David ClarkeAnyone Got The Time?
May 5th 2008 11:00
The Richmond Football Club sent an official complaint to the AFL on the weekend in regards to a timekeeping incident which they claim cost their side roughly 15 seconds of play in the final quarter against St. Kilda on Sunday. A similar incident occurred just last week, where timekeepers failed to stop the clock in the dying moments of the Fremantle versus Geelong clash, also costing the Fremantle side precious seconds. Both Fremantle and Richmond lost these games by 1 and 3 points respectively, and were both games allowed to be played to their full correct time, it may have been the difference between victory and defeat at the end of the day.
But how relevant is the time clock in our modern game? After every stoppage we hear the umpires whistle blow, indicating that ‘time-on’ has been called. This is a signal to the timekeepers to stop the clock so that the game consists of 20 minutes of actual playing time per quarter, hence why quarters with more stoppages go for longer. Yet for those who watch the footy at home and keep an eye on the finer details of the game, such as time-keeping, is it not uncommon to see the clock stop a second or two after the umpire has blown time-on? When Adam Cooney sends through a goal on the run from 50, why do we see the clock keep ticking a second or two over even after the goal umpire has raised his two fingers?
And when five players decide to play ‘stacks on’ on top of Peter Bell who’s holding the ball at the bottom of the pack, why does the clock keep ticking a second or two after the whistle is blown? Terry Wallace has every right to complain about the mistake which has been made in those dying moments of the weekends game, but how many other mistakes were made in the same game? I’m not saying every contest is miscalculated by the time keepers, but next time you are sitting at home watching the game, keep an eye on just how much time passes in between time-on officially being called, and when the clock stops ticking. They may be spot-on, or they may only be a single second off, but with hundreds of stoppages every game, that is a lot of opportunities for those single seconds to add up
Now all this begs the question, do we really need to see how much time is left on the clock? When you go to a game in person, there are no countdown clocks available at the ground, and apart from the information which might filter in through the bloke three seats down who is tuned in to Triple M about how many seconds there are left, we are left to our own judgements and estimates as to when the siren will sound. Sure you may be dying to know when there’s 29 minutes gone in the final quarter and your sides up by a single point, but when you have no idea exactly when that siren is going to sound, there’s no sweeter sound on earth. But watch a game at home with the assistance of the countdown clock, and in the same situation, you may already know with 12 seconds to go and the ball locked in at the opposite end of the ground that the game is already over. It does act as a bit of a killjoy.
In world football (soccer) there is no count down clock, yet if you were to add up all the time wasted as we do in our game, they would be playing 60 minute halves as opposed to 45. So why are we so obsessed with time? If football broadcasters are going to persist in showing the time clock for all to see, then simply GET IT RIGHT. And if the AFL for whatever reason cannot do this, then don’t show the clock at all, then at least everyone is happy, mistakes or no mistakes. For as they say, ignorance is bliss.
| 75 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
Health Focus
Poetry Lighthouse
MS Paint Art
Comment by The C Train
You point out the hundreds of mistakes may be made in a game. This is exactly the problem. It's a professional sport and timekeepers should have to be as professional and scrupulous in their job as everone else involved in the game. By your logic Wallace has right not only to complain about Jack Riewoldt having potantially 14 extra seconds but possibly 45 seconds or so. In which case he would almost definitely have hit a player closer to goal and the result may therefore have been completely different.
I dont understand why this error 'begs the question do we really need to see how much time is left?' What does the viewer knowing how much time is left have to do with how dilligent timekeepers should be? If you are suggesting that its irrelevant to see how much time is left because the practice of time on is inexact then i have to disagree with you. Of course its important to know how much time should be left because this allows the public, officials and anyone else to keep the timekeeper accountable.
How can you suggest the importance of blowing time on promptly or seonds out is low when it clearly affects the outcome in close games. Not only in Richmond Stkilda but also Melbourne v Fremantle. With a minute and 15 seconds Pavlich hurried a 55 metre kick, missed, gave melbourne possession and a lead of 6 points, Had he known he had a little more time and the timekeeper blew time on as soon as he began a deliberate shot at goal the result could have been completely different
Comment by Rick D'Andrea
Fantastic Footy
Who knows what Riewoldt may have done if he had those precious 11 seconds given to him.
What we do know is that the timekeepers need to be professional. They made a mistake, and have openly admitted it. Stuart Wenn did blow the whistle for time-on, but the timekeeper did not see it.
It is time for angry Richmond supporters to move on, and pass the next 11 seconds doing something else with their time, instead of winghing and blabbling on about what-ifs.
Comment by Anonymous
i wish richmond had another 11 seconds to win cos i picked them!