Or the second half at 45:00, etc. even when the previous periods lasted far longer than that. There's no way of knowing how much the previous periods lasted just watching the official broadcast. It feels even sillier now that it's relatively normal for halves to comfortably last over 50 minutes.
Isn't it a bit silly the overtime clock starts at 90:00?
- Thread starter cafecillos
- Start date
Would be super confusing to start the clock from whenever the first half finished, like sometimes 47:06 and sometimes 46:01 but also possibly 48:22.
Yes, but perhaps start the second half at 00:00, with indication that it's the second half, and also how long the first half was.
In Brazil they start every period at 00:00. Or at least they used to, I don't know if they still do.
Of all the things wrong with football, can’t say I’ve ever given this even the tiniest bit of thought. Sorry 
It's not added time.
Its an allowance for time not played, if the TV stopped their clock when the game stopped you'd see how much time was actually played
Its an allowance for time not played, if the TV stopped their clock when the game stopped you'd see how much time was actually played
I'm almost certain they used to start it at 00:00 with ET to the left of the clock. Could be wrong mind
No
Dunno, it could be as simple as the official broadcast stopping the "main" clock at 45:00 and then displaying the added time separately. But I'm not that keen on watching the first half until 49:53 and then when the second half starts you're back in time and it's 45:01 again, and those 4:53 are forever lost in time 
I used to see this in the Argentina leagues in the 2000s. Think it’s been standardized now
Would be ludicrous to start the clock at say 96.13 today, as anyone coming in wouldn't have a clue how close to the end of the 15 or 15+injury time we'd have left.
Unless you want a second clock on the screen too, which just gets even sillier.
Unless you want a second clock on the screen too, which just gets even sillier.
First off, it’s not overtime
It was the same Spain at one point, not sure if applied in extra time but definitely first and second half. I remember this blue and orange clock from a couple of decades back.
Last edited:
I think it's fine the way things are overall.
The only rubbish thing I've found with clocks and timings is on a lot of the football stats sites. You go on FBref or Whoscored for example and Onana played 3420 minutes in the PL, which is every single minute. He was obviously on the pitch for many more minutes if you add up the injury time in both halves throughout the season.
If you look at someone who came on as a sub they'll only register the time on the pitch not including injury time too. 6 minutes for coming on in the 85th minute (84:xx) when they easily could have played 7 or 15, and players who came on in injury time register 0 minutes.
For stats nerds it all adds up when looking at per 90 stats and things like that. Strikers who often come on as subs have an easier time scoring anyway as they're fresh going up against tired defenders but these extra free minutes they get in the stats distort things a lot, making them look better than they really are.
The holy grail would not only be a site that tracks all that accurately but goes further and only considers ball-in-play time as it varies each game by a few minutes here and there. Getting stats down to that level would be so much better. The average Newcastle match in 22/23 was apparently 9 minutes shorter than the average City one (51:05 vs 60:19). I'm sure the clubs have access to all that with premium services like OPTA etc. It would give your average person a lot more accuracy when comparing players or teams if we had access to that too.
The only rubbish thing I've found with clocks and timings is on a lot of the football stats sites. You go on FBref or Whoscored for example and Onana played 3420 minutes in the PL, which is every single minute. He was obviously on the pitch for many more minutes if you add up the injury time in both halves throughout the season.
If you look at someone who came on as a sub they'll only register the time on the pitch not including injury time too. 6 minutes for coming on in the 85th minute (84:xx) when they easily could have played 7 or 15, and players who came on in injury time register 0 minutes.
For stats nerds it all adds up when looking at per 90 stats and things like that. Strikers who often come on as subs have an easier time scoring anyway as they're fresh going up against tired defenders but these extra free minutes they get in the stats distort things a lot, making them look better than they really are.
The holy grail would not only be a site that tracks all that accurately but goes further and only considers ball-in-play time as it varies each game by a few minutes here and there. Getting stats down to that level would be so much better. The average Newcastle match in 22/23 was apparently 9 minutes shorter than the average City one (51:05 vs 60:19). I'm sure the clubs have access to all that with premium services like OPTA etc. It would give your average person a lot more accuracy when comparing players or teams if we had access to that too.
Last edited: