Has there ever been a serious discussion into stopped time as used by, say, the NBA or NFL?  I bring this up because time wasting and added time have always been big issues but even more so this year.  For example, we have Pardew harping on that 6 minutes is ridiculous, for which he is partly right.  See, Pardew  thinks it's ridiculous for being to long (surprise, NUFC was winning) but when you consider the fact that the sending off incident alone saw 3 minutes pass before play was resumed, and there were 3 other goals, 5 other substitutions, numerous bookings and even more stoppages due to out of play/corners/goal kicks/fouls, and the general slowness of certain people to get play resumed, etc, it really could of been justified to add 8 or more minutes.  Then we have the Hazard ball boy incident etc.

 

Essentially, every week a big deal is made about time in some fashion because, well, at best it is done in a arbitrary fashion.  I know there are rules, but the officials are either ignorant of them or ignorant in applying them.  Why?

 

Why don't they try using a stopped clock?  It would ensure that we always see exactly 90 minutes of action, no more no less.  The ball is on the pitch, the seconds tick by.  The second play stops, the clock does too, regardless if its a foul dead ball, out of bounds, a penalty, a goal celebration or a substitution.  The goal was scored at  36 minutes at 37 seconds, then the clock hits 36 minutes and 38 seconds when play is resumed in the center circle.  You get 90 minutes as a fan and no manager can complain about added on time because there is none, you get your 45 minutes each half, exactly.  If there is a dispute, it becomes a quantitative one instead of a qualitative one with the 4th official adding/subtracting the time where the clock was/wasn't running when it should of been otherwise.  Replay technology will make this process take all of seconds and it would rarely ever be used, as seen in NBA/NFL.

 

I know a lot of people think this is against tradition ( so was goal line technology and it benefits everyone) or that it will slow down the game.  I just want to remind people that time is stopped according to play, play is not stopped according to time (aside from end of 45 minute half's).  Officials would just start and stop the clock as the game naturally progresses.  It would, aside from a very few situations regarding time on clock as fought out between managers every game with the imaginary clock, do nothing to interrupt the flow of the game, it would just accurately record time used in the game and ensure we see 90 minutes of action every game and not 85 minutes some game and 97 minutes other times as a result of inconsistent time additions to cover time wasted.  

 

As a plus, it would also render time wasting tactics useless aside from perhaps trying to throw the other teams rhythm off balance.  Ball boys no longer have an incentive to influence the game with time wasting, same with goalies etc

 

Just curious if there has ever been serious discussions and even if, would the inclusions of a very effective goal line system (which shows the game can be improved, even with technology, without harming any aspect of the game aside from the refs ability to decide it) make some people originally against it, reconsider?.  Personally I think any implementation that limits a refs influence over a game is probably a step in the right direction.

Edited December 20, 201411 yr by Barry Bridges

Of all the talk of technology etc, I'm against everything else i.e. Video referees etc, I think debate is good for the game. However, stopping the clock like in Rugby would make more sense in my opinion. Infact it would protect referees who A&E often criticised for giving too much or not enough injury time.

I'd like to see a rugby style stop clock. It would kill time wasting, and would be fairer than the current system, where they seem to just arbitrarily think of a number and add that on at the end.

Sky used to do a "time ball in play" stat at the end of the game and it would always be about 60/70 minutes. Shows how much time is really lost.

Only problem is that it would make the game last so long. Compared to rugby, football has alot more stoppages.

I agree in principle, but I think it would need some tweaking!

Maybe if the ball was out of play for longer than 10 seconds then the clock stops.

The big issue is goalkeepers taking an age over clearances, if say they had 5 seconds to clear it from hands, and 20 seconds from a goal kick.

No warnings, any longer is a booking, no discretion from a ref, take longer get booked!

Edited December 21, 201411 yr by shedpensioner

It only should be stopped for things like injuries or when the ref is dealing with something not when the ball is simply out of play though.

It only should be stopped for things like injuries or when the ref is dealing with something not when the ball is simply out of play though.

 

Yep agreed, otherwise it would be too difficult to keep track of with the clock stopping and starting every few moments and so forth. It's different in a sport like basketball where the actual playing time is frequently interspersed with long timeouts, FT attempts, etc.

I agree in principle, but I think it would need some tweaking!

Maybe if the ball was out of play for longer than 10 seconds then the clock stops.

The big issue is goalkeepers taking an age over clearances, if say they had 5 seconds to clear it from hands, and 20 seconds from a goal kick.

No warnings, any longer is a booking, no discretion from a ref, take longer get booked!

 

The goalkeeper is only meant to hold the ball for 6 seconds as it is but this has got to be one of the least enforced rules in the Premier League.

Stopping the clock would work!