Wycombe v Rotherham the ball in play for only 35 minutes and 50 seconds

Carltonblue

Well-Known Member
Don’t referees speak to both teams in the dressing room pre-match anymore? Why not say to both teams that timewasting will be an immediate booking. And stick to it.
 

JamesMcNaught

Active Member
I know someone who played in the lower leagues in England. Said the players were giants, physically really strong, but no one got the ball down to play, and if you were a skilful midfielder, there was no point in playing.
 

hhss

Well-Known Member
One of our games, possibly Livingston, ball went for goal kick. Over a minute from the ball going out to taking the goal kick. 1/90th of the game wasted on just that. Ridiculous.
 

RabSpackman

Well-Known Member
I know someone who played in the lower leagues in England. Said the players were giants, physically really strong, but no one got the ball down to play, and if you were a skilful midfielder, there was no point in playing.
The sheer size of some lower league players in England, especially the Championship, is staggering, which made it interesting when Ejaria left Rangers because it was a bit too physical and went to Reading!
 

Ke55y

Well-Known Member
EPL just as bad arsenal match at wolves 2 free kicks back to back took 6 mins to take nobody injured ref talking to players players moaning asked to move ball back dire viewing all walking pace
 

MightyGersLand!

Well-Known Member
I hope it’s changed in future to 60 mins of the ball in play, 35 mins is just ridiculous.

Aberdeen players will have Rotherham posters up on their walls now.
I've said before.
Injury time in each half should continue until ball has been in play 30 minutes.
If both teams are playing football and getting the ball in play then whistle blows on 45.

You still get your 90 minute clock and people get a game of football to watch.
 

brain

Well-Known Member
The team with the better numbers were Rotherham, and they completed only 273 passes with a pass accuracy of 49%. That is atrocious. Dundee United had a pass accuracy of 78% and completed 360 passes at the weekend.
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
I hope it’s changed in future to 60 mins of the ball in play, 35 mins is just ridiculous.

Aberdeen players will have Rotherham posters up on their walls now.
Sixty isn’t enough.
A survey a few years back found the playing time to be in the mid sixty odd minutes so I’d be looking for seventy.
 

PunkScott

Well-Known Member
I look forward to next season when we get Liverpool and Madrid in our champions league group and folk are wondering why our players are rushing to take goal kicks and throw-ins at 0-0.

It doesn't make for great viewing, but it is part of the game.
 

jcdbluebear

Well-Known Member
Refs need to move the players on quicker to take throw ins and free kicks. The problem with the 60 minute matches is the incentive to move on quickly goes. Games would take longer.
 

Leif Erikson

Well-Known Member
I look forward to next season when we get Liverpool and Madrid in our champions league group and folk are wondering why our players are rushing to take goal kicks and throw-ins at 0-0.

It doesn't make for great viewing, but it is part of the game.
I'd still like it to be changed. Even if it meant we couldn't time waste in Europe I'd still much prefer that over a full league campaign against teams who waste team from the 1st minute and even when they're losing.
 

Leopold

Well-Known Member
I wonder if a 60 minute game with the clock stopped out of play would stop diddy teams taking the piss. They could take even longer to get the ball back in play without being accused of timewasting just to kill our momentum.
 

Baz

Well-Known Member
It is weak or incompetent refs that are causing this. He must have allowed about 30 mins of wasted time per half and only played a couple of minutes injury time to make up.
 
change consent
Top