upsetting of traditionalists for an effectively minor change.
At the moment there is a lack of correlation between effective playing time and additional time added, which results in different amounts of effective playing time per game. The proposed change would eliminate this difference, and would result in games that have a duration of 80-110 minutes of "real clock" time. (I like this proposal).
Well I would say when you see things like a 42 minute game being played, forcing them to play an actual full game should be a welcome change. I would like to see more data on the subject though and the range of the 98% confidence intervals... But just logically thinking not sure why we are counting time between goals, time where officials are doing VAR or booking players, etc, as time being played
@@PoorStretch For more data see "Pan European analysis on the fluidity of football matches".
The easiest solution is a stopping clock, which is managed by an extra 5th referee on pitch side that stops the clock every time the ball goes out, or the referee blows his whistle for an offside or foul or for a substitution or injury. The clock is not started till the goalkeeper kicks the ball into play, or the player throws the ball into play, or till the referee doesn't initiate play again in case of a VAR check or till a substitution is done. Important thing to note is that the timing of the whistle by the referee becomes important and crucial, so FIFA must make sure of fair referees.
But not for throw in and goal kicks. They just need to be quicker times for the player being active meaning putting in time wasting.
I think football needs an alternative system to yellow cards as well.
At this point is important to point out that things in Portugal take their own time, which means your not likely to see the results of anything within the next couple of seasons. Plus, football in Portugal is deeply corrupted, so there’s a lot of people who are quite happy to just let things be as they are now. Change is needed, but change is very hard.
for some reason football everywhere is full of corrupt people lol
Mario Jardel banging 30 goals was corruption
We all hate time wasting till its our team on verge of winning trophy etc. Cause if they dont do it you would knock them out.
I would hate to see 60 min time stop matches. I'd strongly prefer injury time's calculated more accurately- even if it is longer.
The truth is that they want to increase the number of matches played by reducing the game to 60 minutes to mint more money. It has nothing to do with fans or players and certainly not younger generations interests.
What's the point of having a stopping clock of 60 minutes when a 90 minute match ends up being 60 minutes anyways plus the extra added time?
Sure it can, but the biggest problem with stopping time is they will squeeze ads in at anytime possible.
In NFL the official game time is 60 mins, but in total the game ended in 3 HOURS, with ads sometimes even cut in game events, it's a fking nightmare.
Not the same. In the NFL those ad breaks are brought on by timeouts. There are no timeouts in soccer the broadcast would continue only the clock stops thats it.
Pretty sure i saw ad breaks during referee discussion deciding penalty etc, also when teams change from offense, defense, and special teams, also most of the time they cut the kickoff(ir whatever it's called) to sqeeze in more ad time.
@@myst7042 Those are quasi timeouts in football. A better example is the clock stopping but no ads during downs before the snap. And the ref reviews are the same. But a normal stop in play has no ads.
Great Work, awesome, amazing style investigations of questions
Be careful what you wish for. Just like the CL and WC. The executives will see the time stoppage as an opportunity to show Ads, make more money. Making the game even longer with mid-stop ads
Stop clocks...then what next? Time-outs? Commercials?😂😂 we shouldn't fix what isn't broken
Interesting anecdote about a game I played in with a hard stopping clock. We were down 1-0 the whole game, but then with five seconds left the ball falls to our center forward in the box... and the buzzer sounds and the game is over.
He would have missed anyway
And that's why you don't change the rules of the beautiful game.
Agüero against QPR? Would have never happened.
United's treble? Would have never happened.
Rory Delap's career? Erased from history.
I can't stand people who think any of these silly changes are a good idea, just play and if you lose accept it and don't blame it on 150 year old rules
When a team is playing down time, it is both trying to reduce playing time and disrupt any dynamic/flow/momentum the opponent tries to create to score a goal. The second aspect can't be sorted by the discussed measures
True but at least if the clock stops the actual playing time can't be taken away
Adding 10 second clocks for corners, throw ins, goal kicks and free kicks could fix the problem, if the ball isn't kicked within 10 seconds possession is given to the other team.
That wouldn't solve anything; set pieces can easily take more than 10 seconds even when the team is in a hurry.
Or you don't want teams to have their best headers, their centre backs up there when they receive a corner?
Or you don't want to give time to the referee to measure 10 yards for a free kick wall?
No offense, but that kind of dogmatic approach would create more problems than it would solve.
10 seconds from when? What if the ball is up in the stands?
@@andrew7taylor I fully agree. For throw-ins in particular, a time limit could increase the turnover rate significantly enough to make a noticeable change in the dynamic of the game. Teams would have an incentive to press harder for throw-ins to potentially force an error. I don’t have anything against pressing football, quite the opposite actually, but I don’t want it to become commonplace for teams to concede chances from their own throw-ins. You can’t rush these things, but you can’t just let them have all day either.
For me, the solution is to stop the clock but still book players who take a long time to bring the ball back into play. While a stopped clock no longer makes it possible for a team to run down the clock with the ball out of play, it does not stop them from keeping the ball out of play for longer than necessary in order to slow down the momentum of the other team. This can only be dealt with by direct officiating by the main referee. If a player has the ball in their hands for like 20 seconds on the touchline, book them even if the clock was off.
Unintended consequence of cutting out time-wasting is that the league would get less competitive. Nobody likes time-wasting but you'd be removing a tool poorer sides have to protect rare leads and giving them nothing in return. Definitely a consideration.
The Sky 6 aren't struggling to maintain their monopoly under the current rules, do they?
One big way of reducing time is having it where the main referee doesn’t run over and watch video (VAR) reviews. Us spectators are able to see enough replays within 30 seconds of the incident to know the correct call, just have it where the VAR makes the decision like a linesmen and the main referee defers to his judgement
just do it! Who, other than e.g. an Everton fan in a Liverpool game, enjoys watching a goalie lie on the floor, then "contemplating" to play a ball short, while then in every case sending them slowly away and kicking it away as far as possible. It's the plague.
could you set a hard limit on how long you can take for throws, goal kicks, and maybe even corners? Is there a reason this wouldn't work?
I’m not a fan of this personally because of how much it could change the entire game. It’s already difficult as it is to retain possession from a throw-in, to the point where some teams have dedicated coaches that work specifically on plays from throw-ins. I think a time limit on throw-ins in particular would cause turnovers from throw-ins to occur significantly more frequently due to the pressure of the time limit and the incentive to press harder on throw-ins. I like a stopping clock more because it entirely disregards the time that is spent by the ball in the hands of the thrower. The referee should still be able to book a player for taking an unreasonable amount of time to get the ball back in play, like 30 seconds, but those 30 seconds would no longer be accounted for in playing time anyway. The task goes from policing time wasting to policing sportsmanship with a stopwatch, which I believe is far easier to achieve.
@@alahiri2002 just wanted to say I've seen many of your comments on this matter and I agree with just about everything you have said!
@@PoorStretch Just sharing my two cents, you know? Glad we agree.
*Time wasting is part of the sport*
It's a tactic usually used by underdogs to hold on to a win against the big sides. One could argue that big teams passing it around the back is time wasting.
I am with you on this. Football is the game it is because anyone can play it. Its rules are, essentially, simple and this allows, as you say, underdogs to triumph over bigger teams. If you face a stronger team, a team that would beat you because they are faster, stronger, more skillfull than you, then you have to come up some other way to beat them. The lenght of the game gives it its jeopardy as far as I can see.
The ball in play stat won’t change, teams who are winning or who play very defensive will still slow the game down and kick the ball out of play or dive etc.
Timewasting isn't as big of an issue as its being made out to be here. Gamesmanship is part of the sport, and it often allows smaller teams to grind out results against more dominant sides
If they change the game to 60 minutes, then the average time of game in play will be 17 minutes. You can't stop intentional delays, not to mention showboating.
I think this could work tbh. teams wouldn't be encouraged to waste time and the changes in approach would only be for the better.
correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't injury time be obsolete in this format? because when the ref blows the whistle to stop the game after a foul or an injury the clock should be stopped right? so the net time loss would be nonexistent
It could if they switch to 4 quarters at 25 mins each plus stoppage time. This will get rid of hydration break but also incorporate 2 extra quarters to help with tactics but also this would benefit the media as they will have a few minutes to air commercials and fans could visit the food courts. This would be better for the viewers
This is a failure of referees and officials adding time properly. Rather than players
I don’t get why people are so pressed about stopping the clock. Teams are meant to be playing for 90mins. Fans pay for 90mins. What’s the problem?
would be cool to see a “review” system be put in place for VAR. Like how it is in tennis. Each team gets 3 “reviews” in a game if they think there was a handball/offside/foul whatever. Dunno whether it would be positive or negative; players could cheat after the third and final review has been called, or it would limit the amount the amount of diving/time wasting/aggro with the referee etc.
When it comes to VAR, they should stop the clock like they do in hockey, it just makes the most sense. When it comes to free kicks and throw in's, a clock must be introduced in order to speed up the game, if you're too slow, you get a yellow card. I think those are the 2 easiest and immediate solutions for clock management
Did Collina actually use the adjective 'eye-popping'? Because that's super on-brand and I'm here for it.
I think it's worth considering how the leniency in the laws of football toward time-wasting allow teams with less talent and resources to rob superior sides. It's a matter of opinion as to whether that outcome is desirable, but behind almost every David-and-Goliath story in football is copious time-wasting and a lucky goal. If you like to see weaker teams upsetting stronger ones, even a little, you should hesitate to endorse a change in the rules that would curtail those upsets so severely.
Personally I would rather see the best team on the night win. Whether they are David, Goliath, or somewhere in between. Lucky goals and "negative" tactics are part of the game but I feel like measures should be taken against blatant time wasting
Please don't support this idea, they will try to turn it into American sports with ad breaks every time they stop the clock. Ice hockey even have a 2 minutes break just for ads. There are ways to boost play time that are not an excuse to play more full on ads.
Imagine the nightmare ''THIS CORNER IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY GOODYEAR''
What should done? Easy...shot clock to reduce time wasting when ball goes out of play or when a foul is committed to hurry the team along. Obviously for serious injuries this wouldn't apply. No need ro reduce the overall match time.
The fairest thing to do would be to stop the clock anytime there was a stoppage in play. The team who is ahead has an unfair advantage because they can waste time and the ref will only add maybe 5 mins to a half whereas they should be adding 15 mins. Stopping the clock when the ball is out of play will also reduce the amount of time wasting there is because then there is no incentive to keeping the ball out of play. If a team is time wasting then the ref can still book them for a delay of game.
Why would I want to watch less football?
British rugby league now also has the shot clock for scrums and dropouts, and a 6 again rule that keeps the game moving rather than stopping it for every penalty
Maybe this would make the diving better but the actual time being played stays the same, right? We will still have slow throw ins to catch a breath, VAR checks and potentially longer injury stops because there is no time pressure if your team is behind. I feel like this could backfire massively. Just start booking dives. Have the VAR check for dives. Or have the players pay a fine after the game if the dived especially badly. We do it for other unsportsmanlike behavior.
Time stop for VAR and maybe set pieces only would be at least a gokd start imo
As a Portuguese Fan that deals with this time wasting non-sense every weekend, I am 100% on favour of the 60 minutes clock-stopping game (as it is done in futsal). But I would like to see more: clear foul simulations being analysed by VAR as well and punished with yellow cards, players actually being punished for time-wasting even with clock-stops, players on the bench being forbidden to get up during the game if they are not warming-up... Another major change could also be deducting 1 point when your team does more than 35-40 fouls per/game
30 min halves seem extreme but for a trial it might be just what's needed. Hopefully we see changes in how the game is played sooner than later
It’s hard to say for certain until we actually see it get tried and tested in actual matches, but I don’t think it will make a huge difference on the feel of the game at all. We essentially already have 30 minute halves on average in the modern game if we account for all the time wasting, so all this would do is create a standard for it. No more controversial 42 minute games as outliers. Given that players play approximately 60 minutes as we stand today, I don’t think a transition to exactly 60 minutes (or potentially 70 with 35 minute halves) would be unreasonable. In practice, halves would probably still be about 45 minutes long. The time it takes for a throw-in or a set-piece wouldn’t just magically disappear, but it would no longer be accounted for on the clock. If anything, halves might be marginally shorter because players would no longer have a reason to delay getting the ball back in play, but why would we complain about that?
I really like the graphic style of this video
I support the rugby format and once the time finishes play continues until the ball if off the field, creates dramatic ends wen the team in position needs an equalizer after the clock strikes 90:00.
Provided they retain the provision that the game cannot finish on a foul, or the winning team will just crock someone when the time goes red.
It wont stop timewasting imo, teams will still run the ball in the corner when 1-0 up and will still be slow on goalkick etc, why? well because it does much more than just waste time, look at mourinhos chelsea vs liverpool in 2014, they timewasted from the first second of the game, but not because they wanted to run down the clock, but because it frustrated liverpool and broke up their flow. Teams would still use it for this reason and that can only be changed by timing the throw ins like footsal, tho i personally just wouldnt touch it as its part of the game
Back in the early 2000s when I was a ref we talked about this a lot. But the mantra of the time, a time before goal line technology was the first non human intervention into the officiating of matches, was that all football was the same. A game in the park ran to the same rules as the World Cup final. Sure, you had more officials, but the rule book was the same.
This ideal was first lost with goal line technology. Not only was this different to parks football, it was different to one league below the elite. Then came VAR, further removing the universality of the game. The stopping clock would make the grass roots game even more removed from the elite. It’s simply not practical at a local league level to expect a ref, who is on their own with no assistants, to implement a stopping clock. It’s hard enough to time keep a match under the current rules.
So you end up football up to a certain level being a game of 90 minutes and at one level above it being a game of 60. Maybe, as the game is no longer universal at all levels anyway, this is not a problem, but that gives some idea as to why this has never been seriously considered.
The art style of this video is great!
QUESTION for the TIFO football show:
Why can some clubs sign some players before the transfer window? excluding free players
Because the transfer window is a misnomer. It is really a registration window.
Any club can buy any player at any time. But you can only register them and start to play them during the "transfer window".
@@andrew7taylor yes, nobody signs anyone outside of the window. They just reach agreements.
if I'm correct it's more then make public announcements and agree fees and terms in principle but the transfer still wouldn't officially go through in terms of the players ability to register to play for there new club until the next available registration period. I think we laregly talk about transfer windows but it's more about those windows of registration, you can agree to buy a player whenever what your buying is the right to register them in your squad of players which can only be done at certain times of the year.
@@danpreston564 yeah they do, the above comment is correct, it is more of a “registration” window. for ex., Barca signed a player (arda turan) during a “transfer” ban, but could not register him until the ban was lifted.
As well as this channel being elite - I love the narrator's voice
This is a major issue that really needs to be addressed. Many matches I have watched that contain little football because one team is running down the clock at every opportunity. It’s a guess, but I think if more active playing time was seen across the initial 90 mins then far less cup matches would go to extra time / pens as well.
Based on the research, then, wouldn't that mean football matches are *already* 60 minutes long, with the official timer being 90 minutes?
Yes, but with this new ruling, they hoped to reduce (or even eliminate) the 30 minutes of when the ball is not in play
The difference is that it would now be consistent. The ball will be in play for 30 minutes in the first half, and 30 more in the second half. Every single time. There would be no room to play for a draw or hold a lead by perpetually playing for throw-ins and taking ages to get the ball back in play. Things like the AFCON controversy where a match (I believe it was between Mali and Tunisia) was ended prematurely, restarted, then ended prematurely once more, would no longer be an issue. Whether 30 minutes is the right number or not is debatable, but it’s a great choice for a trial run based on the amount of football already played in an average game. I doubt it would be a huge change for the players and fans to adapt to. With the managers and the decision makers at IFAB, along with the FAs and UEFA, the picture becomes a bit more convoluted.
well not always, the Burnley game was 42. it would make all games equal time with the ball on the pitch. it would also reduce the incentive to waste time since there is no reward for it.
The problem is that some teams like Atletico Madrid or Burnley are playing much less than 60 minutes.
On average yes but on a game by game basis it can vary drastically like the 42 minute example. If clock stopped than everyone would be on a level playing field
I have been saying for a long time that it would make football a lot better if they introduced a rugby style clock. Could you imagine at the end of a game that is 2 - 2 and both teams desperately need 3 points as they are trying their hardest to keep the ball alive so they can get another opportunity to score. Or if a team is defending a 1 goal lead but are trying their hardest to win the ball back so they can kick it into touch. Would make the ends so much exciting
Having a stopping clock would be fantastic! Because you always guarantee 90minutes of playing time. Then when the clock hits 90 the next time the ball goes out of play the game finishes. Shortening games to 60 minutes doesn't make sense really. As most leagues across Europe have adopted 5 subs so players can get a rest for the more hectic game schedule we have in the modern game. Then that would surely have to cheapen ticket prices? Fans wouldn't want to pay the same amount for less football?? But, clubs aren't likely to implement cheaper prices on tickets.
Keep 90 minute games, have a stopping clock (that makes so much more sense). Have 5 subs across all leagues and cup competitions around the world. It could even be implemented that if there is excessive diving or holding the ball in the corner could be a bookable offence too. If there is no punishment for it players are likely to continue in the behaviour.
But the ball is only in play for 60 minutes now across 90 minutes.
The Portugese suggestion is to only track the time the ball is in play. This will guarantee that the ball is in play for 60 minutes. There still might be 30 minutes of the ball not being in play - so the game might still be 60 minutes of play across 90 minutes just like before - only now it is with zero incentive to waste time.
Ninety minutes of active play like you suggest is going to be +50% more than it is already. Imagine the injuries.
The problem with keeping the matches 90 minutes with a stop clock is that the matches would go on for 2 hours and with the amount of matches teams have these days, the players would be dead by April. Making it 60 or 70 minutes long might help them cope with the number of matches a season.
@@Zergsays Exactly, 90 minutes of pure playing time will just keep increasing the risk of injuries for players, I'm not sure if they'd even have enough stamina to go through pure 90 minutes each time
I’m not sure you understand what an average of 30 extra minutes of active playing time per game would do to the players, especially considering how packed the schedule already is for them. In case you forgot, they are humans, not just pawns for our entertainment.
@@Zergsays I respectfully disagree. With the introduction of 5 subs that will help nullify the problem of injuries. I understand the point that is being made, but, also point out a bigger problem. Fixture congestion. The schedule needs fixing to accommodate more breaks for players to recover properly. 90 minutes of playing during a game with a 15 minute break for half time should more than be enough be elite athletes.
Let me guess, Americans complained that "soccer' takes too long & boring.
Yet "American football" can last 2 hours per game
perhaps would be less divisive as trials for u16 or youth leagues? might be a too controversial of a stretch for the major tourneys in the long term though, 90 minutes has always been the longstanding format at the core of football for so long after all
You have to mention that mlb implemented a runner on second base on extra innings for the regular season since 2020. But baseball has games that can last through 20 innings or more. But it has reduced this with the second bar runner introduction
That has nothing to do with what this video is about.
I understand the issue and again, a brilliantly informative video from the legends at Tifo. Unfortunately though, the stop-start clock idea is a non-starter (pun intended).
The biggest issue is if you have 30 minutes 'in play' time with a stop-start clock, you remove the traditional 45 minute halves. And this has consequences for matches that are played at the same time (World Cup, Euros, CL, Premier League, etc.).
Say you have PL games at 3pm on a Saturday and it's the last game of the season, where a title or relegation is decided. The games kick off and Game A has more stop-starts than Game B. This means Game A is still in play AFTER Game B has blown for half time, and the same for full time. Theoretically the real time differences for a football match with 30 minutes in play time with a stop start clock could be:
Game A: 3pm start, 4pm finish (if there is 30 minutes of stoppages) or
Game B: 3pm start, 3.30pm finish (if there are not stoppages whatsoever)
Which means the teams in Game A have an advantage because they will know the score of Game B before it has ended and change their play accordingly if they need to score or not.
So in fact it would lead to more time-wasting as you really want to know what the result of the other game is first so you know where you stand, even though the kicked off at the same time.
You have this to a lesser extent anyway, one game might have 6 minutes stoppage time in the first half and 6 in the second half. You're probably more likely to see these two games finish at the same time as there'd be no incentive for a game that's close to see time wasting as there's no advantage.
Very good point
Its literally impossible to have no stoppages in a half and at most there d be 15 minutes of stoppage in a half. So you're looking at more like 8-15 minutes of stoppage so you could potentially have 7 minutes differential. But that happens all the time already with injury time. United literally were winning the 2012-13 title when their last match ended, then lost it to City when their match ended 5 minutes later.
It could, but it should not
In Scotland, if a team outside of Celtic score early against Rangers, they immediately start wasting time. It doesn’t matter if it’s the 1st, 10th or 85th minute, the usual tactics get deployed to waste every second possible. Goal kicks are notoriously bad.
It is absolutely soul crushing and stopping the clock when the ball isn’t in play would cut that out entirely. It would force teams to actually play football in order to beat teams rather than winning by running down the clock. I’m all for it.
However, I think 40 minute half’s would be better rather than 30.
Effective playing time, by itself, would only makes games longer, not shorter. Using the NBA as an exemple, a 48 minute game spread over four 12-minute quarters usually takes close to two and a half hours! The key is to introduce EPT AND change the rules so that teams are punished for time wasting.
There is also long term physical stress exposure to the players. 60mins mitigates it a little. Over the course of a season, there is a lot more time to recover. And they can play a bit harder.
And if its a tactical snooze fest. At least its for 30 mins.