Does football need a 60-minute 'stop-clock'?

Season     Minutes in play
2006-07     53     
2007-08     53     
2008-09     54     
2009-10     53     
2010-11     54     
2011-12     55     
2012-13     56     
2013-14     56     
2014-15     56     
2015-16     56     
2016-17     55     
2017-18     56     
2018-19     55     
2019-20     55     
2020-21     56     
2021-22     55     

Or other options, as time wasting is getting ridiculous. Any ideas?

In a word, no…

No.

Just proper time keeping by the ref.

Quoted from Mariner John

Season     Minutes in play
2006-07     53     
2007-08     53     
2008-09     54     
2009-10     53     
2010-11     54     
2011-12     55     
2012-13     56     
2013-14     56     
2014-15     56     
2015-16     56     
2016-17     55     
2017-18     56     
2018-19     55     
2019-20     55     
2020-21     56     
2021-22     55     

Or other options, as time wasting is getting ridiculous. Any ideas?

This clearly shows a steady increase in the time the ball is in play 2006 - 2022.

Time-wasting has always been an issue.  Added time rarely allows for the full extent of time-wasting.  One possible solution to consider is changing the rules by adding on double-time for time-wasting.  

Faking head injuries is another more difficult issue.  Hard to tell what is genuine and what is not.  Some teams are using this to gain a tactical advantage.

Players will always try and take advantage of any rule or new rule.  In tennis comfort breaks are used for tactical reasons at key moments.  

An accurate measurement of playing time, and non-playing time would help in football though.

Quoted from BobbyCummingsTackle

This clearly shows a steady increase in the time the ball is in play 2006 - 2022.

Indeed, it's all good. In the year 2215 we'll be seeing a full 90 mins

I recall under the Cowley's at Lincoln, Paul Farman religiously went down with "cramp" after about an hour. On came the physio and across went the other 10 players for a team talk.

Quoted from pizzzza

Indeed, it's all good. In the year 2215 we'll be seeing a full 90 mins

As Grimsby sweep to Premier League and Champions League Glory. Or something.

Quoted from BobbyCummingsTackle

As Grimsby sweep to Premier League and Champions League Glory. Or something.

Nah, it'll take a bit longer than that for Paul to get us up that high in the footie pyramid. .

It works well in rugby. Player goes down injured ref signals the clock to stop. Clock starts again when play restarts.

Also as in rugby the has to go out of play before the ref blows for time.

Head injuries are a problem. But if there's no time wasting because of the clock stopping, then there's no point other than to disrupt the game. However if the "injured " player has to stay off the pitch for longer, instead of being waved straight back on then he would be disadvantaged.

What's not to like?

It's a tricky one. I was pulled up the other week during a game I was refereeing. A team was 3-2 up and clearly time wasting. Keeper taking his time on goal kicks, players smashing the ball miles away from the pitch for a throw in etc etc.. Opposition questioned what I'm going to do about it so I showed them and the culprutes everytime I felt it was excess time I had my watch up in the air and stopped.
+7 minutes after 90mins (according to the official watching me) the other team equalised then won on penalties.

When he asked me I explained why it had been so long and his exact words were "just let the time roll and just predict 3-4mins added on"

Your thoughts?? For me I feel that I was in the right.

He sounds like the sort of weak official teams take advantage of!

Quoted from lukeo

It's a tricky one. I was pulled up the other week during a game I was refereeing. A team was 3-2 up and clearly time wasting. Keeper taking his time on goal kicks, players smashing the ball miles away from the pitch for a throw in etc etc.. Opposition questioned what I'm going to do about it so I showed them and the culprutes everytime I felt it was excess time I had my watch up in the air and stopped.
+7 minutes after 90mins (according to the official watching me) the other team equalised then won on penalties.

When he asked me I explained why it had been so long and his exact words were "just let the time roll and just predict 3-4mins added on"

Your thoughts?? For me I feel that I was in the right.

I'd say you were 100% in the right, sadly it's just unorthodox these days as the Man City Real Madrid match showed: time wasting works as refs do exactly what thr official observing you suggested. It encourages cheating imo.

At the very least the clock should stop the moment the physio steps on to the pitch

Why have a 60 min clock when the ref has his own? They just never seem to properly manage it, the second a player goes down it needs to stop.

That second half of ET in the Madrid City game was ridiculous, the ball must’ve been in play no more than 3-4 minutes and the ref blew early!

Yet again it’s a case of refs refusing to admit they might be the issue

Quoted from mimma

It works well in rugby. Player goes down injured ref signals the clock to stop. Clock starts again when play restarts.

Also as in rugby the has to go out of play before the ref blows for time.

Head injuries are a problem. But if there's no time wasting because of the clock stopping, then there's no point other than to disrupt the game. However if the "injured " player has to stay off the pitch for longer, instead of being waved straight back on then he would be disadvantaged.

What's not to like?

Agreed completely disincentivises wasting of time.
Made me laugh yesterday when the Maidenhead players after being fouled banged the grass with their hands like a toddler.
Reminded me of the clip below
https://www.google.com/search?.....=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I think it’s more about disrupting playing stopping momentum then time wasting which can be added on . It’s up to referees to be strong and bookpeopke if they think they are faking it .A few will be unjustly booked but so what. Referees in football have lost control they allow players to winge in their faces immediately the game starts ( Clifton did that yesterday so we are not always the innocent party).If referees didn’t stand for it as in Rugby the problem would be over

The principle of a minimum 60 minutes playing time is a good one but then you think a match is supposed to last 90 minutes so how does that work? As others have said there has always been, and always will be, time wasting in the game but let’s be honest do we care when town are one up and we do it?

Biggest frustration to me is when sides time waste throughout the match go one down then get the 6 or 7 minutes they wasted added on at the end giving them a greater chance of getting back in the game. In an ideal world there would be a timekeeper who monitors time wasting by each side and if they are losing after 90 minutes tough that time isn’t added. But in reality it’s all theoretical claptrap and nothing is going to change but why can’t we have the simple elements introduced with clock stopped for injuries and substitutes?

Trial it in a league for a season and see if it works!

I believe there was a plan to do just that:

https://fanbanter.co.uk/fifa-t.....eaving-fans-angered/

You can debate until the cows come home about whether it's right or wrong. Personally, I think it's a great idea, but we'll never know until it's tried out.

Trial it in a league for a season and see if it works!

I believe there was a plan to do just that, but with some other changes too:

https://fanbanter.co.uk/fifa-t.....eaving-fans-angered/

You can debate until the cows come home about whether it's right or wrong. Personally, I think it's a great idea, but we'll never know until it's tried out.

No thanks