If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Soccer statisticians investigate claim that Manchester United gets bonus extra time from referee when they are losing at home, find it's true and holds for all strong teams   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 56
    More: Obvious, Man Utd, Steve Bruce, Sir Alex Ferguson, Emirates Stadium, Premier League, Old Trafford, overtime  
•       •       •

956 clicks; posted to Sports » on 24 Nov 2012 at 4:39 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-24 04:53:46 PM
I, for one, am shocked that when you allow refs to control everything to the point of "how long the game goes" that you might have a problem.

Getting rid of extra time would make soccer seem 100% more legitimate overnight. At minimum, add the extra time onto a clock that everyone can see instead of just "hope the refs decide it's over."
 
2012-11-24 05:01:29 PM
Those refs are clearly just racist.
 
2012-11-24 05:02:20 PM
Without extra time you could see people stalling more with injuries, knowing that as they lay around in "pain" they're taking time off of a static clock. If stoppages are something that can be measured, something that the existence of extra time acknowledges, then it should be measured more precisely and as early a possible.

As a result, fixing extra time makes more sense. Have the ref stand next to whatever is stopping play with a stopwatch, record the time, and tell the extra official, who adds it to the clock immediately after the stoppage is over. It shouldn't be some vague amount of time that is determined only at the end, which is subject to the circumstances unique to those of the end of the game.
 
2012-11-24 05:11:26 PM
Every other timed sport in the world uses a visible clock, which stops when the referee blows a whistle. If there is some sane reason why soccer doesn't do the same it's beyond me.
 
2012-11-24 05:17:16 PM

tdpatriots12: Without extra time you could see people stalling more with injuries, knowing that as they lay around in "pain" they're taking time off of a static clock.


People usually play around 'em anyway. So just play around 'em.

/but yes, I will accept recording the time in order to make it clear to everyone. That's all I ask - just actually make it apparent what the hell you're doing instead of having secret extra time that the refs just seem to randomly determine
 
2012-11-24 05:19:10 PM

disguysdalimit: Every other timed sport in the world uses a visible clock, which stops when the referee blows a whistle. If there is some sane reason why soccer doesn't do the same it's beyond me.


I don't think that's the answer either. It can take like 20 minutes to play 2 minutes of basketball.

First: League wide fines for diving. If you're caught diving, instant fine and if it continues, suspension. They eat up so much time. If people didn't use them as much, less time would be wasted. Though I have heard the argument that a lot of the people who roll around on the ground for 30 seconds and then get up just fine may actually be temporarily hurt. If you've ever bashed your knee or leg on something it can cripple you for a very short period and then fade to nothingness. But anyone who goes down from a phantom push or something, fine em.

Second: Another official with some sort of 1) stopwatch or 2) official extra time card that calculates exact measurements of extra time. As in "Goal add 30 seconds" "Injury: added 15 seconds." "Injury requiring stretcher: Add 1 minute" etc. This card will be given to the news room at the end to see exactly why extra time was given. That being said, if a team is making a run for the goal, and if they need an extra 5 seconds to finish off their play, let the clock run five more seconds and wait until the ball is dead.
 
2012-11-24 05:23:10 PM
WTF is so hard about this? Stop the damn clock when there's an injury, goal, or substitution. Forget measuring and adding time. Just stop the f*cking clock.
 
2012-11-24 05:34:48 PM

marius2: Second: Another official with some sort of 1) stopwatch or 2) official extra time card that calculates exact measurements of extra time. As in "Goal add 30 seconds" "Injury: added 15 seconds." "Injury requiring stretcher: Add 1 minute" etc. This card will be given to the news room at the end to see exactly why extra time was given. That being said, if a team is making a run for the goal, and if they need an extra 5 seconds to finish off their play, let the clock run five more seconds and wait until the ball is dead.


Or you can just have a timekeeper on the side adding time based on hand/arm signals from the head ref.

/or they could say hey, 90 minutes is enough time to play a game, even with some wasted time in the middle, as it is.
 
2012-11-24 05:40:15 PM

tdpatriots12: Without extra time you could see people stalling more with injuries, knowing that as they lay around in "pain" they're taking time off of a static clock. If stoppages are something that can be measured, something that the existence of extra time acknowledges, then it should be measured more precisely and as early a possible.

As a result, fixing extra time makes more sense. Have the ref stand next to whatever is stopping play with a stopwatch, record the time, and tell the extra official, who adds it to the clock immediately after the stoppage is over. It shouldn't be some vague amount of time that is determined only at the end, which is subject to the circumstances unique to those of the end of the game.


Or just do what every other sport in the world does and, when there's a stoppage, stop the clock until play resumes.
 
2012-11-24 05:53:04 PM

IAmRight:
Getting rid of extra time would make soccer seem 100% more legitimate overnight. At minimum, add the extra time onto a clock that everyone can see instead of just "hope the refs decide it's over."


That's how it works now. Stoppage time is communicated before the match is over, it's no mystery to anyone.
 
2012-11-24 05:55:13 PM
Btw. people who biatch about stoppage time, would dislike soccer anyway. So who cares about their opinion.
 
2012-11-24 05:56:47 PM

spawn73: That's how it works now. Stoppage time is communicated before the match is over, it's no mystery to anyone.


I never see a countdown. I see a clock that just counts up and the announcers say a rough approximation, then it proceeds until the refs feel like it. It would be nice to have an official number and a clock that counts down so you have a definitive end time.

But I'll be honest (unlike people who suggest changes to sports and act like they're only not fans because of some random rule they don't like) - I don't care about soccer and wouldn't care even if they did fix their clock issues.
 
2012-11-24 05:57:44 PM
Aw man, I didn't refresh for that - would've been a great simulpost.
 
2012-11-24 06:07:57 PM

spawn73: Btw. people who biatch about stoppage time, would dislike soccer anyway. So who cares about their opinion.


No, no, no. The people who don't like soccer don't biatch about stoppage time. We make fun of stoppage time. To wit: lol human element.

But it's not like Yankee sports are any better, what with the "roughing the Brady" calls and the strike zones made of Pym particles.
 
2012-11-24 06:10:49 PM

CommiePuddin: Or just do what every other sport in the world does and, when there's a stoppage, stop the clock until play resumes.


No, thats just how America does it.

Most other sports have other methods for dealing with the clock. For example in Rugby the timekeeping is done on the sidelines but is under control of the Ref. For most stoppages the clock runs and its only stopped on the Refs say so for injuries and the TMO decisions. Every other stappage is on the clock. In Cricket the session lasts either a number of legal deliveries or a fixed time and if the rate of bowling is to slow the captian gets a fine.

Lots of over examples of how its done. The last thing we need to do is to turn a 90 minute game into a three hour snoozfest.
 
2012-11-24 06:12:45 PM

IAmRight: spawn73: That's how it works now. Stoppage time is communicated before the match is over, it's no mystery to anyone.

I never see a countdown. I see a clock that just counts up and the announcers say a rough approximation, then it proceeds until the refs feel like it. It would be nice to have an official number and a clock that counts down so you have a definitive end time.


The 4th referee holds up a sign announcing the added stoppage time. So if the sign says 4, you know the match will end at 94.

However. Additional stoppage time can be added during stoppage time, so it doesn't always stop at 94, but mostly does. Also, the referee will allow "situations" to play out after the stoppage is out. Ie. a team will be allowed to finish their attack. Or to be allowed to take that freekick or corner, if close to goal.

But generally speaking, you know when the match is going to end. And if it doesn't end at that precise second, you know it'll end as soon as the "situation" is resolved.


Yeah, nice simulpost. :)
 
2012-11-24 06:15:56 PM
Imagine if something like the Le Mans 24 hour race worked like American sports. The 24 hour races would last days. :D
 
2012-11-24 06:20:21 PM
There's also the matter of getting the spectators home and the TV stations onto their next bit of programming at a reasonably certain time. You air most sports, you think it'll be about three hours, but you've really got no idea because of all the stoppages and timeouts and clock managing with plays that somehow take fractions of a second and whatnot, and you just have to wing it. Soccer? You know you're in and out in a smidge over two hours.
 
2012-11-24 06:20:40 PM
As a supporter of a "little" team i have known this for years. Its the fans of the other "big" teams that complain about how Man U get special treatment while completly ignoring the help their team gets. The amount of hand balls that Chelsea gets away with at Stamford Bridge, the dives that called as fouls that Liverpool get at Anfield, the fouls that go unpunished by Man C at the Etihad, the potential leg breakers that Arsenal players inflict on other teams but no one ever mentions.

Its all a bunch of kettles calling pots negrito
 
2012-11-24 06:28:02 PM
Also this is a nice table showing how many home games each team has per penalty they conceed, from 2006 to April 2012

Team Number of home games per penalty conceded

Source: Opta

Chelsea 18.3
Aston Villa 18.2
Liverpool 15.7
Fulham 13.8
Tottenham Hotspur 13.8
Bolton 13.8
Everton 13.8
Man Utd 12.2
Stoke 12.0
Man City 11.0
Newcastle 10.1
Arsenal 10
Sunderland 8.3
West Brom 7.6
Wigan 6.9
Wolves 6.6
Blackburn 6.1
 
2012-11-24 06:28:55 PM
See, MLS, at the start of its life, did in fact count the clock down.

They got made into a laughingstock for it for 'Americanizing' the sport. Like, 'those stupid Americans sill don't know what the hell they're doing, so they have to jazz up the sport with this counting-down bullshiat so they don't get bored and wander off to hit each other in the nuts or something. Come back when you're ready to take soccer seriously. Or better yet, come back and try again with the next league after this one dies off too'

That clock started counting up real fast after that. MLS had to learn the hard way that America does not and has never had any say whatsoever in how the world plays soccer, and soccer never asked for America's opinion, and CONCACAF is a have-not confederation anyway so you can just cram it and come back when you're South American.
 
2012-11-24 06:31:58 PM

Gosling: There's also the matter of getting the spectators home and the TV stations onto their next bit of programming at a reasonably certain time. You air most sports, you think it'll be about three hours, but you've really got no idea because of all the stoppages and timeouts and clock managing with plays that somehow take fractions of a second and whatnot, and you just have to wing it. Soccer? You know you're in and out in a smidge over two hours.


So much this. Especially when you're taping a match that you can't see. I know I don't have to extend the recording of the match, I know it will be over when the match is scheduled to be over. The lady friends I have had that hate soccer also have loved the convenient "it'll be over in 30 minutes babe and then I'll help you do that thing you were talking about." It's also great for tournaments and such that have one game after another, there's never the issue you see often with MLB "Hey, if you're tuning in to see the Bobcats play the Wildebeests, turn to our partners at Fox, as this game enters the 20th inning."

Honestly, despite my efforts at creating rules above, added time has never really bothered me. For every time that it has affected my time, I've got another where it's helped them. "Ah come on ref! End it already!", and "Yes! 4 minutes, you guys can score another in that time! Wooohooo gooaaal!" etc. etc. etc. Is it biased? I guarantee it happens on occasion, but not enough to make a big deal out of it. Let's focus on more important issues. like goal line technology, diving....., and stop punishing people for taking their shirts off (what? celebrations already waste enough time, it's not like they're doing any more damage.)
 
2012-11-24 06:38:38 PM

disguysdalimit: Every other timed sport in the world uses a visible clock, which stops when the referee blows a whistle. If there is some sane reason why soccer doesn't do the same it's beyond me.


Lack of visible clocks in most grounds I'd guess, and no desire to make clubs buy them when the games generally aren't shown on TV.

It's worth recalling early MLS games tried it, and abandoned it (along with anti-draw shoot-outs).
 
2012-11-24 07:27:57 PM
Stopping the clock during a very limited number of instances during a game is hardly going to turn these games into marathons. What's that amount to, a handle of stoppages per game? If the officiating is proper, why would the amount of time the clock is stopped vary significantly just because a more accurate method is used? Time would be kept accurately without depending on the discretion of referees who are influenced by crowd pressure. Who wouldn't want that?

And the idea that these wealthy teams can't afford a couple field clocks is ludicrous.
 
2012-11-24 07:28:05 PM

marius2: Gosling: There's also the matter of getting the spectators home and the TV stations onto their next bit of programming at a reasonably certain time. You air most sports, you think it'll be about three hours, but you've really got no idea because of all the stoppages and timeouts and clock managing with plays that somehow take fractions of a second and whatnot, and you just have to wing it. Soccer? You know you're in and out in a smidge over two hours.

So much this. Especially when you're taping a match that you can't see. I know I don't have to extend the recording of the match, I know it will be over when the match is scheduled to be over. The lady friends I have had that hate soccer also have loved the convenient "it'll be over in 30 minutes babe and then I'll help you do that thing you were talking about." It's also great for tournaments and such that have one game after another, there's never the issue you see often with MLB "Hey, if you're tuning in to see the Bobcats play the Wildebeests, turn to our partners at Fox, as this game enters the 20th inning."

Honestly, despite my efforts at creating rules above, added time has never really bothered me. For every time that it has affected my time, I've got another where it's helped them. "Ah come on ref! End it already!", and "Yes! 4 minutes, you guys can score another in that time! Wooohooo gooaaal!" etc. etc. etc. Is it biased? I guarantee it happens on occasion, but not enough to make a big deal out of it. Let's focus on more important issues. like goal line technology, diving....., and stop punishing people for taking their shirts off (what? celebrations already waste enough time, it's not like they're doing any more damage.)


But you can still control WHAT stops the clock. How would stopping the clock for goals and injuries make the game any longer than tacking on a few untimed minutes at the end of each half for the same reason? This way we don't end up with the nebulous "four minutes of stoppage time" that inevitably turns into 4 and a half or five if Man U is down with the ball when the clock would otherwise have run out.

I do agree, though, that there are a lot more important things to be focusing on now.
 
2012-11-24 07:30:45 PM
They did this in the book "Scorecasting," and, IIRC, they found that it holds for all home soccer teams. I don't recall it mattering how good the team was, but I might be wrong. The refs also give shorter stoppage time when the home team is winning.

Again, IIRC, it was something like 2 minutes when the home team is winning by 1, 4 minutes when home team losing by 1, and 3 minutes when the score difference was 2 or more goals, on average.
 
2012-11-24 07:32:17 PM
i love how a bunch of north american sports fans come stomping into a soccer thread to complain the rest of the world and how they've done it for over 100 years is WRONG.

you guys are awesome.
 
2012-11-24 07:38:16 PM
Good god, I figured there was at least a ref or official with a clock that they stopped when the ball wasn't in play. They just guess?!!??!? Really? That just makes diveball seem even sadder to me. I can understand not having a visible clock, there are issues with updating it with an official timekeeper's watch. In real football, there are these things called timing rules. Instead of the refs guessing, one ref has the official clock and follows real rules that you don't get to fudge for the home team. The scoreboard operators can also follow these magical timing rules to give the public a very close estimate of the actual game clock.
 
2012-11-24 07:42:13 PM

Generation_D: i love how a bunch of north american sports fans come stomping into a soccer thread to complain the rest of the world and how they've done it for over 100 years is WRONG.

you guys are awesome.


So when provided with distinct evidence that the current system lends bias to certain teams or to teams in certain situations, you would rather stick your fingers in your ears and say "I CAN'T HEAR YOU! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"? Nobody's saying the current timing system is wrong, just problematic. And maybe it's worth looking into whether there's a more fair way.
 
2012-11-24 08:12:28 PM

rugman11: But you can still control WHAT stops the clock. How would stopping the clock for goals and injuries make the game any longer than tacking on a few untimed minutes at the end of each half for the same reason? This way we don't end up with the nebulous "four minutes of stoppage time" that inevitably turns into 4 and a half or five if Man U is down with the ball when the clock would otherwise have run out.


There are actually clips out there of someone taking too long celebrating and the other team immediately scoring that goal right back when the celebrating team wasn't ready to go. You stop the clock for goals, you don't have that built-in incentive to get a move on.

For example, this. Or this. Or perhaps this, with bonus goalie-on-other-end-of-pitch goodness.
 
2012-11-24 08:31:46 PM

Gosling:

For example, this. Or this. Or perhaps this, with bonus goalie-on-other-end-of-pitch goodness.


Hah, that's pretty damn funny. I especially liked the last one where the guys just smiled.
 
2012-11-24 08:41:14 PM

Generation_D: i love how a bunch of north american sports fans come stomping into a soccer thread to complain the rest of the world and how they've done it for over 100 years is WRONG.

you guys are awesome.


Yeah, because there aren't thousands of youth, high school, college, pro, and amateur soccer teams in the US. Nosirree, we're Americans so there's no way we can understand soccer. It's just too complicated.
 
2012-11-24 08:44:17 PM

Gosling: rugman11: But you can still control WHAT stops the clock. How would stopping the clock for goals and injuries make the game any longer than tacking on a few untimed minutes at the end of each half for the same reason? This way we don't end up with the nebulous "four minutes of stoppage time" that inevitably turns into 4 and a half or five if Man U is down with the ball when the clock would otherwise have run out.

There are actually clips out there of someone taking too long celebrating and the other team immediately scoring that goal right back when the celebrating team wasn't ready to go. You stop the clock for goals, you don't have that built-in incentive to get a move on.

For example, this. Or this. Or perhaps this, with bonus goalie-on-other-end-of-pitch goodness.


There's no reason that you would have to get rid of those plays. Just have the clock start when the defending team kicks off after a goal rather than on a ref's whistle.
 
2012-11-24 08:48:28 PM

themeaningoflifeisnot: Generation_D: i love how a bunch of north american sports fans come stomping into a soccer thread to complain the rest of the world and how they've done it for over 100 years is WRONG.

you guys are awesome.

Yeah, because there aren't thousands of youth, high school, college, pro, and amateur soccer teams in the US. Nosirree, we're Americans so there's no way we can understand soccer. It's just too complicated.


you are proving my point without realizing it.

america is known to the world as a fiddler with the rules of their game. if we monkey with it, we discredit ourselves in their eyes, and the world calls the shots in soccer, get that through your skull. or dont, makes no damn difference one way or another. its not like nfl, which might take a good idea from a college league. the world barely considers american soccer as legit, if we try to change things without their buyin, it just reinforces their already justified opinions.
 
2012-11-24 08:57:23 PM

Generation_D: themeaningoflifeisnot: Generation_D: i love how a bunch of north american sports fans come stomping into a soccer thread to complain the rest of the world and how they've done it for over 100 years is WRONG.

you guys are awesome.

Yeah, because there aren't thousands of youth, high school, college, pro, and amateur soccer teams in the US. Nosirree, we're Americans so there's no way we can understand soccer. It's just too complicated.

you are proving my point without realizing it.

america is known to the world as a fiddler with the rules of their game. if we monkey with it, we discredit ourselves in their eyes, and the world calls the shots in soccer, get that through your skull. or dont, makes no damn difference one way or another. its not like nfl, which might take a good idea from a college league. the world barely considers american soccer as legit, if we try to change things without their buyin, it just reinforces their already justified opinions.


In my view, that's a really bizarre way of thinking. I love a sport and follow it faithfully, but I'm not entitled to state my opinion on a current rules question because I'm an American. Wow.
 
2012-11-24 09:04:44 PM

rugman11: There's no reason that you would have to get rid of those plays. Just have the clock start when the defending team kicks off after a goal rather than on a ref's whistle.


Technically, if all you're doing is taking away the ref's discretion on stoppage time, you wouldn't stop the clock at all after a goal. According to the Laws of the Game, time isn't added for the "natural" stoppages that occur after a ball goes out of play, only for things like injuries, substitutions, and delay of game.
 
2012-11-24 09:08:37 PM

Olympic Trolling Judge: rugman11: There's no reason that you would have to get rid of those plays. Just have the clock start when the defending team kicks off after a goal rather than on a ref's whistle.

Technically, if all you're doing is taking away the ref's discretion on stoppage time, you wouldn't stop the clock at all after a goal. According to the Laws of the Game, time isn't added for the "natural" stoppages that occur after a ball goes out of play, only for things like injuries, substitutions, and delay of game.


Well, then wouldn't it be nice to have those things codified and to have somebody in place to make sure the rules are adhered to in order to ensure that each game is played fairly without preference for either team? I don't know that the clock would even need to be stopped if there was some sort of accountability for the timekeeper rather than them just getting to say "eh, three minutes sounds about right."
 
2012-11-24 10:08:45 PM

Olympic Trolling Judge: rugman11: There's no reason that you would have to get rid of those plays. Just have the clock start when the defending team kicks off after a goal rather than on a ref's whistle.

Technically, if all you're doing is taking away the ref's discretion on stoppage time, you wouldn't stop the clock at all after a goal. According to the Laws of the Game, time isn't added for the "natural" stoppages that occur after a ball goes out of play, only for things like injuries, substitutions, and delay of game.


It would appear that an "unnatural" stoppage is, statistically, that the home team is behind then.

If the ref's discretion in determining what is natural/unnatural is influenced by the crowd then the Laws of the Game should be modified to correct for that apparently-natural bias.
 
2012-11-24 10:24:24 PM
Stop the clock for injuries, substitutions, and goals. Simple, effective, unbiased. Eliminates referee discretion and claims of partisan timekeeping, and does not lengthen the contests.
 
2012-11-24 10:28:24 PM
It's called home-field advantage, and that's how it's supposed to work. Refs favor home teams (in aggregate), in all sports. In the quest for ever-more automation and video review, the NFL is eliminating the need for home fans. Soon, they'll eliminate the home-field advantage altogether.
 
2012-11-24 10:47:48 PM

davideggy: Good god, I figured there was at least a ref or official with a clock that they stopped when the ball wasn't in play. They just guess?!!??!? Really? That just makes diveball seem even sadder to me. I can understand not having a visible clock, there are issues with updating it with an official timekeeper's watch. In real football, there are these things called timing rules. Instead of the refs guessing, one ref has the official clock and follows real rules that you don't get to fudge for the home team. The scoreboard operators can also follow these magical timing rules to give the public a very close estimate of the actual game clock.


The referee is wearing watches that allows him to both keep a timing of stoppage, and total time.

And yes, what they do is down to the referees discretion based on rules and guidelines.
 
2012-11-24 10:50:05 PM

themeaningoflifeisnot: Stop the clock for injuries, substitutions, and goals. Simple, effective, unbiased. Eliminates referee discretion and claims of partisan timekeeping, and does not lengthen the contests.


Why should the clock be stopped for goals and substitutions? Yeah, people who don't follow the sport are biatching about stuff they don't understand, fine, but do we have to make up new rules as well?
 
2012-11-24 11:00:34 PM

themeaningoflifeisnot: In my view, that's a really bizarre way of thinking. I love a sport and follow it faithfully, but I'm not entitled to state my opinion on a current rules question because I'm an American. Wow.


Correct. The British are the ones who get to tinker.

When a rule needs to be changed, there are eight votes floating around, and you need six of them to make the rule change.

England has one vote.
Scotland has one vote.
Wales has one vote.
Northern Ireland has one vote.
FIFA, as an organization, has the other four.

Everyone else- the United States included- can write nasty letters to the editor if they don't like it.
 
2012-11-24 11:45:40 PM

spawn73: themeaningoflifeisnot: Stop the clock for injuries, substitutions, and goals. Simple, effective, unbiased. Eliminates referee discretion and claims of partisan timekeeping, and does not lengthen the contests.

Why should the clock be stopped for goals and substitutions? Yeah, people who don't follow the sport are biatching about stuff they don't understand, fine, but do we have to make up new rules as well?


As the article says, the refs are adding time for goals and substitutions.
 
2012-11-24 11:48:19 PM

Gosling: themeaningoflifeisnot: In my view, that's a really bizarre way of thinking. I love a sport and follow it faithfully, but I'm not entitled to state my opinion on a current rules question because I'm an American. Wow.

Correct. The British are the ones who get to tinker.

When a rule needs to be changed, there are eight votes floating around, and you need six of them to make the rule change.

England has one vote.
Scotland has one vote.
Wales has one vote.
Northern Ireland has one vote.
FIFA, as an organization, has the other four.

Everyone else- the United States included- can write nasty letters to the editor if they don't like it.


Look, any idiot knows expressing an opinion is different that having official voting power over the rules. I'm talking about the attitude displayed here that an American is not allowed to have an opinion on soccer simply because we're Americans, which is exactly what Generation D was claiming. That's bullshiat.
 
2012-11-24 11:54:08 PM
I actually like how soccer refs are the only ones who know exactly when the game will end. It adds a lot of drama to the end of a close game.

Your team is up by a goal and the other team is pressing? "Come on ref, blow the whistle. Jeez guys hold on clear that cross GODDAMN IT REF BLOW THE WHISTLE!"

Your team is down by a goal? "Time for one more attack? Get the ball down the field! Push men forward! GODDAMN IT REF STOP LOOKING AT YOUR WATCH!"

It can make the end of games nail biting. And that makes for good spectator sport. The last minute or two of an important game can be agony, and that agony is only sweeter by not knowing exactly when it is going to end.

/I hate how in the NFL teams can assume the victory formation with two full minutes to go. At least in the CFL teams can only kill off the last minute of the clock.
 
2012-11-25 12:08:07 AM

themeaningoflifeisnot: Look, any idiot knows expressing an opinion is different that having official voting power over the rules. I'm talking about the attitude displayed here that an American is not allowed to have an opinion on soccer simply because we're Americans, which is exactly what Generation D was claiming. That's bullshiat.


Well, that's the price we pay for being so late to the game and for disparaging the sport for all those years. As far as they're concerned, we're still in the doghouse to some degree and will continue to be until soccer starts threatening to overtake baseball and football.

Also, this. Indoor soccer. This is what we were doing between the NASL and MLS, and we're still doing it, and we pay the price every time the rest of the world sees it. It's like finding someone's hidden porn stash. We need to shut indoor soccer down and pronto. That's an embarrassment.
 
2012-11-25 12:19:04 AM

Gosling: Well, that's the price we pay for being so late to the game and for disparaging the sport for all those years not being imperialists and taking over the world and forcing natives to play our sports when we had the chance.


FTFY
 
2012-11-25 12:42:10 AM

themeaningoflifeisnot: spawn73: themeaningoflifeisnot: Stop the clock for injuries, substitutions, and goals. Simple, effective, unbiased. Eliminates referee discretion and claims of partisan timekeeping, and does not lengthen the contests.

Why should the clock be stopped for goals and substitutions? Yeah, people who don't follow the sport are biatching about stuff they don't understand, fine, but do we have to make up new rules as well?

As the article says, the refs are adding time for goals and substitutions.


Either the article is misunderstanding the rules, or you're misunderstanding the article. The clock is not stopped at goals or substitutions, the referee can add time at his discretion during any stoppage, but doesn´t have to.

If there's a long celebration following a goal, yeah, the referee will add time. But not if they just get on with it.

If the substitution is handled fluidly, then no time is added. If the subsistuted player walks out really slowly, time might be added. If the subsistuted player is really, really slow, he might be penalized with a card.
 
2012-11-25 12:50:02 AM

IAmRight: Gosling: Well, that's the price we pay for being so late to the game and for disparaging the sport for all those years not being imperialists and taking over the world and forcing natives to play our sports when we had the chance.

FTFY


Naw, man. The official sport of the British Empire is cricket, like how the official sport of the American empisphere of influence is baseball. Soccer is just one of those sports that has inherently broad appeal, because the rules are fairly simple and pickup games are easy to arrange.
 
2012-11-25 01:20:05 AM

spawn73: Why should the clock be stopped for goals and substitutions? Yeah, people who don't follow the sport are biatching about stuff they don't understand, fine, but do we have to make up new rules as well?

As the article says, the refs are adding time for goals and substitutions.

Either the article is misunderstanding the rules, or you're misunderstanding the article. The clock is not stopped at goals or substitutions, the referee can add time at his discretion during any stoppage, but doesn´t have to.

If there's a long celebration following a goal, yeah, the referee will add time. But not if they just get on with it.

If the substitution is handled fluidly, then no time is added. If the subsistuted player walks out really slowly, time might be added. If the subsistuted player is really, really slow, he might be penalized with a card.


I'm not making up new rules. I'm just basing my comments on what is actually happening during games. The article describes what soccer fans "believe" the refs are doing and it relates what a former premier league official admits they are doing--adding stoppage time for goals and substitutions. The analysts referenced in the article even discovered that there's a significant disparity between the amount of time added for a substitution during stoppage time as compared to during the rest of the game. So, it's obvious that the refs are including goals and substitutions in their stoppage time calculations.

Of course, since they've left stoppage time to the official's whims, no one can be sure exactly what they're doing. If the refs are violating soccer rules as a matter of course by factoring goals and substitutions into stoppage time, then why in the world would you not want to take stoppage time away from the refs altogether? Especially if the refs are manipulating stoppage time in favor of home teams and, as the ref in the article admitted, are easily influenced by the home crowd.

It sounds to me that a lot of this "we can't stop the clock" nonsense proclaimed by some people in this thread is simply a knee-jerk reaction rejecting any time management method that is similar to one used in an "American sport." Yet rugby has managed to survive without stoppage time for injuries, so we know that Europeans are very familiar with the concept of stopping the clock even in sports that aren't associated with the dirty Americans.
 
2012-11-25 04:04:50 AM

Generation_D: themeaningoflifeisnot: Generation_D: i love how a bunch of north american sports fans come stomping into a soccer thread to complain the rest of the world and how they've done it for over 100 years is WRONG.

you guys are awesome.

Yeah, because there aren't thousands of youth, high school, college, pro, and amateur soccer teams in the US. Nosirree, we're Americans so there's no way we can understand soccer. It's just too complicated.

you are proving my point without realizing it.

america is known to the world as a fiddler with the rules of their game. if we monkey with it, we discredit ourselves in their eyes, and the world calls the shots in soccer, get that through your skull. or dont, makes no damn difference one way or another. its not like nfl, which might take a good idea from a college league. the world barely considers american soccer as legit, if we try to change things without their buyin, it just reinforces their already justified opinions.


So you're saying soccer is the international version of baseball? Stupid backwards rules should stay because of "human element" or "tradition" or "unwritten rules" or whatever bullshiat.

This shouldn't be about Americans wanting some kind of rule changes because I assume many international fans think soccer should change in some ways. Goal line technology, for example. As an American that likes soccer, I also think FIFA should do what the NBA is doing with diving. Change isn't always bad. I also think ties are bogus but I do get it and that probably shouldn't ever be changed.
 
2012-11-25 08:21:05 AM
Or, y'know, they could just have a separate timekeeping official up next to the TV commentators or somewhere and have him blow a horn over the P.A. Of course, that's an Australian idea, and if you think Americans get no respect in futbol . . .
 
2012-11-25 08:33:54 AM

themeaningoflifeisnot: And the idea that these wealthy teams can't afford a couple field clocks is ludicrous.


It's not the wealthy teams who can't afford clocks, obviously. There are thousands of teams who play in the English Pyramid - less that 100 of which are fully professional (and not all of them are financially secure anyway). Even if you narrow it down to just FA Cup entrants, that's 750 or so clubs who could have a visit from a wealthy club if they're lucky.

FIFA, for better or worse, likes to have all games played under the same rules. Expensive as things like goal-line technology are, they don't require different rules for the top teams.
 
2012-11-25 08:50:39 AM

themeaningoflifeisnot: spawn73: Why should the clock be stopped for goals and substitutions? Yeah, people who don't follow the sport are biatching about stuff they don't understand, fine, but do we have to make up new rules as well?

As the article says, the refs are adding time for goals and substitutions.

Either the article is misunderstanding the rules, or you're misunderstanding the article. The clock is not stopped at goals or substitutions, the referee can add time at his discretion during any stoppage, but doesn´t have to.

If there's a long celebration following a goal, yeah, the referee will add time. But not if they just get on with it.

If the substitution is handled fluidly, then no time is added. If the subsistuted player walks out really slowly, time might be added. If the subsistuted player is really, really slow, he might be penalized with a card.

I'm not making up new rules. I'm just basing my comments on what is actually happening during games. The article describes what soccer fans "believe" the refs are doing and it relates what a former premier league official admits they are doing--adding stoppage time for goals and substitutions. The analysts referenced in the article even discovered that there's a significant disparity between the amount of time added for a substitution during stoppage time as compared to during the rest of the game. So, it's obvious that the refs are including goals and substitutions in their stoppage time calculations.

Of course, since they've left stoppage time to the official's whims, no one can be sure exactly what they're doing. If the refs are violating soccer rules as a matter of course by factoring goals and substitutions into stoppage time, then why in the world would you not want to take stoppage time away from the refs altogether? Especially if the refs are manipulating stoppage time in favor of home teams and, as the ref in the article admitted, are easily influenced by the home crowd.

It sounds to me that a lot of this "we c ...


Try reading what I wrote again. It's not against the rules to add stoppage time due to circumstances occuring around a goal, or a substitution. It is against the rules to add stoppage time because of a goal or a substitution.

No one is violating any rules, and noone is adding time because of a goal or a substitution.

Of course stoppage time is added if a substitution is carried out at the end of the match, or during the stoppage time. The referee will correctly identify that the substitution is carried out to run the clock down, so he adds time to prevent this from happening.


The referees ought to be aware if they're subconsciously being preassured to add more stoppage time when it's favorable to the favourite. And that's that. The article is an interesting curiosity, and maybe referees will take note.
 
2012-11-25 10:51:46 AM

chiark: themeaningoflifeisnot: And the idea that these wealthy teams can't afford a couple field clocks is ludicrous.

It's not the wealthy teams who can't afford clocks, obviously. There are thousands of teams who play in the English Pyramid - less that 100 of which are fully professional (and not all of them are financially secure anyway). Even if you narrow it down to just FA Cup entrants, that's 750 or so clubs who could have a visit from a wealthy club if they're lucky.


Yeah, I came here to make this point. As per wiki, more than 140 leagues with more than 480 divisions, 7000+ teams.

And that's just in England.

It's just an element of the game. The referee runs the game, his decision is final. Football's a fast paced sport with lots of open play, refs sometimes make bad calls, refs that make really bad calls or make lots of controversial calls don't get a lot of work.

It works, it adds an element of tension to the game, and it's something to talk about in the pub after the game.
 
Displayed 56 of 56 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report