Is stopping the clock the right option?
The summer break in the Premier League is usually a time when pundits, journalists and fans alike come up with suggestions, often quite bizarre, about tweaking the rules of football to make the game better. And this off-season is no different.
However, this past week the International Football Association Board (Ifab) — made up of Fifa and the four British football associations — have come up with more than just a tweak. In a document entitled “Play Fair!” they are proposing a revolutionary move that would see games reduced to two 30-minute halves in a bold bid to discourage time-wasting.
The immediate reaction of most fans to this is probably that football would simply not be the same without 45-minute halves. And certainly 30 minutes seems far too short. But this is where the clock comes in.
Ifab argues that in the present 90-minute games, because of timewasting, there are fewer than 60 minutes of actual football when the ball is in play. In the scenario they envisage, the clock would stop every time the ball goes out of play.
The clock would also stop from the time a penalty is awarded to the moment it is taken as this sometimes takes several minutes after all the arguing and whatnot. Also when a goal has been scored the clock will stop until they kick-off again. The clock would also come into force for substitutions which are invariably used in the later stages of games by managers hoping to shave a few seconds off the clock.
It would also put an end to “Fergie Time”, that perceived extra helping of added time that former Manchester United boss Sir Alex Ferguson was said to enjoy in his heyday.
They also say referees should be must stricter on the current rule which allows the goalkeeper to keep the ball for six seconds. Time and again this rule is abused.
Other proposals designed to speed up the game include allowing a player to pass the ball to himself at a freekick, corner and goal kicks.
One proposal that most fans would support is that only captains should be allowed to speak to the referee in the case of a disputed decision, rather than the ugly mob scenes of players harassing referees which we see all too often.
Some of these proposals make a lot of sense, although reducing a game to two 30-minute halves might seem a bit extreme. Observers will also note than in the NFL in the US, where the clock is stopped regularly, a game that features just 60 minutes of play can last up to three hours.
While all these “Play Fair!” proposals would most likely eliminate a lot of time wasting, it is unlikely to add much to actual playing time. Fans may also feel cheated at not having their traditional 45-minute halves, even the wasting time bits. They might actually miss booing players who blatantly waste time at throw-ins.
There are plenty of other areas where things could be improved. The current offside law is still unsatisfactory and there is an uncomfortable grey area concerning whether a player is “interfering with play” or not. As the late Brian Clough famously observed: “If you are not interfering with play, what are you doing on the pitch?”
Too often goals are allowed when, although the scorer is not offside, there is another player blatantly offside and distracting the goalkeeper and defenders alike. If you are standing on the six-yard line in front of goal you are definitely interfering with play, whether you touch the ball or not. It must be a nightmare for the officials who have to make a decision in a matter of seconds.
Some even argue scrapping the offside law altogether, but this would be disastrous. The offside law is a fundamental element to the structure of the game.
There is also a strong case for introducing sin-bins rather than sending offs for two yellow cards. Too often players are sent off after receiving two rather “iffy” yellows for relatively minor fouls. This can spoil a game. A spell in the sin bin — for 10-15 minutes — might be an answer. It should be left to the referee to decide. Really dangerous fouls should of course prompt a red card and perhaps it might be a good time to introduce a red card for shirt pulling which is becoming increasingly irritating.
Yellow cards for over-the-top goal celebrations always seem a bit unfair. Certainly give the player a card if his actions create a potentially dangerous situation by running into the crowd, but what’s wrong with a player taking his shirt off? And it gives us a chance to see what silly tattoos he is wearing. Goals are basically why fans attend football matches, so let the players celebrate even if they do look rather foolish at times.
Having said that I must admit to preferring the 1960s when after scoring a goal, most players would simply raise their hand in acknowledgement and trot back to the centre circle.
One thing I’ve always thought could be introduced without any hassle involves injuries. When a player is injured on the field the medics/trainers should be allowed on the pitch to treat the player without play stopping, as is the case in rugby union. Play can carry on around them, unless the injury is deemed serious enough to warrant a halt in play. This would also help eliminate people feigning injuries in a bid to waste time.
While all these proposals would definitely speed up play, one suspects fans will still demand their full 90 minutes, time-wasting and all.