Time-wasting is one
of the few things about football that I really hate. It is ridiculous
that the rules of the game allow a side to gain an advantage purely
by taking longer than is necessary to restart play. All efforts
to stamp this out have failed and it has almost become accepted
practice - it used to just a continental thing, but although foreign
players have generally changed the English game for the better over
the past fifteen years, this is one of a number of side effects
that have degraded aspects of it.
Sky's coverage of football has brought many changes to the game,
one of which has been an almost American-style interest in statistics.
One of the most interesting examples is that showing the amount
of time that the ball is in play. Normally, this is between 55 and
65 minutes in a normal 90 minute game. The fact that there is a
range approaching 20% of the lower figure between this numbers strikes
me as plain wrong. It is basically saying that, depending on the
vagaries each particular match, one could be effectively 20% longer
than another - surely this is ridiculous?
We have the concept of stoppage time which, although FIFA has tried
to regulate it to a certain extent, remains at the whim of the referee
and, therefore, inconsistent. According to the FIFA rule book, allowance
should be made in either period for all time lost through substitutions,
assessment of injury to players, removal of injured players from
the field of play for treatment, wasting time and any other cause.
The accepted practice was, I understood, to add 30 seconds for substitutions
and goals being scored, but I've been at matches with five goals
and five substitutions in the second half and seen a board for two
minutes added time go up. Other than goals, injuries and substitutions,
goal kicks and set piece free kicks are the prime wasters of time,
but there is never any time added on for them.
It just seems crazy to my simple mind that depending on the number
of goal kicks, goals, free kicks, injuries, substitutions, etc.
in a particular game, it can effectively last up to a fifth longer
than another particular game. How can this be fair?
To me there is a blindingly simple solution. Obviously, if we were
to add time on for all stoppages and still play 90 minutes, the
games would be far too long. I would favour an independent timekeeper
(the referee has enough to do already) who would stop the clock
when the ball is not in play, and the game should be reduced to
30 minutes of playing time each way. This would keep the game to
roughly the same length as it is today, but it would ensure that
every game is of the same length, and time-wasting would be pointless
as the clock would be stopped. And by displaying the time on a stadium
clock, everyone would know exactly how long was left.
Obviously the independent time-keeper and stadium clock could not
be implemented at all levels of the game, but the basic principle
could be easily applied, and time wasting would be a thing of the
past.
|
