FOOTBALL has 17 laws of the game and, it has come to my attention, one unwritten rule of frustrating stupidity – that as many games as possible have one minute of time added on in the first half, and three minutes in the second half.

I have began to pay attention to this over the past few months and it is amazing that in a variety of matches, all with differing score lines, injuries and other incidents that this "+1+3 rule" appears universal. I have seen it in international matches, English Premier League games, Major League Soccer fixtures and of course our own little A-League.

I am having extreme difficulty determining how this state of events has come about. Apparently the referees can tell the time adequately enough to arrive for the match, so why can't they give greater credence to the events on the field and give each match a unique portion of added time.

Now I admit that the ‘1+3 rule' does not occur all the time and that some referees are obviously competent enough to adequately keep time, ensuring that supporters get their 90 minute fix. However far too often the referee is using a cookie cutter approach to time keeping and I am sick of it.

An example in point is a Liverpool (yes I am also a Liverpool fan, what you going to do about it?) game I was watching a month or so ago when it took a solid five minutes for an injured player to be treated and removed from the pitch late in the second half. How much time did the referee add in this instance? You guessed it, three minutes.

I am ready to acknowledge that one of the best initiatives in football of the past few years has been the displaying of time added on by the fourth official. This has certainly halted many disputes about injury time durations that previously occurred yet, before this practice was introduced, I believe that the time added on was more reflective of the incidents and delays within the match.

The question remains why this ‘+1+3 rule' has become so ubiquitous in world football. The only conclusion I can come up with, beyond the laziness of the referee, is that it has more to do with money and television than anything else. With games being screened back to back in Europe and other locations there is a need to ensure that one match doesn't overlap the kick off of the next. This may be a cynical accusation that is absent of any real proof, yet it is the best I can come up with.

Just to be clear though, I am not suggesting that the referee should focus more on his time-keeping duties especially if it is at the expense of concentrating upon contentious handballs and dangerous tackles - his main duty after all is to ensure the fairness of the contest unfolding before the fans.

It seems incredibly logical to me therefore, that the fourth official should be the one to keep track of stoppages and then inform the referee at the end of each half of how much time needs to be added on. Although this would require the sport's administrators to apply free thinking which most likely means that it won't occur any time soon or, perhaps regrettably, ever.