Swansea were dreadful from start to finish. I mean scoring past us isn't too difficult this year but they barely looked like they ever would. Most of the game they sat with all 11 behind the ball and even had 2 RBs playiing aganst Baines and Pienaar. I suppose when Laudrup does it its genius but when Moyes does its dour and negative. The time wasting was just annoying but if we'd scored we wouldn't have seen it at all.

There is so much about football that in my mind is completely outdated. The lack of technology such as using replay to get goals and sending off correct, the stupid rule that you can't rescind a poor decision by a ref for 2 yellows after the match, and the stupid time keeping.

The NBA had this type of problem where teams would just pass the ball around to waste time, holding possession so the other team couldn't score. Games were finishing in the 20's. So they invented the shot clock, have to get a shot away in 24 seconds or the other team gets the ball. I would love it if football would have a time keeper who stops the clock when there is a foul, goal, or the ball goes out of play. Would completely eliminate time wasting, no complaining about injury time, you would get 90 minutes of football.

I also think a great rule change to the substitution rule would be to allow the player who is subbed out to come back in. Still limit it to 3 players subbed, but if you sub a player out, you can bring him back in. I think it would give managers the ability to put young players in and we could see youth players get real opportunities and teams could know what they have. If a player makes a mistake the manager could sub him out, tell him what he did, have him watch for a few minutes and then go back in. Managers could teach during the game and players could grow. They could also alter the tactics, go with 2 up top, then sub out, then bring that striker back in if they want. But that's a different conversation.

Mark, I'm with you.

That method of timekeeping is used in Aussie rules where 20 min quarters generally run 25 to 30 minutes. Its works well, and is so simple I really don't know why its not introduced.

What Swansea did on Saturday is exactly the same as what Everton have done against 'superior' teams in the past. Everton were unable to break Swansea down, that's Everton's problem. If Swansea came happy to take a point then good luck to them.

Yeah, the slight problem with this is that the ball is actually in player for around 50 minutes each game I think - a stat that hasn't moved for 100 years. So to introduce this would be akin to asking players to almost double the physical exertion. I know Moysie prides himself on the squad fitness but even that would be too much.

I do agree with the sentiment about blatant time wasting, and wish the officials would clamp down on it on a consistent basis.

Matt, I heard the same, the ball is in play for usually no more than an hour. You could have 30 minute halves but obviously stop the clock when the ball is dead. Football is definitely out of date, I'm a rugby league fan which is an innovative forward thinking sport, always trying to improve. Also, I think the ball is in play about 70 minutes of the 80, which shows you how fit those lads are.

Geoff #605

I can honestly say that I have never seen Everton timewasting in the way Swansea were on Saturday.
Yes we have parked the bus and frustrated "bigger" teams over the years, but that's not the issue here. They are welcome to use whatever footballing tactics they want and as you say "good luck to them".
But timewasting is not a footballing tactic, it is a form of cheating. Everytime the ball went dead Swansea had a little conference over who would take the throwing or free kick, and then changed their minds at the last second. They had two players booked for it in the final few minutes, but the punishment and warnings should have started when their cheating did i.e: in the 46th minute!!

As Matt states, the ball is in play each half around the 20-25 minute mark, so you would end up having a game go on for about three hours.

"I also think a great rule change to the substitution rule would be to allow the player who is subbed out to come back in. Still limit it to 3 players subbed, but if you sub a player out, you can bring him back in. I think it would give managers the ability to put young players in and we could see youth players get real opportunities and teams could know what they have. If a player makes a mistake the manager could sub him out, tell him what he did, have him watch for a few minutes and then go back in. Managers could teach during the game and players could grow. They could also alter the tactics, go with 2 up top, then sub out, then bring that striker back in if they want. But that's a different conversation." - Two words.....and one of them is "Off" for that idea. It's football, not American Football.

The time wasting does my head in but I was surprised to see Dowd book a couple of their players. he should have sent off the keeper though, as the ball went out of play at the very end and then a sub came on. The keeper, already booked at this time, held onto the ball for the full minute for the lad to go off and then come on and then walked to the other side of his box to place the ball. A perfect opportunity for Dowd to stamp down on time wasting.

Their keeper was bad but he is a mere novice compared to Maik Taylor, he was that bad he got booked for time wasting in the warm up.

Steve @ 613.

I've seen Everton, & pretty much every other team, do exactly what Swansea did in terms of time wasting. It's for the referee to decide whether they are taking it too far & deal with it as he sees fit.

We wouldn't be discussing it on here if Everton had scored & won the game which they had plenty of opportunities to do.

Blame Everton for not taking their chances & running out of ideas, blame the referee for not dealing with it if you wish but don't blame Swansea for doing what Everton have done in the past & I have no doubt will do again.

Exactly Geoff, Howard can waste time with the best of them. They all can.

I worry a bit about some of the ideas floated here. It's already been said that games could go on for three hours or so. Another problem for me would be the introduction of bringing in and taking off of subs. It wouldn't be too long before 'special teams' were introduced.

The opponents have a free kick - they bring on a dead ball specialist. We bring on three extra defenders. The ball gets cleared off goes their dead ball kicker on comes some defenders. We bring on attackers. The game would take forever. They would need four quarters, not two halves. You may as well pick the ball up and run with it. Oh don't they play a game like that in the US?

I agree though that something should be done about time wasting but not sure what. If a player is down apparently injured what can you do? Possibly making him leave the pitch for an equivalent time the game was stopped for would help. But that would penalise a player that had been deliberately fouled.

Any yellow card shown for time wasting incurs 5 minutes additiional time on the end of the game, over and above any time allowed for injuries etc, nuff said!

I think substitutions should be limitless - and players can tag in and out at free will. I also belive time outs should be introduced. Maybe we could aslo introduce a system whereby we have 2 different teams we field depending on who has possession - possibly a defeding team and an attacking team. We could increase the number of refs. Also every time play stops or the ball is dead deafening patriotic music could be played over the PA System. Its the future.

Booking the Goalkeeper doesn't seem to have the desired outcome, so why not, especially from goal-kicks award a corner to the attacking teams if the goalie is deemed guilty of time-wasting.

I think we need to get our own house in order with regards to time wasting before having a go at other teams. Some of our attempts at it make me ashamed to be an Everton supporter. For instance Pienaar kicking the ball into the crowd against Newcastle (for which he was quite rightly booked) or Howard in pretty much any game in which we're ahead by a single goal.

"Some of our attempts at it make me ashamed to be an Everton supporter." - Speachless!!!

James Martin (#574) — Did you expect anything less? Swansea have played Arsenal, Chelsea & Everton in the space of one week and will replay Arsenal midweek.

My only defence of Swansea's tactics was that they had a tough cup game away to Chelsea on Wednesday night, in which they won 2-0. And maybe Michael Laudrup, acknowledged that Everton are a decent side, and having rested one or two players, chose those tactics?

Regardless of any accusations thrown at them, we on the other hand squandered what chances we made and, not for the first time this season, failed to get maximum points.

Lat's be fair, there are already rules in place to prevent time wasting, it's up to the officials to ensure that the rules are adhered to. On Saturday we had five bookings and five substitutions. At 30 seconds per booking/substitution that adds up to five minutes added time. Considering that two of the bookings were for time-wasting the referee could have added even more time to allow for that time-wasting (and to dissuade others from doing the same SHOULD have added more). The referee added four minutes, a flagrant disregard for the rules.

Can you imagine the same referee adding only four minutes at Old Toilet if Utd were chasing three points and had the opposition on the back foot? Of course not. It's consistency we require and referees who will enforce the rules regardless of which ground they're at or which manager might be upset by their actions.

Note the penalty given to Man City on Sunday, a carbon copy of the "penalty" in the Clattenberg derby, or the wrestling Fellaini endured before that headbutt. Consistency? My arse.

Referees are never consistent as they all have their own personal view and opinion of each incident. Yesterday jasper carrott saw it fit to apply the rules that grappling with an opponent in the penalty area is a foul - where as Twattenburg interpreted the rules completely differently.

What was surely different about the Swansea time-wasting was that it started at a minute past 3!

One easy solution to the timewasting by chopping and changing over who takes a throw-in is to make it that the player nearest the ball when it went out of play has to take it.

I can picture it now.... the ball rolls towards the touchline whilst players leg it in the opposite direction to avoid taking the throw in

A mate of mine did a dissertation on this subject, he timed on a stopwatch the time the ball was in actual active play in 90 minutes over random EPL matches across the course of a season, the results were a shocking average of (can't remember exactly) about 30 mins per game!!!

I shit you not! Money well spent huh?

If they had to play with a timekeeper the game would last 3 hours.

Absolutely agree that games need to include more actual time of play. It's not beyond anyone to devise a method of extending games without unduly punishing players. How many times have you watched games when several minutes pass without anything seemingly happening. A series of throw-ins, minor injuries, lectures from referees... to me it's a must.

I remember during the semi-final against the shite Tim Howard wasting time on a goal kick when we where 1-0 up in the first half. I had a funny feeling from then on that the game was going to go tits up!

Another reason I hate Tim Howard.

"...make it that the player nearest the ball when it went out of play has to take it."

God Almighty! I give up!