Stop-Clock in Football: Is it time?

There are many certainties in life and football rule adherence has its fair share of such certainties. One of the most contentious after match debates is the calculation of additional minutes of stoppage time. The team (and their fans) in need of a goal will see it as too little and those that are not will see it as too generous. The ritualistic groans erupting around the ground on the fourth official revealing the number of additional minutes of stoppage time is one of life’s certainties.

In the International Football Association Board’s (IFAB) Laws of the Game, the first section states: Football must have Laws which keep the game fair – this is a crucial foundation of the ‘beautiful game’ and a vital feature of the ‘spirit’ of the game. With deliberate time-wasting against the rules, and rarely, if ever, enforced by the referees, is a more radical change to timekeeping needed?

Stop-Clock in Football: Is it time?

In 1891, in order to secure his team’s victory against Stoke City, the Aston Villa goalkeeper, with two minutes of the match remaining chose to kick the ball out of the stadium. There was no spare ball and the unsporting act ensured Aston Villa maintained a 1-0 lead to win the game. This ignited a discussion about fairness and a few years later, additional time was introduced to compensate for time lost during a football match. Time-wasting is widely regarded by fans and the governing bodies. as one of the most toxic issues. FIFA and the IFAB are currently discussing whether the current rules should be changed to eliminate or reduce the growth of strategic time-wasting.

The IFAB attempting to tackle time-wasting

In 1998, over 20 years ago, an amendment to FIFA’s Law 12 states that “a goalkeeper is not permitted to keep control of the ball in his hands for more than six seconds” which is also known as the six-second rule. However, Kolbinger and Stockl (2019) analysed 45 games from the German Bundesliga and established that the six-second rule was upheld in 61.6 percent of situations, and in those games where it was not upheld there was no sanction despite such rule abuse being perpetrated by the team with a goal advantage.

More recent rule changes such as players who receive treatment must leave the pitch and that a substituted player must leave at the nearest touchline have failed to make a substantial impact on endemic of time-wasting. Football’s huge popularity worldwide and its long history steeped in traditions demands that major change to the rule book, such as the clock running only when the ball is in play would need to be vigorously researched, robustly trialled and implemented with clarity, i.e., what it does and not do. This article is structured into two sections: why the stop-clock in football must come and what the stop-clock will bring. To note, ball-in-play will be used interchangeable with effective play time throughout this article.

Why the stop-clock in football must come!

Current trends show the negativities

In collaboration with SportsMatrix, Morgulev and Galily (2019) analysed data on all matches played during the 2014-15 season of the English Premier League. Initial findings from 6 254 goal kicks, 17 308 throw-ins, 1 439 free kicks after offside, 9 166 free kicks after fouls, and 4 629 corners; a total of 38 796 situations where the ball was out of play (also known as dead-ball situations) showed that the last stage of the game (fourth quarter) is the most prone to time-wasting. This is of no great surprise to any football fan. Following this finding, they focused their attention on instances of dead-ball incidents that took place after 80 minutes of play.

Morgulev and Galily were able demonstrate the relationship between current score and the amount of time teams take to restart the game. A prime example is that of a goalkeeper whose team lead by one goal and were found to be 72.52 percent slower at taking a goal kick than the trailing team’s goalkeeper. Those in the lead took twice as long  to take free kicks after offside. They concluded that teams leading by one goal took longer to take goal kicks, throw-ins, and free kicks (Trend 1). Conversely, the amount of time taken for corners did not appear to be driven by the score. This can be explained whereby trailing teams often wait for most, if not all players (including GK), to position themselves in the opposition’s box whilst leading teams invariably play cautiously, taking short corners with a simple pass to a single player.

In another study, Greve, Rudi and Walvekar (2019) investigated strategic time-wasting in football. The scatterplot below shows greater effective playing time for teams that earn more points per game. Theme 2: teams that score more points tend to have more effective play time. Or in other words, teams that score fewer points tend to have less effective play time. The researchers pointed out that this would be expected due to time-wasting being a tactic weak teams use against stronger teams. Again, a finding that is not surprising but quantifiable evidence, nevertheless.

Average effective playing time by average points at home and away

Graph from Greve et al. (2019)

The study also pointed out that splitting data into scores when the restarting team is ahead, tied or behind ignores multiple features of the game and may underestimate strategic time-wasting. First, a tied score is viewed differently depending on the relative strengths of the opposing teams. A tied scored could be seen as beneficial by a weaker team and thus the attraction of time wasting. Second, the game is played over 90 minutes, consequently time-wasting impacts the final score differently depending on when the stoppage occurs. Thus, the weaker achieves little benefit by wasting time earlier in the game, whereas time-wasting in the final minutes has its attractions. Therefore, further research into time-wasting should consider these features.

Data from Opta shows the Premier League 2021/22 season’s ball in play average to be the lowest since 2010-11. It is down one minute and 19 seconds compared to the previous season, increasing to one minute 40 seconds relative to 2013-14. Theme 3: over the last decade the ball-in-play time in becoming less and less.

Whilst these three trends may not be surprising to many an ardent fan, it does show that time-wasting is having a negative impact on the game in terms of more cheating [time-wasting] in the later stages of matches, more cheating in closely fought matches and cheating proliferating over time.

Make football/competition fairer

In 2017, the IFAB launched the Play Fair initiative. It’s three aims were to: [1] improve player behaviour and increasing respect, [2] increasing playing time, and [3] increasing fairness and attractiveness. In reference to increasing playing time the IFAB states that ‘[m]any people are very frustrated that a typical 90-minute match has fewer than 60 minutes of effective (actual) playing time (EPT) i.e., when the ball is in play. The Play Fair! strategy proposes measures to reduce time-wasting and ‘speed up’ the game’.

One of these strategy proposals was a 60-minute stop-clock. By simple introducing a 60-minute stop-clock in football, all three aims would be met.

The chart above shows the five highest and lowest ball-in-play matches in the English Premier League since 2006. Whilst acknowledging that these are the most extreme cases, the difference in ball-in-play time is extraordinary. Manchester United vs Fulham in 2012 had a ball-in-play time of 71 minutes and 51 seconds whereas Stoke vs Blackburn in 2010 had a ball-in-play time of only 39 minutes and 1 second. That’s a difference of 32 minutes and 50 seconds which is equivalent to either an 84.2 percent increase from Stoke’s game to United’s or a 45.7 percent decrease from United’s to Stoke’s. These differences in effective playing time are far too great and cannot be accepted.

Sporting fairness is arguably the number one aspect any sport must uphold. Even the IFAB acknowledge that a stop-clock in football would mean that every club would play exactly the same amount of effective playing time. This is something that does not currently happen. For example, during the 2021/22 English Premier League, Manchester City had the highest effective playing time average of 60 minutes and 53 seconds and Aston Villa had the lowest effective playing time average of 52 minutes and 23 seconds. That’s a difference of seven and a half minutes. Over the course of a 38-game season, Manchester City played 285 minutes more football than Aston Villa which is equivalent to just over three games.

Gaining an unfair advantage is an anathema and has no place in society generally and sporting occasions specifically. It undermines the equal opportunity ethos available to all in seeking to excel and is simply dishonest. In an era when enormous amounts of money change hands, football being a multibillion dollar high-stakes industry, decision-makers and regulators must eradicate all instances where unfair advantage arise. Decision making during matches is a given and referees regularly exercise judgement. The question that needs to be answered is whether referees should have discretion regarding the addition of extra time when they have no precise mechanism at their disposal to assess the exact amount of time lost.

Researchers Lago-Penas and Gomez-Lopez (2016) analysed all 380 matches in the Spanish La Liga during the 2014-15 season. Their findings showed that the greater the score difference the less extra time was added. However, in close games, referees tended to favour a higher-level team when behind by awarding more time and conversely less time when ahead. Another unsurprising finding amongst the avid football fan.

Showcase events showcasing the negativities

According to FIFA, a combined 3.572 billion viewers tuned in to watch their sport’s pinnacle competition, the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia. The final between France and Croatia led a combined global audience of 1.12 billion. Over the course of all 64 matches, on average, the live audience for each game was 191 million.

Regardless how accurate these figures are, the significant amount of time the ball was out of play does not reflect well on the so-called ‘beautiful game’. Analysis from FiveThirtyEight on all 32 group matches in the 2018 World Cup found that the average match lasted 97 minutes and the ball-in-play was only 55 minutes on average, meaning dead ball time accounted for 43 percent of the matches. So, where exactly is all that time going? Is six minutes per game taken by keeper for goal kicks reasonable? (see below for a further breakdown).

Table from FiveThirtyEight

In 2021, two major international tournaments took place: the Copa America and Euro 2020 (delayed by Covid-19). Looking at the ball-in-play time for the matches of the winning teams, Italy and Argentina, a familiar unwanted trend occurs: the second halves of matches see less effective playing time. So, just as most matches are building in excitement, less football is being played. For example, Italy’s first match against Turkey saw a ball-in-play time of 32 minutes and 18 seconds in the first half (70.5 percent). However, in the second half, the ball-in-play time was 26 minutes and 34 seconds (55.3 percent). Thus, the second half saw a drop of 15.2 percent of ball-in-play time.

Only one match did not follow this pattern; however, the match between Argentina and Ecuador was certainly not a great advert for football. The first half ball-in-play time was only 20 minutes 7 second long (40.9 percent) compared to 20 minutes 1 second (39.3 percent) for the second half. A significant amount of time was due to time-wasting.

Both finals were close affairs, with the hosts Brazil losing 1-0 from a goal in the 22^nd minute from Angel Di Maria and England and Italy tied 1-1 from the 67^th minute. Unfortunately, close matches in football usually spell T.I.M.E W.A.S.T.I.N.G! A final between Argentina and Brazil is a match that is met with great expectation and excitement in watching two footballing nations showcase their footballing flair to the rest of the world. A ball-in-play time for 51.3 percent in a match that had a running time of 96 minutes and 54 seconds is unlikely to be a showcase event which saw the audience watching the ball motionless (dead) for 47 minutes and 12 seconds. Italy’s match against England in the Euro final was met with a ball-in-play time for 54.2 percent in a match that had a running time of 100 minutes and 31 seconds, the audience watched the ball motionless (dead) for 46 minutes and 2 seconds.

What is also of real concern to the South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL) is the lack of ball-in-play times for the quarter-final, semi-final and final of the Copa America. The respective ball-in-play times can be seen in the graph above. Not one of them had more than 50 minutes of effective playing time and the average effective playing time for all three matches was a worrying 45 minutes and 37 seconds.

Repeated failures. Times up!

Despite making efforts to tackle time-wasting in football, FIFA and the IFAB have certainly done themselves no favours whatsoever and criticism can certainly be laid at their feet. One such criticism is that they cannot even follow / administer their own rules.

FiveThirtyEight categorized every stoppage for all 32 group matches played at the 2018 World Cup, totalling 3 194 stoppages which is equivalent to one every 58 seconds. They found that the average added time for the whole match (both halves) by the referee was 6 minutes 59 seconds. By adhering to FIFA’s rules on timekeeping, FiveThirtyEight found the average added time for each game was 13 minutes and 10 seconds. They described the difference as “wildly inaccurate” and you can see why, the difference, on average, per game, was 6 minutes 11 seconds which is a whopping 112.9 percent increase from the referee’s own timekeeping.

To be clear, it is the referee’s responsibility to determine the length of the match, yet they are not exactly helped by IFAB’s rules. Above is an extract from the IFAB’s Laws of the Game. However, the IFAB rules are less precise regarding routine stops such as throw-ins, free kicks, goal kicks and corners. To warrant inclusion in added time, such stoppages need to be seen as “excessive” and not a “natural” part of the game. What amount of time is excessive? Who times it? When does the timing start? Is there any tolerance? Does it change for different scenarios, i.e., if a player was on a counterattack and none of his teammates are around him/her, do they have more time, how much more, how is it calculated? This would simple be too complex to calculate let alone manage and thus not an acceptable solution to dead ball occurrences.

Notwithstanding the failure to calculate time lost in a match (which were created by FIFA and the IFAB themselves), even where they are given a simple rule to manage, they fail. As previously mentioned, the six-second rule for goalkeepers was only upheld in 61.6 percent of situations, and where it wasn’t upheld there was no sanction.

Another criticism towards FIFA and the IFAB is that the changes / new rules applied to stop time-wasting have marginal impact and do not go far enough. The governing bodies expressed a desire to speed up the pace of play yet the current trend is declining (Trend 3). In 2010, a rule change stated that players who receive treatment must leave the pitch. The intention was to act as a deterrent to stop players feigning injury. However, the unintended outcome is that physios do not go onto the pitch unless instructed to do so by either the player or the referee. Consequently, players are still going down, but instead of the physio’s magic cold water working miracles, the players just take their time.

Despite these criticisms, players do make the job hard for FIFA and the IFAB and difficult for referees. Players, regretfully, are well schooled in the art of dark and dirty tricks to waste time: pretending to prepare for a throw-in but suddenly leaving it to a teammate; taking a quick freekick from an incorrect position, knowing it will likely be asked to be retaken from the correct position.

However, and here’s the rub, football, nor indeed any sport, can afford to err in judging ‘fakery’ and injury when in fact a player is seriously injured. Such judgements may be correct 99% of the time, but no one can get this wrong in today’s politically charged environment.

What will a stop-clock in football bring?

It will bring four main benefits to the game. First, a fairer game will be achieved with teams playing for the same amount of time. This benefit itself would be enough to trail a 60-minute stop-clock in football and cannot be overestimated. In the pursuit of sporting integrity, competitions must treat all competitors (teams) equal, thus giving them the same opportunity (time). As it has been seen by the section above, referees and lawmakers have failed to accurately account for time lost in matches as well as seeing great differences between matches and teams on the actual ‘opportunity’ to score / defend a goal. Also, introducing a stop-clock would certainly help eradicate referee bias, however unintentional, when adding more time for top teams when trailing and less time when they are ahead.

The second benefit will be arguably its most wanted action: less time-wasting by players. Fans are not only incensed by opponent’s blatant time-wasting techniques but also feel a sense of injustice when their team has wrongfully been denied the opportunity to level or win the match. It must be pointed out (without trials) that this is very unlikely to stop players diving and feigning an injury. The reason being is that players have multiple reasons to do this such as getting an opponent booked, slowing down the game as well as to waste time. Therefore, by just removing one of these, the latter, it will be still advantageous for players to spend time on the floor, i.e., trying to swindle the referee to think there was more contact than there was. However, a crucial factor of introducing the stop-clock would be that it would not affect the timing of the match and therefore, taking that away from the player on the floor with ‘phantom cramps’ is welcomed.

Unfortunately, terms such as ‘game management’ will still be used as teams with one goal leads will feel its advantageous to slow the tempo of the game by constant falling to the ground. Though what will happen is that the referee should book the players for unsporting behaviour and thus deter them from stopping the pace of the game by constant fouling. Or just ignore them if only minimal contact is made…is a contact sport after all!

A third benefit of a stop-clock in football is more entertainment. Under current rule book era, effective play time is less than 60 minutes , thus a change to the rule book would deliver more effective play time. Basic maths tells us that 60 minutes of a 90-minute match is two thirds which is 66.6 percent. As illustrated above, the top competitions in Europe fall well short of this, with La Liga’s effective playing time only 54.6 percent of the match time, some 12 percent short of the current proposals. By increasing the actual amount of football being played in matches, i.e., increase effective playing time, the number of goals scored will likely increase. Also, it could lead to more exciting finishes such as a lot can happen in a minute of ball-in-play time. That minute could feature a penalty, followed by a 20 second play, stopped for freekick in a dangerous position, followed by another 25 second play, a freekick and final 15 second of play. You’d certainly see an increase in ambitious shot-taking in the final few seconds of the match.

Regarding the benefit to entertainment, a couple of points should be highlighted. First, the sense of anticipation will not be lost with a stop-clock. A penalty kick will still take 30 seconds or so from being given to being taken (amid the usually protests). Second, it must be pointed out that more game time does mean more minutes being played by the players. In an already congested fixture list, perhaps player welfare could be part of the discussion. More importantly, this is why a 60-minute stop-clock needs to be vigorously trialled to look at the impact not only on time-wasting / pace of play, but also the number of goals scored, distance covered by players and length of overall match experience (i.e., does the current 90-minute match last longer than a 60-minute stop-clock match).

The fourth benefit a stop-clock in football will bring is it guarantees match ticket value, i.e., a spectator will see two teams compete against each other for 60 minutes and not be conned. The incentive to draw out stoppages would disappear overnight, consequently stoppage time (dead ball) should significantly reduce. This would deliver an improvement in the proportion of game time with the ball in play to the benefit of the games long suffering spectators.

Conclusion

The Stat Squabbler says:

1. Games with a stop-clock will bring many benefits such as a fairer game, timewasters not prospering, guaranteed match ticket value and more entertainment.
2. A 60-minute stop-clock in football must be trialled vigorously to determine its impact on match-length experience, goals scored, player fitness.
3. Even if a stop-clock is introduced, feigning injury will persist possible to current levels due to players wanting to win freekicks, get opponents booked as well as slowing down the pace of the game (i.e., game management).

Do you agree with the Stat Squabbler that a stop-clock must be trialled in world football? What are the benefits a stop-clock in football have? Are there any negative benefits to a stop-clock in football?

Comment below.