Why doesn't the clock ever stop in soccer?

[QUOTE="kbpyrokb"]its the rules of the game.BMD004

its the same reason they're not adding goal line technology aswell because they don't want to have to stop and go for a review.

Doesn't stop in Rugby either, I found Amercan sport to be very stop start and very commercialised.

and it also allows suspense right until the last second of a game, in the NFL once a team has ran out of time outs it is pretty much over if the other team gets the ball. and then they kneel and stand around for 2 minutes waiting for the match to end, talk about anti climax.

I'm asking for the logic behind it.BMD004

[QUOTE="BMD004"]I'm asking for the logic behind it.foxhound_fox

Imagine for a second this is how basketball was played. Errrrrrrrrrrrrrr. The buzzer just sounded to "end" the game after the 4th quarter. But the ref says keep playing, I added time on. So they keep playing for a few minutes. The score is 95 to 94, then the ref blows the whistle and says Game over! Everybody would be like WTF??

The logic behind it is that fans watching on television don't want to see commercials every 5 minutes.

cmpepper23

For example... instead of the ref adding extra time for fouls and injuries, why not just stop the clock while that BS is going on so that he doesn't have to tack it on at the end? That way everybody in the world knows that the game is over at 90:00.

The very end of a soccer game can be very exciting, as no one but the ref knows how much time is left.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]I love your threads BMD. This is one and the 'internet makes you smarter' one have been pure gold. ...don't ever changeBMD004

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="BMD004"]I'm asking for the logic behind it.BMD004

Imagine for a second this is how basketball was played. Errrrrrrrrrrrrrr. The buzzer just sounded to "end" the game after the 4th quarter. But the ref says keep playing, I added time on. So they keep playing for a few minutes. The score is 95 to 94, then the ref blows the whistle and says Game over! Everybody would be like WTF??

Well, you see, if there is something like a corner going on in footba-soccer, then the ref won't suddenly stop the game. They announce how much time will be added near the end of the game, so if it is 94 minutes on the clock and there was suppose to be 4 added minutes, the ref will stop the game unless there is some big dangerous play, a foul shot, or a corner or something like that.

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] What is logical about stopping the clock? :?arad96

Imagine for a second this is how basketball was played. Errrrrrrrrrrrrrr. The buzzer just sounded to "end" the game after the 4th quarter. But the ref says keep playing, I added time on. So they keep playing for a few minutes. The score is 95 to 94, then the ref blows the whistle and says Game over! Everybody would be like WTF??

Well, you see, if there is something like a corner going on in footba-soccer, then the ref won't suddenly stop the game. They announce how much time will be added near the end of the game, so if it is 94 minutes on the clock and there was suppose to be 4 added minutes, the ref will stop the game unless there is some big dangerous play, a foul shot, or a corner or something like that.

So for example, if a corner kick would happen right before the 90:00 mark, then they can have their corner even with no time left.

Or even in basketball, the ball just has to leave your hands with :00 on the clock... the ball can go in the basket and count as a score with :00 on the clock.

Because that is how it is. The game never stops. It isn't American football where the offense launches a coordinated strategic strike against the coordinated defenses of the opposition.

This is futbol, where nothing is planned out in advance and all offenses are hastily put together and improvised.

Some call it madness.

[spoiler] I just call i-...GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="BMD004"]I'm asking for the logic behind it.BMD004

Imagine for a second this is how basketball was played. Errrrrrrrrrrrrrr. The buzzer just sounded to "end" the game after the 4th quarter. But the ref says keep playing, I added time on. So they keep playing for a few minutes. The score is 95 to 94, then the ref blows the whistle and says Game over! Everybody would be like WTF??

IMO I think it's because soccer is considered to be a non-stop, flowing and continuous game.

But the technical reason behind this is basically because FIFA, the international governing body of soccer, says so. It's one of the laws of the game, so stoppage time is determined by the main ref and is factored by: injuries, substitution, or any other cause that would interrupt a match or kill time. It would be logical to simply just stop the clock but that's just the way it is in this sport, these laws are very old .

I remember in the American MLS, they tried a system where the clock counted down from 90 minutes and was stopped for injuries, penalties etc. For some reason this system was very unpopular and MLS went back to the standard way.

It keeps the game moving. Unlike in American football where everyone is allowed to piss around for 5 minutes for every 10 seconds of play.SolidSnake35

I actually think that the TV time outs should be removed from football and basketball here in US sports (at least at the pro level). Also, baseball could move a bit quicker if TV didn't keep team swaps during the inning from taking so long. It doesn't take 5 minutes for teams to leave or get back on the field. That is the one thing about racing, once the green flag drops, nothing stops the race save for rain or a bad wreck where track infrastructure needs repair or the track becomes completely blocked.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="BMD004"]I'm asking for the logic behind it.BMD004

Imagine for a second this is how basketball was played. Errrrrrrrrrrrrrr. The buzzer just sounded to "end" the game after the 4th quarter. But the ref says keep playing, I added time on. So they keep playing for a few minutes. The score is 95 to 94, then the ref blows the whistle and says Game over! Everybody would be like WTF??

because they know their sport is boring and they want it to be over with as fast as possible.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]It keeps the game moving. Unlike in American football where everyone is allowed to piss around for 5 minutes for every 10 seconds of play.WhiteKnight77

I actually think that the TV time outs should be removed from football and basketball here in US sports (at least at the pro level). Also, baseball could move a bit quicker if TV didn't keep team swaps during the inning from taking so long. It doesn't take 5 minutes for teams to leave or get back on the field. That is the one thing about racing, once the green flag drops, nothing stops the race save for rain or a bad wreck where track infrastructure needs repair or the track becomes completely blocked.

because they know their sport is boring and they want it to be over with as fast as possible.

needled24-7

Who is "they"?

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

because they know their sport is boring and they want it to be over with as fast as possible.

arad96

Who is "they"?

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

because they know their sport is boring and they want it to be over with as fast as possible.

arad96

Who is "they"?

[QUOTE="arad96"]

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

because they know their sport is boring and they want it to be over with as fast as possible.

needled24-7

Who is "they"?

Oh, then I guess that would be FIFA.

because they know their sport is boring and they want it to be over with as fast as possible.

needled24-7

Really? Here is a snapshot of american football

Here is a snapshot of soccer

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

because they know their sport is boring and they want it to be over with as fast as possible.

arad96

Who is "they"?

Probably some hater, sad his favorite sport is not the #1 in the world.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

I actually think that the TV time outs should be removed from football and basketball here in US sports (at least at the pro level). Also, baseball could move a bit quicker if TV didn't keep team swaps during the inning from taking so long. It doesn't take 5 minutes for teams to leave or get back on the field. That is the one thing about racing, once the green flag drops, nothing stops the race save for rain or a bad wreck where track infrastructure needs repair or the track becomes completely blocked.

needled24-7

Maybe at the beginning of the game and after a pitcher is taken out of the game and a reliever brought in, but after pitching the previous inning, he is already warmed up.

As an avid football fan and supporter myself, I have to say that I agree. You do not know just HOW many times at the end of the match there are disputes between players, managers and especially fans that there was either too much time added on, or not enough, or that the referee played more time than he added on, or didn't play all the time that he added on. Obviously almost always the complaints will come from the team who didn't get the favourable result, but many times they have a point and therefore a right to be annoyed.

I personally believe that time should only pass when the ball is in play. When the ball goes out for a throw-in, a goal-kick, or the referee stops play for whatever reason, the time should also stop right there with it. The time should resume from the exact moment that play resumes. When the full 45 minutes has elapsed, a loud buzzer in the stadium goes off to indicate the end of the half. Nothing that occurs once this buzzer has blown is counted any longer. This would make sure that a full set of 90 minutes of football has been played at least and at most and would eliminate all this stoppage time controversies.

Now to argue in favour of it, I can see why this might bring down the excitement of the game. Nobody knows when the match is going to end which raises the suspense and makes the adrenaline rush through everyone involved when a game nears its closing stages and the score is level or close at least. One goal can change everything and the idea of not knowing for sure when it will end drives both sets of teams and their fans crazy, in both attacking and defending. It makes the whole thing a lot more unpredictable and entertaining. The nail-biting and trembling can be a surreal experience which is there primarily due to not knowing when it will all be over.

However I also believe that another one of the more obscure reasons as to why it is not like I described is due to the hierarchy in football (the football governing bodies in each nation, continent and the whole world) not wanting this for more corrupt reasons. This reason being sadly due to the fact that it would mean they have a lower control and influence over matches and would greatly hamper match fixing. Having a human make each and every decision in the game makes sure that they can keep the game under their full control.

I live in England and here we have the Premier League which is the highest professional football league, consisting of the 20 best teams in the country. You will almost certainly have heard of Manchester United, who recently became the most successful English club in history, overtaking Liverpool. Here a lot of people believe that there is a conspiracy and that the officials favour Manchester United. One of the ways in which people believe they favour them is by adding on too much stoppage time when they are losing or not winning (when they should be by their standards) and not adding on enough stoppage time when they are winning. Many times you see Man Utd's manger, Sir Alex Ferguson, pointing to his watch whilst looking at the referee almost telling him how much time should be added on. This has led to some opposition fans to believe that he tells that referee how much time should be added on. It has led to this photoshopped image being created (usually it is the fourth official who holds up a board at the end of a half with a number on it, indicating how many minutes of stoppage time shall be played):

In this following match in September 2009 in hte premier League, there was a lot of controversy. In the derby between Manchester United and Manchester City at Old Trafford, the latter were losing 3-2 and then equalised in the 90th minute. Four minutes of stoppage time were added. United then grabbed a very, very late winner, in the 96th minute of stoppage time. City fans and fans of United's rivals were enraged at how play had been allowed to go on for so long and allowed United to get the winner. Some were convinced the referee had done it deliberately in order to give United another chance to score and they took it. Here is a link to the highlights of that match:

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=102116496471477

In the end, this is still far from being a major topic of discussion in football. It's hardly even discussed that something needs to change in this aspect. Currently teams and fans are like are much more interested at the moment in pushing for goal-line technology and video replays, rather than altering how stoppage time works and I would agree that that is a bigger problem due to the high amount of incorrect decisions that referees seem to be making these days.

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

I actually think that the TV time outs should be removed from football and basketball here in US sports (at least at the pro level). Also, baseball could move a bit quicker if TV didn't keep team swaps during the inning from taking so long. It doesn't take 5 minutes for teams to leave or get back on the field. That is the one thing about racing, once the green flag drops, nothing stops the race save for rain or a bad wreck where track infrastructure needs repair or the track becomes completely blocked.

WhiteKnight77

Maybe at the beginning of the game and after a pitcher is taken out of the game and a reliever brought in, but after pitching the previous inning, he is already warmed up.

Because that is how it is. The game never stops. It isn't American football where the offense launches a coordinated strategic strike against the coordinated defenses of the opposition.

This is futbol, where nothing is planned out in advance and all offenses are hastily put together and improvised.

Some call it madness.

-Sun_Tzu-

Plus, the adrenaline and all that would still be there. You would see the clock and the seconds winding down, and you would know they need to score and they need to score NOW. The anticipation of if they can do it before time runs out is exciting just like not knowing exactly when the game will end.

That baffles me. The clock never stops, so 90 minutes isn't really the end of the game... the refs just add "extra time" to the end and then just stop the game randomly at like 93:37.

It makes no sense to me. Can somebody explain to me how it makes sense and why it is better than simply stopping the clock during certain points in the game and having the game end at 90:00?

BMD004

Just to add another point as to why I think something needs to be done with stoppage time.

With everything that goes on in a football match, it can be very hard for a referee to keep count of when he should and shouldn't be adding time on. Sometimes in the midst of everything he can even forget to press his stopwatch, or whatever he uses to calculate how much stoppage time should be added on. Furthermore stoppage time isn't added on for all the time the ball goes out of play. It is pretty much never added on when there is a goal-kick, a throw-in, a defensive free-kick or a corner, unless the referee believes that the other team is deliberately taking a long time to take it in order to waste time which usually ends up with the person who is time wasting receiving a yellow card. Stoppage time is added when play is paused due to an injury (hence why it is sometimes referred to as injury time); when a substitution is being made; in preparation of an offensive free-kick, penalty or corner; after a goal has been scored; or as I already stated, when the other team is deliberately time wasting. I do not see why for the former list time is not added on. The ball is not in play and the match is not being played, so why isn't the referee adding on that time? It makes very little sense as although the stoppage in play is short, all those stop-starts happens quite a few times throughout the game, so they eventually do build up. They should be added on too. If they were though it would just give more work for the official to do and another unnecessary thing to concentrate on which could lead to him missing something else in play which is important. Another reason as to why my suggested method of how time should run, is better.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]the pitcher needs a few minutes to warm up his arm. if he just goes out there and starts throwing 90+mph without properly warming up, he could seriously f*** up his arm/shoulder.

BMD004

Maybe at the beginning of the game and after a pitcher is taken out of the game and a reliever brought in, but after pitching the previous inning, he is already warmed up.

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

That baffles me. The clock never stops, so 90 minutes isn't really the end of the game... the refs just add "extra time" to the end and then just stop the game randomly at like 93:37.

It makes no sense to me. Can somebody explain to me how it makes sense and why it is better than simply stopping the clock during certain points in the game and having the game end at 90:00?

mems_1224

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="BMD004"]

That baffles me. The clock never stops, so 90 minutes isn't really the end of the game... the refs just add "extra time" to the end and then just stop the game randomly at like 93:37.

It makes no sense to me. Can somebody explain to me how it makes sense and why it is better than simply stopping the clock during certain points in the game and having the game end at 90:00?

iHarlequin

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

the pitcher needs a few minutes to warm up his arm. if he just goes out there and starts throwing 90+mph without properly warming up, he could seriously f*** up his arm/shoulder.

BMD004

Maybe at the beginning of the game and after a pitcher is taken out of the game and a reliever brought in, but after pitching the previous inning, he is already warmed up.

I am not gonna argue about it with you. Based on what I have seen, it is not that required. Why does a reliever who has already been warming up for 20-30 minutes in the bullpen need another 5 minutes after he is called to the mound? All I see is a waste of time.

I hate how in Rugby the 80 minutes is up, the next person to either score or put the ball out of play ends the game. If a team is only winning by a few points, the opposing team only needs to keep the ball in play, get a penalty, kick for goal, win. It seems unfair that after the allocated 80minutes the game can then continue for as long as it wants while the winning team desperatly struggles to win the ball over to kick it out.

On topic, hearing the refs wistle blow every time the balls gone out is very annoying. Think Netball.

Even between plays in American football the clock still runs.

BMD004

I think strides need to be made to make calculating stoppage time more precise, so it's less prone to human error (and corruption, unfortunately), but implementing a stopping clock would introduce an entirely new dynamic into the game of soccer. You would be changing the way the game is played.

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Maybe at the beginning of the game and after a pitcher is taken out of the game and a reliever brought in, but after pitching the previous inning, he is already warmed up.

WhiteKnight77

I am not gonna argue about it with you. Based on what I have seen, it is not that required. Why does a reliever who has already been warming up for 20-30 minutes in the bullpen need another 5 minutes after he is called to the mound? All I see is a waste of time.