What's new

Stoppage Time - Where are the timekeepers?

Duck

Active Member
Aug 8, 2019
121
81
Can someone explain why we don't have dedicated timekeepers in football yet? Just about every other sport in the world has them, yet football still insists on assigning timekeeping duty to the referee.

The official rules say football is played in two half spanning 45 minutes each, but in reality, the is no official duration. How long a half goes for is entirely up to the referee's discretion. While added time is meant to account for stoppages, it's entirely vague as to what actually constitutes a stoppage, or dare I say it, if stoppages are really what prompts the referee to extend the duration of a game.

Today's game, Brighton vs Manchester United is a prime example. Everyone is being distracted by the post-match VAR penalty, but forgetting what should be the real story: the referee added 5 minutes of stoppage time, and Solly March for Brighton scored with the clock at 94:40. Assuming the proceeding goal celebration is a stoppage, that leaves +20 seconds on the clock for the game to be played, yet the referee allowed play to continue for a solid minute, until Manchester United got a corner, then a penalty.

Why was play allowed to continue for that long when there should've been 20 seconds left? You can't tell me it's because of the corners and throw-ins that occurred throughout the original 5 minutes, because 90% of the time the referee blows the whistle the second that time is elapsed, regardless of throw-ins/corners.

This is obviously nothing new, we've seen this exact story with regards to referees manufacturing additional time. Man City vs Man United about 10 years ago would spring to many peoples' mind, and also Arsenal vs Liverpool back in 2011, where Liverpool were given a penalty in the 101st minute after the referee added only +8 minutes of stoppage time. That being said, I'm still yet to hear a single logical answer as to why situations like this continue to occur. Is it tradition? Then explain why VAR was brought in relatively recently (to very mixed results). Is it to make games more exciting towards the end? That's my guess, but you can't deny it would heavily undermine the integrity of the sport.

If all of the footballing bodies across the world were prepared to bring VAR to the game, why can't they bring in a time keeper? Or even attempt to make the timekeeping discretion a little less vague?
 

chrissivad

Staff
May 20, 2005
51,646
58,072
The 5 mins, is a minimum of 5 minutes. The game doesn't have to stop as soon as those 5 are up.
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
And also conveniently forgetting there was a substitution in injury time also
 

tiger666

Large Member
Jan 4, 2005
27,978
82,214
Can someone explain why we don't have dedicated timekeepers in football yet? Just about every other sport in the world has them, yet football still insists on assigning timekeeping duty to the referee.

The official rules say football is played in two half spanning 45 minutes each, but in reality, the is no official duration. How long a half goes for is entirely up to the referee's discretion. While added time is meant to account for stoppages, it's entirely vague as to what actually constitutes a stoppage, or dare I say it, if stoppages are really what prompts the referee to extend the duration of a game.

Today's game, Brighton vs Manchester United is a prime example. Everyone is being distracted by the post-match VAR penalty, but forgetting what should be the real story: the referee added 5 minutes of stoppage time, and Solly March for Brighton scored with the clock at 94:40. Assuming the proceeding goal celebration is a stoppage, that leaves +20 seconds on the clock for the game to be played, yet the referee allowed play to continue for a solid minute, until Manchester United got a corner, then a penalty.

Why was play allowed to continue for that long when there should've been 20 seconds left? You can't tell me it's because of the corners and throw-ins that occurred throughout the original 5 minutes, because 90% of the time the referee blows the whistle the second that time is elapsed, regardless of throw-ins/corners.

This is obviously nothing new, we've seen this exact story with regards to referees manufacturing additional time. Man City vs Man United about 10 years ago would spring to many peoples' mind, and also Arsenal vs Liverpool back in 2011, where Liverpool were given a penalty in the 101st minute after the referee added only +8 minutes of stoppage time. That being said, I'm still yet to hear a single logical answer as to why situations like this continue to occur. Is it tradition? Then explain why VAR was brought in relatively recently (to very mixed results). Is it to make games more exciting towards the end? That's my guess, but you can't deny it would heavily undermine the integrity of the sport.

If all of the footballing bodies across the world were prepared to bring VAR to the game, why can't they bring in a time keeper? Or even attempt to make the timekeeping discretion a little less vague?

Wasn't there a sub in extra time plus the goal? Ref is free to add at least 30 secs for each of those. Was on in the background so may be wrong.
 

Duck

Active Member
Aug 8, 2019
121
81
The 5 mins, is a minimum of 5 minutes. The game doesn't have to stop as soon as those 5 are up.
Who said it did? I even acknowledged in my post that +20 seconds should be added when taking into account the goal celebration stoppage.

The problem is how vague it all is. Why was a whole minute added on to the original +5 minutes?
 

chrissivad

Staff
May 20, 2005
51,646
58,072
Who said it did? I even acknowledged in my post that +20 seconds should be added when taking into account the goal celebration stoppage.

The problem is how vague it all is. Why was a whole minute added on to the original +5 minutes?

Well you.
You seem to be that 5mins that were held up means 5mins. But it doesn't.
Ref might be playing 5min 30 for all we know. But they only put up 5 mins on the board.
 

Duck

Active Member
Aug 8, 2019
121
81
And also conveniently forgetting there was a substitution in injury time also
Wasn't there a sub in extra time plus the goal? Ref is free to add at least 30 secs for each of those. Was on in the background so may be wrong.
I'm pretty sure the game went on for more than 30 seconds. Even then, why not have a time keeper actually properly measuring the length of these stoppages?

Where did the time for Michael Owen's winner vs Man City come from? Or the penalty for Lucas vs Arsenal?

Let's be real here, if stoppage time has elapsed and a team is building an attack, the referee loves to let that play go on, even if it's beyond the allocated time. Match length is decided by the referee.
 

Duck

Active Member
Aug 8, 2019
121
81
Well you.
You seem to be that 5mins that were held up means 5mins. But it doesn't.
Ref might be playing 5min 30 for all we know. But they only put up 5 mins on the board.
You keep missing the point, and didn't seem to read a word of what I typed.

The bolded part is my issue. Why is it "for all we know"? Why is the game's length decided by the referee's discretion? Nothing is clear cut, there is no consistency.
 

chrissivad

Staff
May 20, 2005
51,646
58,072
You keep missing the point, and didn't seem to read a word of what I typed.

The bolded part is my issue. Why is it "for all we know"? Why is the game's length decided by the referee's discretion?

Well, if your going to be a dick about it and say I'm not reading what you typed why should I bother explaining.

Maybe your missing the point that a referee is in charge of a game...
 

Duck

Active Member
Aug 8, 2019
121
81
Well, if your going to be a dick about it and say I'm not reading what you typed why should I bother explaining.
Your first post in this thread was one effortless sentence that ignored everything I typed in the opening post, and you're now complaining about me being a dick?
Maybe your missing the point that a referee is in charge of a game...
Officiating the rules? Yes.
Keeping the time? Yes, but why? Every other sport has a timekeeper, and wouldn't even think about giving the referee discretion to decide the length of a game, because there's significant margin for error.

This is exactly the point I outlined in the OP, which you clearly missed.
 

Archibald&Crooks

Aegina Expat
Admin
Feb 1, 2005
55,533
204,721
This interested me so a quick google threw up this, i've no idea how old it is, but it mentions VAR so maybe not that old.......It does explain a few things I never knew.


As for there being a timekeeper, i've no idea how that would work. What with VAR it seems to me that bit by bit, the game is being run by people not on the pitch, often not even in the ground or even the same part of the country. At the end of the day, just how far do we micro manage? And for the sake of a what? 30 extra seconds here and there? 30 seconds less? It seems much ado about nothing to me, there's always going to have to be an end to a game and no matter how that's decided, someone will have a moan about it.

I said when VAR was about to be introduced that all we were doing is swapping one set of controversies for another. I suspect going with an official timekeeper would end up the same way.
 

BENNO

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2005
791
3,233
Heard someone on a footy podcast a good few years ago (Gabriele Marcotti I think) say that we should have a clock counting down from 30 mins in both halves. When the ball is out of play the clock stops. You therefore get 30 mins of actual playing time per half, completely eliminating any time wasting tactics at goal kicks, throw ons, substitutions etc etc & the best part is that everyone can see exactly how long is left. Seems so simple & absolutely perfect to me.
 
Last edited:

LukaMotion

WHL 1899-2017
May 17, 2010
2,883
5,926
Heard someone on a footy podcast a good few years ago (Gabriele Marcotti I think) say that we should have a clock counting down from 30 mins in both halves. When the ball is out of play the clock stops. You therefore get 30 mins of actual playing time per half, completely eliminating any time wasting tactics at goal kicks, throw ons, substitutions etc etc & the best part is that everyone can see exactly how long is left. Seems so simple & absolutely perfect to me.
I'd actually be more than happy with that tbh. It works for American sports, see no reason it wouldn't work for football.
 

BENNO

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2005
791
3,233
I'd actually be more than happy with that tbh. It works for American sports, see no reason it wouldn't work for football.
Yep, it seems so simple and so easy to do. If they can waste all that time & money on VAR then having a countdown clock is a piece of piss. Appealed to me as I absolutely hate teams/managers that waste time from goalkicks etc right from the start - Fat Sam's Bolton were culprits and those bloody Stoke/Delap throw ins that took 90 secs to wipe the ball and take the run up !
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
Heard someone on a footy podcast a good few years ago (Gabriele Marcotti I think) say that we should have a clock counting down from 30 mins in both halves. When the ball is out of play the clock stops. You therefore get 30 mins of actual playing time per half, completely eliminating any time wasting tactics at goal kicks, throw ons, substitutions etc etc & the best part is that everyone can see exactly how long is left. Seems so simple & absolutely perfect to me.

Agree completely. It's perhaps worth pointing out that the 2 X 30min halves comes from the fact that, in the current system, the ball is only in play for about 60mins per match. Simply stopping the clock but leaving the max time the same would mean games were 50% longer so you need to change it to 30 to avoid that.
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Mar 18, 2005
33,986
81,917
I agree that someone outside of the ref should take care of timekeeping.

Subs, timewasting and ball out of play affects how much time should he left. So a dedicated timekeeper makes sense to me.
 
Top