For much of the second half of the 20th century, football’s laws were rarely tampered with. Some small adjustments here and there but barely any dramatic changes from one decade to the next.
But the current era is one of constant tinkering, most obviously with football entering the VAR age. And now that matches are officiated in such a microscopic way, the laws themselves have come under sharper focus. The law surrounding handball continues to frustrate supporters, while interpretations of the offside law — once the litmus test of whether you knew anything about the game — can be confusing to even the most seasoned viewer.
Advertisement
One area that hasn’t yet significantly changed, though, is the way a football match is timed. Earlier this month, IFAB decided against trialling the use of a countdown clock, which would stop when the game was halted for any reason. The proposed change would have featured two halves of just 30 minutes each. This would, in most cases, actually increase the amount of playing time because on average, Premier League matches currently feature around 55 minutes of actual ball-in-play action. Which is, some argue, a disgraceful situation that should prompt the introduction of a countdown clock to ensure we get at least 60 minutes of honest action.
But there are two separate debates here, which often become conflated. The first is about whether 55 minutes of playing time is too short. The second is whether we should accept matches being so variable in terms of length.
Mike Dean carefully checking his watch in 2022 (Photo: Jan Kruger/Getty Images)Firstly, 55 minutes of playing time doesn’t seem particularly unreasonable. While the average ball-in-play time has fallen slightly over the past decade, it’s a relatively small drop of around 90 seconds.
Besides, almost every sport features a minimal amount of actual playing time over the course of a match. No one ever talks about the ball-in-play time for tennis, for example, where it is estimated that the ball is being hit for less than 20 per cent of the total match duration. It’s a similar situation in cricket or baseball, where there’s considerably more waiting around than there is throwing or hitting the ball. In that context, it feels relatively positive that around 60 per cent of a football match is spent with the ball in play.
Of course, this comparison doesn’t entirely work because a game of football is played over a specific number of minutes rather than a specific number of plays or a scoring procedure. But we’ve always known the ball goes out of play while the clock continues and we’ve always known we aren’t getting 90 minutes of actual action for our money. And, at a time when most agree there are too many games, putting players at risk of injuries and burnout, it’s worth considering the impact of (effectively) lengthening matches by around 10 per cent.
Advertisement
If timewasting is considered a serious issue, the first step should be for referees to use their existing powers more.
Players should be booked as soon as they waste time, not after they’ve done it for the entirety of the second half, or longer. The six-second rule should be applied more strictly — in their surprise 2-1 victory over Chelsea Women earlier this season, Liverpool Women goalkeeper Rachael Laws held onto the ball for 25 seconds without any censure from the referee, or any complaints from her opponents. And perhaps added time should incorporate the period when a penalty is awarded, or when a side have a free kick that involves setting up a wall. Both situations often take more than a minute before play restarts.
The second debate is probably more relevant — it’s about the inconsistency between matches, which can vary significantly. Taking into account the Premier League matches played by the 16 clubs to have featured in the division in each of 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23, therefore bringing the sample size for each club up to nearly 100 games, there’s a significant difference between the average length of a Manchester City game (61 minutes) and the average length of an Aston Villa game (52 minutes 45 seconds).
From that perspective, a 60-minute stop-clock makes some degree of sense.
One thing to consider, though, is that the major factor in determining ball-in-play-time is not about timewasting (or about VAR checks — referees are told to add on this time) but simply about quality — and, more specifically, passing quality. A graph comparing those 16 Premier League clubs’ ball-in-play time and passing accuracy over the past two and a half seasons tells the story neatly.
Another way of demonstrating this is by looking at ball-in-play times from across England’s four professional leagues. Premier League football matches average around 55 minutes. It falls progressively to 52m 30s in the Championship, then to 50m 20s in League One and down to 49m 39s in League Two. The lower leagues are sometimes cited as a “purer” form of football, which may be so, but you’re getting less of it.
An overlooked problem of the ball-in-play idea is that, from the perspective of timekeeping, an enjoyable football game is more about the constant rhythm than the actual amount of football played. Teams don’t waste time solely to literally run down the clock, they do so to break up the momentum of the game. If a ball-in-play clock was introduced, breaking up the game would not merely continue to exist, it might be tolerated more, on the basis their opponents aren’t actually being deprived of playing time. And stop/start matches are immensely frustrating to watch.
Advertisement
Also, some of these proposals involve an independent timekeeper — rather than the referee — and emphasise the need for a stadium “countdown clock” to keep supporters informed. Yet this would be difficult at lower levels, where officials are already in short supply and where facilities are limited. Professional football matches account for a very low percentage of total football matches played. FIFA was once keen to ensure rules were broadly consistent across all levels, although in the VAR era, this has seemingly become less of a priority.
And, in some cases, a countdown clock would actually deprive us of football. Manchester City’s match with Southampton this season featured 68 minutes of ball-in-play time, and matches between title contenders tend to feature prominently on the list of “longest” matches. With that in mind, yes, there are some merits to the concept of a 60-minute ball-in-play clock, but they’re probably not convincing enough for football to abandon its traditional 90-minute format.
(Top photo: Julian Finney/Getty Images)
ncG1vNJzZmismJqutbTLnquim16YvK57k2pqcWhjbXxzfJFsZmlqX2WBcL7EnaycoZ6cerW1zJ6umquknruoecBmbWllnZ67tsDEZqqtp6CYubCvymafmqtdorKztdOsZJutpGK2tHnNqKtmmV2lsrOyxJyrZqufocK1tc6nZg%3D%3D