Time-Wasting

**mypost** · 07/05/2005, 4:18 AM

Two more notable incidents of "corner-flag" football, with contrasting results.

When Cork tried it while winning 3-1 at Rovers, they played keepy-uppy in the corner. What happened? A 15-player scrap ensued, and 2 players were sent off as a result. It could have been avoided, if the ball was played into the box. Cork weren't going to lose, were they?

During the 6 minutes of injury time at Anfield in the Liverpool-Chelsea CL game, Harry Kewell tried the same tactic, instead of looking to score another goal. Eventually, he lost the ball, and it almost proved costly when in the 6th minute of injury time, EG fired wide when free in the box. If it had gone in, how would Kewell have felt then? As he was wasting time, the sooner refs add on the time spent in the corner, the better for football.

**Bald Student** · 07/05/2005, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by mypost

the sooner refs add on the time spent in the corner, the better for football.

I don't agree, it's not the ref's job to judge on a players tactics. If you believe playing in the corner is a bad idea then you can choose not to play their yourself. If another player or coach thinks the opposite, then they can play accordingly.

**GavinZac** · 08/05/2005, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by mypost

Refs time how long it takes to take goal-kicks, free-kicks, subs etc, stop the watch, and add on the time at the end. They should also add it on, for the ball been kept in the corner-flag, as a) the ball is not been actively played, and b) is wasting time. You can't have rules for one act of time-wasting, and different rules for others. So time should be added on should happen when players waste time at the corner.

If your team is losing, it's frustrating, because it's time-wasting. If you're winning, it's frustrating, because 1) you want to get another goal to be certain of victory, it's 2) boring, and 3) you're guaranteed to lose possession at the end of it.

you're completely wrong and its a silly idea.

sure its frustrating. its meant to be

would you prefer they pass the ball around the back line? because i dont see the difference other than the extra security of being as far from your goals as possible and with a chance of winning a corner.
what about liverpool's tactics against chelsea? they defended for almost every minute of the game. should they have been stopped? after all, they werent being constructive and going out for the next goal.
tell you what, lets eliminate defenders all together. and tackling. that way teams will be attacking all the time. we can speed it up too by having a shot-clock, 30 seconds to shoot or you lose the ball. and play it indoors, with cheerleaders. and give 3 goals for a shot outside the box. and...

**Da Real Rover** · 08/05/2005, 1:00 PM

Originally Posted by GavinZac

you're completely wrong and its a silly idea.

sure its frustrating. its meant to be

would you prefer they pass the ball around the back line? because i dont see the difference other than the extra security of being as far from your goals as possible and with a chance of winning a corner.
what about liverpool's tactics against chelsea? they defended for almost every minute of the game. should they have been stopped? after all, they werent being constructive and going out for the next goal.
tell you what, lets eliminate defenders all together. and tackling. that way teams will be attacking all the time. we can speed it up too by having a shot-clock, 30 seconds to shoot or you lose the ball. and play it indoors, with cheerleaders. and give 3 goals for a shot outside the box. and...

I agree with you completely there, its just a defensive tactic, its not pritty but either is defensive football but it doesn't mean were going to outlaw that.

**Da Real Rover** · 08/05/2005, 1:08 PM

At the Rovers-Kilkenny game last night the ball was hit out into touch because there was an injured player on the ground. The ball was hit out by a rovers player near the corner flag by our goals. Now when the player was back on his feet and Kilkenny had the throw they threw it into the box. They attacked the ball and came close to scoring. Cause this happened in the dying minutes they felt that they could get away with not playing fair and nearly snuck a point. This was an absolute disgrace by Pat Scullys team and the player responsible should get a slap on the wrist, if not by the FA then his own club because they should try to inforce some common decency into an already highly competitive game.

**shedhead** · 08/05/2005, 1:19 PM

ya it was discraceful all right, if they did score from it i would of feared for Pat and co's safety.

**EnDai** · 08/05/2005, 2:24 PM

Sounds disgraceful alright, just be thankful they didn't score.

**mypost** · 09/05/2005, 4:47 AM

Originally Posted by GavinZac

what about liverpool's tactics against chelsea? they defended for almost every minute of the game. should they have been stopped? after all, they werent being constructive and going out for the next goal.

I don't regard defending an advantage as wasting time. It's perfectly acceptable. Passing the ball in defence/midfield, is different to aimlessly holding the ball (not playing) in the corner near the end of the game. As I have said earlier, it's frustrating even when your team does it, because you want a(nother) goal to make the game safe. Then you lose the ball, and if the opposition then go up and score, you really feel like a fool for keeping possesion instead of scoring, when you had the chance to. It's too late then.

Another example was the Crystal Palace-Southampton Premiership game. If you watched the last 20 minutes of it, you would have seen Palace just keeping the ball at the corner when leading 2-1, instead of looking to make it 3-1 and secure a vital win. Instead, Southampton went up the other end and equalized in injury time. Palace could have got the 2 extra points if they didn't waste time in the corner. It may well see them relegated as a result, costing them millions of pounds, and it was all unavoidable.

**mypost** · 19/05/2005, 4:16 AM

Originally Posted by mypost

Another example was the Crystal Palace-Southampton Premiership game. If you watched the last 20 minutes of it, you would have seen Palace just keeping the ball at the corner when leading 2-1, instead of looking to make it 3-1 and secure a vital win. Instead, Southampton went up the other end and equalized in injury time. Palace could have got the 2 extra points if they didn't waste time in the corner. It may well see them relegated as a result, costing them millions of pounds, and it was all unavoidable.

Palace were duly relegated, costing them �20 million in lost revenue. I'm sure that in the summer, they will look back and remember how much time they spent at the corner flag when leading against Southampton, wondering why they didn't look to make it 3-1, get their 3 points, and beat the drop. In the end, they got what they deserved.

**Jim Smith** · 19/05/2005, 8:52 AM

Originally Posted by mypost

In the end, they got what they deserved.

So there is no need to change the rule if they got what they deserved....

**Copa Mundial** · 19/05/2005, 11:41 AM

Look,its as simple as this.When the ball is 'IN PLAY', the issue of time wasting is null and void irrespective of how much time you feel is being lost or how negative you feel the 'TACTIC' is.The issue of time wasting only occurs when the ball is out of play or in the goalkeepers hands(6 second rule)and thats only enforced when keepers are really taking the ****.

Time wasting is covered in the 'laws of the game' and there are no provisions for the ball being kept in the corner.I bet referees hate the 'ball in the corner' tactic as well but they cant do anything about it.

Suggestion.If you feel that strongly about it then put it in writing to:
Mr Joseph S. Blatter,
FIFA,
Hitzigweg 11,
P.O Box 85,
8030 Zurich,Switzerland.

**mypost** · 16/06/2005, 4:17 AM

Originally Posted by mypost

Palace were duly relegated. I'm sure that in the summer, they will look back and remember how much time they spent at the corner flag when leading against Southampton, wondering why they didn't look to make it 3-1, get their 3 points, and beat the drop.

Palace player Andy Johnson admitted on tv recently that he feels "devastated" that his side were relegated. Well Andy, if you're battling to beat the drop again, hopefully you won't spend the last 20 minutes of your final home game again camped at the opposition's corner flag, trying to time-waste your way to 3 points instead of looking to go 2 goals ahead, which would have kept you up. You knew that Southampton only needed one chance to equalize, and sure enough they did. Sorry Andy, but it's hard to have much sympathy for a bunch of time-wasters who got caught out. Enjoy the Championship!