Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 13 to 21 of 21

Thread: "Time on"?

  1. #13
    Regular in the Side
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    608
    Thanks for that ... I rest my case ... there is no reason / excuse for commentators who know how much time is left ... to make reference to time on.
    Arguably the time elapsed clocks just confuse everyone with a meaningless focus ... the only issue is "how long to go" and those who speak or hear the commentary know the answer exactly.

  2. #14
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Gary View Post
    Arguably the time elapsed clocks just confuse everyone with a meaningless focus ... the only issue is "how long to go" and those who speak or hear the commentary know the answer exactly.
    This point is right. So why do they show a running clock at the game and not the same 'time-elapsed/time-left' clock that is shown on the TV? Just for good theatre, as in my example above re the 2012 GF?

  3. #15
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    And wow, that sure can add to the tension at a game.
    I was at the 2012 GF at the MCG and only had the running clock to watch. There was a longish stoppage in the last quarter when some idiot ran on to the ground and security had to catch him and get him off. So we had no idea how long the last quarter would go. With the Swans leading Hawthorn and the clock up to at least 30 minutes, the woman beside me was almost in tears begging 'someone' to blow the siren!
    And what about the last quarter of the 2005 GF? Didn't it go for nearly 33 minutes? I remember listening to the radio at the game but because channel 10 were doing the match they had the 5 minute warning and they changed the clock to count up, which meant no one knew how long there was to go! I remember the radio was guessing and saying 2 minutes to go and it was like 5 minutes! The worst thing was I didn't hear the siren and only knew it was over when Tadhg jumped on Leo ????.

    The time on discussion was highlighted after the saints demons game when at the 23 minute mark players thought there were 3 or 4 minutes to go when in fact it was only 41 seconds!

  4. #16
    Happy and I know it
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    This point is right. So why do they show a running clock at the game and not the same 'time-elapsed/time-left' clock that is shown on the TV? Just for good theatre, as in my example above re the 2012 GF?
    Years ago they used to show a 'time left' clock at SCG games. We used to love counting down.
    All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

  5. #17
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Mel_C View Post
    The time on discussion was highlighted after the saints demons game when at the 23 minute mark players thought there were 3 or 4 minutes to go when in fact it was only 41 seconds!
    That's interesting. I questioned earlier why they only show a running clock at the ground. Is it perhaps to keep the players guessing about how much time is left so their style of play near the end of a game is not heavily influenced?
    Though we already see the trainers scurrying around trying to tell the players in a tight result and hence the kicking backwards by the team with the lead.

  6. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by sprite View Post
    These are the rules from the AFL website:

    When I was officiating the term used for the stoppages was time on, so it may all be down to semantics.

    [...10.5.1]
    The Timekeepers shall stop the clock which is used for the timing of a Match when:[...]
    Certainly the traditional way it's been stated in the Laws of the Game is the timekeeper being told to "start/stop adding time-on", and something like that would be hard to shake from the vernacular, particularly at a grassroots level. It doesn't really have an analogue in soccer, or even Gaelic football - where the referee has sole control of time and thus is merely told by the laws to make "allowance for lost time" (in soccer's case) - the fourth official only relays on the amount of time decided by the ref in the centre.

    But digressing. I'm guessing that the wording of the rules was changed in more recent times, probably in the last 10 years or so, as I seem to recall the laws being written that way at some point in the 20-minute era - but I can't say as online versions of the Laws only seem to go back to 2009. Plenty of things could've brought it on a rewriting - 2006 brought on automatic time-on for ball ups and also Sirengate mid-year; either of which could've been used to clarify the timekeepers' roles.

    There are still a couple of mentions of the umpire "signalling time-on" in the 2015 laws (mainly with what to do with a centre bounce free kick) but calling time-on for 50-metre penalties is said the "new" way (ie. timekeeper "stopping the clock").

    Now, whether there's a good reason other than historical/tradition for keeping the upward-counting clock is another matter ("players not knowing" is a bit of a red herring - at AFL level the runners would probably tell them, and a lot of suburban players below the top levels would play with no time-on anyway)... which I'm kinda on the fence with, at least in broadcasting terms like Gary pointed out - a southern crowd will know what you're talking about but a first-timer used to "time on" being a call to restart time in the rugby codes, but I'm not sure how relevant that ends up being with the scant radio coverage we get north of the Murray. It'd be more of a problem if used in a national TV audience, for instance.

    I'm fairly comfortable with the status quo, but then I'm comfortable with what it's supposed to mean

    (Hello, too - first time poster, rather long-time lurker )

  7. #19
    Time on is an old fashioned term and somewhat anachronistic but who cares? It's one of the enjoyable little quirks of the game. The count up clock HAS to stay for the same reason. Being at the ground and having no idea how long is left in a tight game makes it so much more exciting (and stressful) for fans.
    Today's a draft of your epitaph

  8. #20
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    There is a discussion about the option of a countdown clock on this week's AFL Exchange podcast - starting from 9'35" and going to 15'25".
    "Drew Petrie and Matt Thompson are joined by Pete Ryan to discuss the Giants' finals chances, nicknames in football and whether we should a countdown clock at AFL venues"

    audioBoom / AFL Exchange - Round 12 2015

  9. #21
    On the Rookie List
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Georges Hall, Sydney
    Posts
    695
    A timekeeper's clock only has to be able to count to 20 minutes which is the length of a quarter. When there's "dead" time, the clock is stopped. Nothing is added. When play resumes the clock restarts and so it goes until it reaches 20 minutes. Somebody only looking at elapsed time will note that invariably a quarter will stretch longer than 20 minutes to make up for all the time that the clock had to be stopped. I think it's perfectly OK to call this "extra" time, "time on".
    Run2Live,Live2Run

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO