Stoppage time goals

[Rob1920]

Ok so last night Wycombe score a winner in the 102nd minute. Tonight Burton get an equaliser in the 98th minute. Now the cynic in me demands an enquiry into the obvious bias towards the top 3 sides in making sure the game goes on until they get some sort of result. I mean Burton even missed a pen in the 95th minute, what more could the ref have done for them! However, my slightly more sensible side has to believe the refs just played the amount of time they felt was appropriate and if someone scores then so be it. So my point is, surely it would remove all the cynicism and accusations of 'Fergie time' if like in Rugby, the clock was simply stopped whenever there was a pause in the game, and then restarted when the game restarts. Then when 90 minutes is up on the clock, the game ends. No arguments or accusations about too much or too little additional time played. Would that not make sense?

The Wycombe & Burton Refs were still bent though :angry:

 

[Bielzibubz]

Totally agree but I fully expect the status quo to continue for years to come. If there's one thing The FA & FIFA dislike with a vengeance it's change.

 

[southendkid]

Then when 90 minutes is up on the clock, the game ends.

http://www.soccerbythenumbers.com/2011/05/how-much-football-is-there-in-match.html

Based off that article matches only average about 60 minutes of the ball being in play anyway, so there should actually be 15 minutes added time each half. If they went to fixed time they'd probably cut it down to 30-35 minutes a half.

 

[AndyT]

I think Wycombe's winner is slightly false as some fella was injured for 7 minutes during injury time.

 

[SHRIMPERPETER]

I think Wycombe's winner is slightly false as some fella was injured for 7 minutes during injury time.

So did they originally put up 5 mins then for injury time which would make it right? :unsure:

 

[Kevin Hogg]

OR...maybe it is why both teams are in the top 3? Spirit, belief and a touch of quality.

 

[Bromley Blue]

I think so. My mate's a Wycombe fan and I text him some abuse after that sucker punch the other night. He said they've got a tiny squad and picked up 3 injuries during the game which required subs. I think he said the guy who got injured during stoppage time was after they'd used all 3 subs which made me wonder why he wasn't stretchered off and treated on the sidelines. Could have been an injury where they couldn't move him though.

Overall I'm as frustrated as the rest of us with that result but there's nothing we can do about it. It was always going to be a massive ask for us to pip 2 sides to third at this stage of the season. I'm happy enough if we can finish the season unbeaten and be in decent form for the playoffs.

 

[AndyT]

So did they originally put up 5 mins then for injury time which would make it right? :unsure:

They put up 6 minutes, apparently and then with the fella's injury, it ended up being 13.

 

[Jai]

Erm, we got eight minutes the other night...

 

[AndyT]

Indeed and we didn't need them.:cool:

 

[the_forgotten_man]

It's part of an irritating trend over the past season or two in the way referees deal with time-wasting. Instead of booking players who are obviously taking the **** from the first few minutes with the amount of time taken over throw-ins and goal kicks etc. refs tend to just point at their watch and add more time on at the end.

This is flawed in a number of ways. Firstly, the player cheating is not punished. Most goalkeepers and full backs (incuding our own) in this division should have picked up at least 5 or 6 bookings for time-wasting over the course of the season, and the consequential suspensions.

Secondly the team time-wasting often does so because they're rubbish. Being rubbish, they see it as their best chance to get something out of the match. Being rubbish, they often concede despite their cheating. This results in a scenario where the team who has been wasting time all game now have an extra four or five minutes after the 90 in which to try and get an equaliser.

Refs - grow a pair of bollocks. Punishing players for time-wasting is the only way to prevent it having a deeply negative effect on the game.

 

[Somerset Ex-TTB]

http://www.soccerbythenumbers.com/2011/05/how-much-football-is-there-in-match.html

Based off that article matches only average about 60 minutes of the ball being in play anyway, so there should actually be 15 minutes added time each half. If they went to fixed time they'd probably cut it down to 30-35 minutes a half.

Very true, but I don't think people would want the clock stopped every time the ball went out for a throw in, or a free kick was given.

Only stop the clock for substitutions as soon as the board goes up, and injuries as soon as the physio comes on, and when a goal is scored. This would speed up the game as there would be no point in feigning injury, nor in crawling across the pitch to be subbed.

Then allow an arbitrary 2 or 3 minutes at the discretion of the referee to cover for bookings and any other obvious time wasting.

Also I think the multi-ball system should be compulsory in professional football.

 

[* ORM *]

It's part of an irritating trend over the past season or two in the way referees deal with time-wasting. Instead of booking players who are obviously taking the **** from the first few minutes with the amount of time taken over throw-ins and goal kicks etc. refs tend to just point at their watch and add more time on at the end.

This is flawed in a number of ways. Firstly, the player cheating is not punished. Most goalkeepers and full backs (incuding our own) in this division should have picked up at least 5 or 6 bookings for time-wasting over the course of the season, and the consequential suspensions.

Secondly the team time-wasting often does so because they're rubbish. Being rubbish, they see it as their best chance to get something out of the match. Being rubbish, they often concede despite their cheating. This results in a scenario where the team who has been wasting time all game now have an extra four or five minutes after the 90 in which to try and get an equaliser.

Refs - grow a pair of bollocks. Punishing players for time-wasting is the only way to prevent it having a deeply negative effect on the game.

Much as I agree with the sentiment I also agree with the stance referees are taking. Let managers complain, referees state their case and get consensus for how to deal with time wasting.

Referees do speak to players before games though and set out expectations. If they clearly stated that timewasting would incur an immediate yellow and a second yellow for repeat offence players would have no counterargument

 

[Jai]

On a similar tack, I notice we have only scored one stoppage time goal all season (Shaq Coulthirst vs Portsmouth), which wasn't even a particularly significant one. Everyone loves a last-minute winner.

 

[C C Csiders]

The added time makes it all the more maddening that we got about minus 30 seconds of added time up at Grimsby 11 years or so ago.......

 

[londonblue]

It's part of an irritating trend over the past season or two in the way referees deal with time-wasting. Instead of booking players who are obviously taking the **** from the first few minutes with the amount of time taken over throw-ins and goal kicks etc. refs tend to just point at their watch and add more time on at the end.

This is flawed in a number of ways. Firstly, the player cheating is not punished. Most goalkeepers and full backs (incuding our own) in this division should have picked up at least 5 or 6 bookings for time-wasting over the course of the season, and the consequential suspensions.

Secondly the team time-wasting often does so because they're rubbish. Being rubbish, they see it as their best chance to get something out of the match. Being rubbish, they often concede despite their cheating. This results in a scenario where the team who has been wasting time all game now have an extra four or five minutes after the 90 in which to try and get an equaliser.

Refs - grow a pair of bollocks. Punishing players for time-wasting is the only way to prevent it having a deeply negative effect on the game.

What you're really missing is that continuous time wasting breaks up play which stops the team not time wasting from gaining any momentum, or applying continuous pressure. For me that is the reason why refs need to be harder on time wasters.

 

[shrimperjon]

On a similar tack, I notice we have only scored one stoppage time goal all season (Shaq Coulthirst vs Portsmouth), which wasn't even a particularly significant one. Everyone loves a last-minute winner.

Thats because under Brown we generally dont cross the half way line after the 70th min. Also with it in the players contracts not to score more than 2 goals at home per game once the second goal goes in there is no incentive to push forward.

 

[twobob]

Very true, but I don't think people would want the clock stopped every time the ball went out for a throw in, or a free kick was given.

Only stop the clock for substitutions as soon as the board goes up, and injuries as soon as the physio comes on, and when a goal is scored. This would speed up the game as there would be no point in feigning injury, nor in crawling across the pitch to be subbed.

Then allow an arbitrary 2 or 3 minutes at the discretion of the referee to cover for bookings and any other obvious time wasting.

Also I think the multi-ball system should be compulsory in professional football.

You don't want it stopping too frequently.

In rugby the clock only really stops for serious injury where to play on would put the player at risk, video replays or consulting other officals and where the referee considers that something like a scrum is taking too long (stop timewasting).

Not sure about multi ball as the game sometimes stops because 2 balls are on the pitch.

 

[Jai]

Thats because under Brown we generally dont cross the half way line after the 70th min. Also with it in the players contracts not to score more than 2 goals at home per game once the second goal goes in there is no incentive to push forward.

All good points. Should have realised.

 

[Norwichshrimper]

Also the fact that stoppage time appears to be calculated completely randomly doesn't help any analysis. Against Mansfield the other week Thompson was down with his shoulder injury for over 5 minutes in one incident alone in the first half and there were only 3 minutes added on....Second half neither trainer were on, just 4 or 5 subs and again 3 minutes added on???

Are there guidelines for added time, or does the ref/4th official just take a stab or use gut instinct?