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  
•       •       •

957 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 6 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report