After having seen consecutive games at Home Park (Oxford and Bradford) where the away team spent most of its time wasting it (time, that is) I have finally reached the end of my tether and am in dire need of a good old fashioned rant. Now, I know that what follows is, in itself, probably a complete waste of time as very little is likely to come of it but in the spirit of written catharsis I will spout on.
Time wasting in the EFL (I canât speak for other leagues/countries as I only concern myself with Argyle) seems to have become standard in recent years. I am not naive enough to believe that it is purely a modern phenomenon. Indeed, I can well remember the old-style tactics before goalkeepers were prevented from picking up the ball on a back pass. That was a charter for time-wasters. Keeper collects a loose ball and rolls it out to left back, left back passes it back to keeper who then rolls it out to right back, right back passes it back to keeper who then⌠well, you get the drift. The abolition of the âback passâ certainly helped speed up and maintain the flow of the game and is to be appreciated. As long as the game is based on a period of time (rather than other âpoints targetâ sports, such as tennis) the wasting of time to gain an advantage is going to be at the forefront of the mind. Indeed, some exponents of the beautiful game have turned time wasting into an art form - refer to the Wycombe Wanderers website for affordably priced master classes in the same.
At this stage I should point out that I am not against masterful âgame managementâ techniques to run the clock down - such as actually passing the ball around and preventing your opponents possession and even, at a push, the âtake it to the corner flagâ scenario. These are valid methods of running the clock down with the ball in play and require no little degree of actual footballing skill and technique. No, it is the cynical time wasting involving a delayed reintroduction of the ball once the game has stopped (i.e. at throw-ins, goal kicks, corners, free kicks and, indeed, goals) that gets on my wick. So, for want of anything better to do (and I can already hear the shouts of âsad git!â and âget a life!â) I thought I would see exactly how much time was taken up last Saturday afternoon when the ball was out of play. To do this I watched the full match on iFollow and, using the clock on the top left hand of the screen, made a note of the number of seconds (and sometimes minutes!) from when the ball went out of play until play was restarted. I have to admit that I could only keep this up for the first half (I lost the will to live after thatâŚ) but even the stats for a full half of the match were something to consider. The following findings may or may not surprise you - they certainly surprised me!
There were 24 throw-ins in the first half - 11 for Bradford and 13 for Argyle. This resulted in 4 minutes 55 seconds of delay. It wonât come as a surprise to learn that even though Argyle had two more throw-ins than Bradford the latter accounted for a higher delay factor.
There were 10 goal kicks, only ONE of which was award to Argyle (that gives some indication of our dominance in first-half forward play on Saturday, notwithstanding the calamitous defending). A total of 5 minutes 2 seconds were lost to the game.
Six corners (4 for Argyle, 2 for Bradford) accounted for another 2 minutes 23 seconds.
Free kicks totalled 12 - 7 awarded against Bradford (âdirty northern b*stards!!â) and 5 against Argyle. This frittered away another 5 minutes 58 seconds (that included a booking for that heinously violent thug of a player - Joel GrantâŚ)
And finally, the goals. I donât begrudge ANY team a good old fashioned goal celebration but, like everything in life, there are limits. Bradfordâs first ate up 57 seconds until Argyle kicked off again. Argyleâs was a more modest 35 seconds (only to be expected, perhaps, as the home team is usually setting the tempo for the game). When Bradford got their second they just fell short of one full minute to get back into position for the kick off - it was 59 seconds.
In total, therefore, the ball was out of play during the first half for 20 minutes and 49 seconds. The referee added on a laughable one whole minute for what he considered to be unwarranted delays and actually blew his whistle on 46 minutes 18 seconds. That means that out of a complete half of Argyle vs Bradford the players were only physically running around and competing for a little over 25 minutes. Now, Iâm not suggesting that the players are shirking (I wouldnât manage FIVE minutes at that level!) but the paying public arenât exactly getting value for money if actual football only comprises about half of the admission ticket. But thatâs not my point.
This is all about time-wasting, gamesmanship, cheating - call it what you will. As things stand the only recourse the match official has to stamp out the blatant time waster is to caution him (ungentlemanly conduct?) but Iâve just given up trying to remember how many refs I have seen over the years actually do anything other than to wave their arms around when, say, a keeper spends an eternity forensically examining the ball before putting it down for a goal kick, only to repeat the action AND then kick imaginary mud off his boots on his goal post. Yes, you will get the occasional booking of a player when the refâs patience finally cracks but this is often in the dying stages of a game and by then the damage has been done. But, shouldnât the ref âstop his watchâ and extend the half commensurately? I hear you say. I think the ONE MINUTE added time on Saturday's first half scuppers that supposition.
Letâs face it, however unpalatable to the purist, every professional footballer (and probably most amateur ones) is going to try to âpush the envelopeâ to achieve a winning outcome and if time wasting helps then they will do it. Oxford did it, Bradford did it, Iâve seen Argyle do it and, of course, Wycombe invented it (probably very untrue and unfair but it always makes me feel better to have a go at themâŚ) How to prevent it (in the absence of wishy-washy, incompetent refereeing)? Well, Sam Jones hit this one on the head (thanks, Sam!) in his comment on the âAway Team Goal Celebrationsâ thread :
Time keeping should now be taken away from the referees as they never allow enough.
TBH I'd rather there be a running clock that is stopped everytime the ball is out of play and the "in game" time reduced to say 75 mins.
We would see a lot more football on the pitch and these antics would not matter in the slightest.
I would strongly second this (it works in basketball and American football) but in view of my âback of a fag packetâ research I would reduce the actual playing time to half an hour each way. When you then allow for the 20-25 minutes or so of nothingness each half you end up with roughly the same time for âthe match experienceâ. And if the players can't see an advantage in delaying, say, a throw, they won't do it. The referee would still have the option of cautioning a player if he felt that they were 'playing for time' (to try and disrupt the flow of the game) the same as in tennis.
I am sure that there are more holes in my suggestion than a colander (not least of which that it has more chance of happening than Mrs May getting a Christmas card from every M.P in the House of Commons) but I look forward to your views.
roblem:
