Timewasting

[Shalalalafenoughty]

It started bang on fifteen minutes. A QPR throw-in in front of the dugouts. Wilder had the ball in his hands and there wasn’t a single opposition player wanting to get the ball from him to take the throw.

It carried on in the same vein until our goal and then, as Wilder said, it went from “slow motion” to “Benny Hill”.

The ref did nothing at all to speed their keeper up when he was taking an age over goalkicks then went out of his way to gee Henderson up near the end when he perceived him to be slowtiming. To my eyes, it was nowhere near as bad as the Rangers goalie had been.

Poor show from QPR. You’d have expected a bit more ambition from a team on a good run and on the verge of the playoffs.

 

[mancunianblade]

You’d have expected a bit more ambition from a team on a good run and on the verge of the playoffs.

Unless it’s that very tactic that has helped with their upturn in fortunes?

 

[LoughboroBlade]

It started bang on fifteen minutes. A QPR throw-in in front of the dugouts. Wilder had the ball in his hands and there wasn’t a single opposition player wanting to get the ball from him to take the throw.

It carried on in the same vein until our goal and then, as Wilder said, it went from “slow motion” to “Benny Hill”.

The ref did nothing at all to speed their keeper up when he was taking an age over goalkicks then went out of his way to gee Henderson up near the end when he perceived him to be slowtiming. To my eyes, it was nowhere near as bad as the Rangers goalie had been.

Poor show from QPR. You’d have expected a bit more ambition from a team on a good run and on the verge of the playoffs.

The truly weird thing about that was that I thought they’d started a bit better than us, we had conceded possession cheaply, they looked a bit tidier, and if I’d have been a QPR fan at that point I’d have thought “United don’t look totally on their game at the minute, we need to get at them while we have this opportunity”.

And then...time-wasting. At barely 15 mins in. Not just occasional, but persistent. So bizarre.

 

[coaxingstar71]

I thought it was odd as first half they looked like they were going to cause us problems. Yet despite being decent on the ball, they were taking an age over everything. I think it worked against them in the end. What was their keepers kicking all about? Strange tactic as it seemed to get them constantly into trouble.

 

[Bladesman]

I was surprised by QPR, they seemed happy to get a point from the word go. I expected much more from them especially with the likes Eze (he seemed to be the only one trying to create for them), Wells and Freeman in their team.

Their only tactic seemed to be get it back to the keeper, kick it wide and knock it on for Wells or someone to run on to. Our defence dealt with that plan and then they brought Smith on but barely got the ball up to him.

 

[YES Blade]

We’re one of the best teams in the division, so a lot of teams are going to be happy with a point. Therefore time wasting is going to be a tactic we see more and more, but that’s football.

 

[1973Blade]

And yet when we started taking our time in the second half, the ref suddenly took an interest in time wasting!

 

[Ricky]

Wait, what did QPR do wrong? I thought that's how our fans wanted us to play?

 

[Muttley]

Aaaah, timewasting.

Why do they choose this particular job? I thought it was to play football. Why then, when playing/working time is around 90/180 minutes a week, would they want to waste that time?

 

[John Street West Terrace]

I’m glad McGoldrick notched when he did otherwise I think there antics would have got worse . I thought QPR might have been a bit better after the run they’ve been on but offered FA up front ,they reminded me of a team coming for a point in pre 3 points for a win era .
Did what we had to do today in a scrappy game against a team coming here with spoiling tactics .
Well done lads they were some of the games that got away from us last season

UTB

 

[LoughboroBlade]

I think the new RS guy Mike went some way to thawing some of the frostiness he’s received from Wilder in past interviews by drawing attention to the early timewasting by QPR. Wilder lapped that up fairly eagerly.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

The day it will stop is the day that it is taken out of the hands of a referee - just like Rugby league and Rugby Union.

Hendo wasn't doing bad himself near the end.

UTB

 

[Guesty]

Timewasting like that so early to me just sends a signal to the opposition - 'We have no intention of going out and winning this game'. It hands the initiative over to the other team.

If one team is being absolutely swamped I can see how they'd slow it down wherever possible but today wasn't like that. QPR settled for a point before kick off and we weren't going to let them have it.

 

[Guesty]

I think the new RS guy Mike went some way to thawing some of the frostiness he’s received from Wilder in past interviews by drawing attention to the early timewasting by QPR. Wilder lapped that up fairly eagerly.

I noticed that, I don't listen to RS much but my Dad had it on in the car. I had to ask him if the interviewer was the one Wilder supposedly doesn't like because they seemed to get on well today.

 

[Harrisblade]

The truly weird thing about that was that I thought they’d started a bit better than us, we had conceded possession cheaply, they looked a bit tidier, and if I’d have been a QPR fan at that point I’d have thought “United don’t look totally on their game at the minute, we need to get at them while we have this opportunity”.

And then...time-wasting. At barely 15 mins in. Not just occasional, but persistent. So bizarre.

Maybe the plan was to frustrate and annoy in equal measure so that we lost discipline and swarmed forward to leave gaps and allow the sucker punch?

 

[10-0 win]

Timewasting, good read this.

Premier League time-wasting: Mikel Arteta and Jesse Marsch lead complainants | Is it a growing issue?

Premier League at lowest ratio for in-play action ever recorded this season at 55.9 per cent; stoppage-time at all-time high to mitigate VAR reviews; games involving Leeds and Newcastle have lowest proportion of active game-time

www.skysports.com

 

[CornwallBlade]

Boils my piss, we are paying to watch 90 minutes of a football match not 50! Simply can’t understand why timekeeping is still in the hands of referees and not as per Rugby Union where the ref simply says “stop the clock” whenever play stops for injuries or discussion etc. The actual time remaining is shown in the ground so everyone knows, to the second, how long is left. Also, why on earth are substitutions deemed part of the 90 minutes?

 

[jt64]

Also, why on earth are substitutions deemed part of the 90 minutes?

They add on time for subs.

 

[10-0 win]

My guess in the 70,s we saw alot more actual play, no nonsens , no scoring antics and very little timewasting. When was a freekick given against goallies holding on to the ball more than 6 secs last,?

 

[jt64]

My guess in the 70,s we saw alot more actual play, no nonsens , no scoring antics and very little timewasting. When was a freekick given against goallies holding on to the ball more than 6 secs last,?

Last one I recall was in the 2012 Olympics, they gave one against the Canadian keeper, resulting IFK led to a pen to let the USA equalise

 

[Snowflake]

Last one I recall was in the 2012 Olympics, they gave one against the Canadian keeper, resulting IFK led to a pen to let the USA equalise

Don’t tell Wes, he’s the worst for holding it too long !

 

[CornwallBlade]

They add on time for subs.

So why does every commentator say “and they’re running down the clock with these late substitutions”. ?

 

[jt64]

So why does every commentator say “and they’re running down the clock with these late substitutions”. ?

Because every commentator is a fucking idiot. You do have a partial point, refs seemingly generally don't add enough time on for subs, despite the fact it should be extremely easy to administer.

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

So why does every commentator say “and they’re running down the clock with these late substitutions”. ?

Because a fixed amount of time (30 secs) is added for each substitution and in reality it’s possible to make it take longer than that.

In reality I think teams make substitutions in those situations more to break the rhythm and impetus of the opposition and quieten the crowd than to save those few seconds. You see teams doing it throughout the game - when the flow of the game is going against them they start to do everything slowly and find ways to create breaks in the game.

I support the concept of a match being 60 minutes of time when the ball is in play rather than 90 minutes of time overall. However, although it would be less pronounced, to a degree I think we would still see away teams particularly trying to slow things down, to try to kill the game.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Two easy things they could do.

1. If a team takes too long over taking a dead ball, reverse the decision. A throw-in goes the other way, a goal kick becomes a corner, and so on.There doesn't need to be a particular culprit; so for example if the original example in the OP, where no-one moved to take the throw, the ref blows and gives it the other way.

2. For substitutions, from the moment the board goes up, the player has 15 seconds to leave the pitch, in any direction. If he doesn't get off in time, as timed by an automatic timer in the fourth official's board, then he still has to leave the pitch but the sub can't come on until the next break in play (and if that break is for a foul by the subbing team, then the break after).

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

2. For substitutions, from the moment the board goes up, the player has 15 seconds to leave the pitch, in any direction. If he doesn't get off in time, as timed by an automatic timer in the fourth official's board, then he still has to leave the pitch but the sub can't come on until the next break in play (and if that break is for a foul by the subbing team, then the break after).

You could enforce this with an exploding neck collar like they had in The Running Man.

Gives you a little buzz to say you need to come off, and the if you don’t exit the pitch in 15 seconds, pop!

 

[CornwallBlade]

Two easy things they could do.

1. If a team takes too long over taking a dead ball, reverse the decision. A throw-in goes the other way, a goal kick becomes a corner, and so on.There doesn't need to be a particular culprit; so for example if the original example in the OP, where no-one moved to take the throw, the ref blows and gives it the other way.

2. For substitutions, from the moment the board goes up, the player has 15 seconds to leave the pitch, in any direction. If he doesn't get off in time, as timed by an automatic timer in the fourth official's board, then he still has to leave the pitch but the sub can't come on until the next break in play (and if that break is for a foul by the subbing team, then the break after).

Love the sub suggestion. Goal kick to corner though? Again, I like the idea but it would be so subjective that it could be seriously abused. Definitely agree with the throw in idea. Maybe convert goal kick to giving opposition a free kick on the centre spot?

 

[Houston_Blade]

So why does every commentator say “and they’re running down the clock with these late substitutions”. ?

It’s more that it disrupts the flow of the game and slows it down, probably what you want to happen if you’re winning.

Refs are spineless so don’t punish timewasting enough. It won’t change though.