Two soccer questions

[RChildress107]

Stoppage time is fine. It mitigates time wasting tactics to a degree and ensures that the clock doesn't present an unfair advantage to a team with the lead. It also doesn't cut off an attack arbitrarily at the end of the game. Given the relatively few scoring plays in soccer the difference of a couple minutes in either direction isn't going to make much of a difference in tactics or the result of the game.

In Basketball or football on the other hand an arbitrary time limit pretty much has to be imposed given the frequency of the scoring.

There's a point where awarding to much or too little extra time becomes an egregious deviation from the 45 minutes of each half but I'd imagine such instances are rare.

 

[BarcaDeac]

Agreed. Right now one of the main things I am enjoying about watching soccer is the lack of stoppage in play.

it's also nice for watching. during a regular season club match or WC group stage you're looking at a tidy 2 hrs of time give or take. makes it easy to negotiate with the wife (though she's actually gotten pretty into the WC). like the Nats game went to 16 innings last night, they were about to have Adam LaRoche pitch in the bottom of the 16th if they were still tied. that's ridiculous.

 

[SDeacz]

Stoppage time is fine. It mitigates time wasting tactics to a degree and ensures that the clock doesn't present an unfair advantage to a team with the lead. It also doesn't cut off an attack arbitrarily at the end of the game. Given the relatively few scoring plays in soccer the difference of a couple minutes in either direction isn't going to make much of a difference in tactics or the result of the game.

In Basketball or football on the other hand an arbitrary time limit pretty much has to be imposed given the frequency of the scoring.

There's a point where awarding to much or too little extra time becomes an egregious deviation from the 45 minutes of each half but I'd imagine such instances are rare.

Not arguing against stoppage time. Saying it should be more accurate.

 

[SDeacz]

it's also nice for watching. during a regular season club match or WC group stage you're looking at a tidy 2 hrs of time give or take. makes it easy to negotiate with the wife (though she's actually gotten pretty into the WC). like the Nats game went to 16 innings last night, they were about to have Adam LaRoche pitch in the bottom of the 16th if they were still tied. that's ridiculous.

BUT THERE WAS A WINNER!!!!

 

[WFUtoUSC]

Stoppage time is fine. It mitigates time wasting tactics to a degree and ensures that the clock doesn't present an unfair advantage to a team with the lead. It also doesn't cut off an attack arbitrarily at the end of the game. Given the relatively few scoring plays in soccer the difference of a couple minutes in either direction isn't going to make much of a difference in tactics or the result of the game.

In Basketball or football on the other hand an arbitrary time limit pretty much has to be imposed given the frequency of the scoring.

There's a point where awarding to much or too little extra time becomes an egregious deviation from the 45 minutes of each half but I'd imagine such instances are rare.

Not arguing against stoppage time. Saying it should be more accurate.

Right, I think stoppage time is a good thing, but if you're going to mitigate time wasting tactics, why not do it in direct proportion to the time wasted?

 

[PhDeac]

Agreed. Right now one of the main things I am enjoying about watching soccer is the lack of stoppage in play.

Same here. You know almost exactly when the game will end.

 

[qcdeac]

Stoppage time is fine. It mitigates time wasting tactics to a degree and ensures that the clock doesn't present an unfair advantage to a team with the lead. It also doesn't cut off an attack arbitrarily at the end of the game. Given the relatively few scoring plays in soccer the difference of a couple minutes in either direction isn't going to make much of a difference in tactics or the result of the game.

In Basketball or football on the other hand an arbitrary time limit pretty much has to be imposed given the frequency of the scoring.

There's a point where awarding to much or too little extra time becomes an egregious deviation from the 45 minutes of each half but I'd imagine such instances are rare.

Can you explain this part? As I understand it, if there is +4 stoppage time, somewhere between 4:00 and 4:59 is left in the half. I assumed that time was set and didn't have wiggle room. Seems like that is ripe for abuse if only 1 ref has the time (sorry the HBO feature last night about fixed games is creeping in to my thinking.)

 

[RChildress107]

I'm not really sure what you gain by making it more accurate. It's meant to be approximate for a reason. The differences between natural stoppages of play (setting up for a corner kick or throw in) and delays of game (injuries, goals, taking an inordinate amount of time to restart play) aren't bright lines.

It also allows the game to end naturally, with the clearance of an attack (or absence of one altogether). If we make it exact, so that the amount of live action is exactly 45 minutes, what's the excuse for going beyond that 45 minutes, regardless of what's going on in the game. Is it fair for a team with the lead to have to defend an attack a second over 45 minutes?

Just don't really see what it would add to the game.

 

[RChildress107]

Can you explain this part? As I understand it, if there is +4 stoppage time, somewhere between 4:00 and 4:59 is left in the half. I assumed that time was set and didn't have wiggle room. Seems like that is ripe for abuse if only 1 ref has the time (sorry the HBO feature last night about fixed games is creeping in to my thinking.)

I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure if at 94:50 the ball is played into the box and a team is in scoring position the referee will let the attack play out and wait to blow the whistle until the attack is cleared even if the clock has drifted past 95:00.

 

[PhDeac]

Yes agreed. There have been 2 goals in stoppage play so far that may have decided who Is going to the next round. I love the fact I get to watch a whole half of soccer without TV timeouts. Much like the Stanley Cup, which has I think 1 TV timeout during a period, it makes it very enjoyable to watch from a fan perspective. But if I'm on the field, the ref isn't enforcing me sitting down for 30 seconds with an injury in stoppage play. The time can get added on, but doesn't. Seems so ridiculous.

If Zusi hadn't taken so long to sub out, Portugal probably doesn't get that last chance. Time wasting was enforced.

 

[qcdeac]

It's meant to be approximate for a reason.......
It also allows the game to end naturally, with the clearance of an attack (or absence of one altogether).

I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure if at 94:50 the ball is played into the box and a team is in scoring position the referee will let the attack play out and wait to blow the whistle until the attack is cleared even if the clock has drifted past 95:00.

Thanks for the info. The vagueness of it bothered me a little, but that rationale makes sense to me.

Do love the lack of stoppage in play and knowing when a game will end within a few minutes. Also explains why the beginning of the 2nd half of Italy-Uruguay looked like the 2nd half kickoff at Panther Stadium with all the empty seats. There is no other time to take a piss other than halftime. Stands filled up quickly though.

 

[SDeacz]

If Zusi hadn't taken so long to sub out, Portugal probably doesn't get that last chance. Time wasting was enforced.

well. If Bradley had cleared ball to corner.. If Johnson had sprinted back on D. If Beasley had tackled Ronaldo. If Howard had predicted a Right footed cross and punches ball away. If Cameron had looked over his shoulder. If Ronaldo hadn't played a perfect ball for the first time in the game.

If zusi had been faster subbing out, you could also say the attack would have come sooner. So they don't add on an extra minute, and they score goal at 93:30 instead of 94:30

 

[SDeacz]

So the rule is. If you don't waste much time, the half will be 46:00-47:00 minutes. If you waste a lot of time the half will be 48:00-50:00. Even if you waste 10:00, the ref won't add on more than 5:00.

But. In the event one team is attacking, the ref will allow the attack to play out, even if those seconds weren't "earned" by stoppages in play. So a soccer half is anywhere between 46:00-50:00 minutes. Depending on if there is an attack?

I'm fine with the current setup. But I don't understand 1) allowing an attack to play out, and 2)why there is a limit on stoppage time when every game is different.

 

[deacvision7]

Can you explain this part? As I understand it, if there is +4 stoppage time, somewhere between 4:00 and 4:59 is left in the half. I assumed that time was set and didn't have wiggle room. Seems like that is ripe for abuse if only 1 ref has the time (sorry the HBO feature last night about fixed games is creeping in to my thinking.)

The time shows on the board is a "minimum of X minutes" number. Let's say the ref puts 4 minutes up on the board; that isn't saying, "there will be 4 minutes of stoppage time played plus a few seconds." It is only saying, "there will be a minimum of 4 minutes added on."

Goals in stoppage time should add 45 seconds to the clock. Subs? 30 seconds. This is all at the referee's discretion, however.

I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure if at 94:50 the ball is played into the box and a team is in scoring position the referee will let the attack play out and wait to blow the whistle until the attack is cleared even if the clock has drifted past 95:00.

The final whistle cannot (or, should not, at least) be blown while the ball is out of play. Referees can blow the final whistle if a cross is coming in or a shot has been taken, but it is pretty understood that they should not do that under any circumstances.

If Zusi hadn't taken so long to sub out, Portugal probably doesn't get that last chance. Time wasting was enforced.

Pretty sure this is 100% false. The time added on had already been decided by the time the Zusi substitution had been made -- he subbed off in the 90th min., and that time added on was 5 minutes. And again, that means a minimum of 5 minutes. Ronaldo's cross came in at like 94:30 or somewhere around that mark (and no chance I'm looking back at the footage to relive that moment just to see the exact time.)

My main complaint with the refereeing and the time there was that the final whistle was blown nearly immediately after we kicked off, even though 45 seconds should have been added on due to a goal in stoppage time. We had started a nice little move down our right side when the whistle blew and who knows if we could have put in a goal as a counter-punch? Poor mistake by the referee to not add on the time in stoppage to reflect the goal.

 

[deacvision7]

So the rule is. If you don't waste much time, the half will be 46:00-47:00 minutes. If you waste a lot of time the half will be 48:00-50:00. Even if you waste 10:00, the ref won't add on more than 5:00.

But. In the event one team is attacking, the ref will allow the attack to play out, even if those seconds weren't "earned" by stoppages in play. So a soccer half is anywhere between 46:00-50:00 minutes. Depending on if there is an attack?

I'm fine with the current setup. But I don't understand 1) allowing an attack to play out, and 2)why there is a limit on stoppage time when every game is different.

I've seen over 6 minutes of stoppage time added on without any major injuries, so I don't think there is a limit on time added on at all.

I've seen 10 minutes added on when there was a serious injury during the match that required serious medical attention.

 

[SDeacz]

I've seen over 6 minutes of stoppage time added on without any major injuries, so I don't think there is a limit on time added on at all.

I've seen 10 minutes added on when there was a serious injury during the match that required serious medical attention.

I don't know exactly. but I'm pretty sure some of these games deserved more than 6 minutes. And none have had over 5:00. Maybe its more strict in Club soccer.

Does added time include throw ins, corner kicks, goal kicks? Only if the player seems like they are milking the clock? What is the time limit for when a player is milking versus genuinely setting up for the kick? Does anyone know?

 

[deacvision7]

I don't know exactly. but I'm pretty sure some of these games deserved more than 6 minutes. And none have had over 5:00. Maybe its more strict in Club soccer.

Does added time include throw ins, corner kicks, goal kicks? Only if the player seems like they are milking the clock? What is the time limit for when a player is milking versus genuinely setting up for the kick? Does anyone know?

Up to the referee's discretion. He can, and will, issue a yellow card for time wasting and that would definitely add time on to the end of the match.

All normal plays out of bounds, such as the ones you mentioned, don't really take much time for a restart, so probably your normal 2 minutes of stoppage covers them all. Lots of subs, cards, and goals will get you up to 3-5 minutes pretty easily. I will admit it takes a lot of extras for more than 5 minutes to be issued, but I'm just saying it does happen and there is no rule against it happening.

 

[RChildress107]

The time shows on the board is a "minimum of X minutes" number. Let's say the ref puts 4 minutes up on the board; that isn't saying, "there will be 4 minutes of stoppage time played plus a few seconds." It is only saying, "there will be a minimum of 4 minutes added on."

Goals in stoppage time should add 45 seconds to the clock. Subs? 30 seconds. This is all at the referee's discretion, however.



The final whistle cannot (or, should not, at least) be blown while the ball is out of play. Referees can blow the final whistle if a cross is coming in or a shot has been taken, but it is pretty understood that they should not do that under any circumstances.



Pretty sure this is 100% false. The time added on had already been decided by the time the Zusi substitution had been made -- he subbed off in the 90th min., and that time added on was 5 minutes. And again, that means a minimum of 5 minutes. Ronaldo's cross came in at like 94:30 or somewhere around that mark (and no chance I'm looking back at the footage to relive that moment just to see the exact time.)

My main complaint with the refereeing and the time there was that the final whistle was blown nearly immediately after we kicked off, even though 45 seconds should have been added on due to a goal in stoppage time. We had started a nice little move down our right side when the whistle blew and who knows if we could have put in a goal as a counter-punch? Poor mistake by the referee to not add on the time in stoppage to reflect the goal.

I was wondering about that. I just assumed the 5 minutes was a maximum. Hopefully we take care of business tomorrow and it becomes an afterthought.

 

[deacfan78]

RJ would be screaming for a ban if the same was said to him.

I am willing to take a bullet and test this theory.

 

[iodeac]

Same here. You know almost exactly when the game will end.

Compare this with the NFL for example. Almost every dead ball is a commercial, it's gotten ridiculous. I love knowing that soccer guarantees you at least 45 minutes of uninterrupted play, although it sucks sometimes when you're trying to keep up with a message board thread and need to pause the game.