Vague is fine. There is no clock-beating plays as the ref will always wait for a "fair" moment of play to end the game. Soccer just isn't a clock-based sport like basketball or football.
What constitutes a "fair" moment? I'll just end the game whenever I want! There have been goals scored during injury time. If the amount of injury time is arbitrary, the ref is deciding who wins. Call the people who do the F1 clocks and get it right.
Fair was in scare quotes for a reason. I mean to say that there is never a ball about to be kicked into the opposite goal that isn't counted because a buzzer sounds.
Of all the things wrong with soccer, I don't think the clock is anything worth worry about. Human judgment on when to stop play is fine, human judgment on if a guy tripped 50 yards away is not.
Fair was in scare quotes for a reason. I mean to say that there is never a ball about to be kicked into the opposite goal that isn't counted because a buzzer sounds.
Of all the things wrong with soccer, I don't think the clock is anything worth worry about. Human judgment on when to stop play is fine, human judgment on if a guy tripped 50 yards away is not.
The game should be precisely X minutes. If some games are longer, and some are shorter, then not all games are equal. Having a goal not count because you didn't kick it soon enough is more fair. Sure, maybe you scored 2 goals, but it's not about how many you can score. It's about how many you can score in this period of time. And you were too slow, so you lose.
That is fine if the rules allow for the clock to be stopped for any reason. It isn't about how many you can score in a set time, it's about how many each team can score in the exact same time. The time is "fair" for both teams in the same game.
That is fine if the rules allow for the clock to be stopped for any reason. It isn't about how many you can score in a set time, it's about how many each team can score in the exact same time. The time is "fair" for both teams in the same game.
But as part of a tournament it is unfair if one game is longer or shorter than another. All games in the same league must be the same length.
Besides, gridiron/American/whatever you want to call it football already has that problem solved. The play continues even if the clock runs out until the ball is ruled dead by tackle, incompletion, run out of bounds, turnover, etc. In the case of soccer, when the clock runs out just consider the ball live until it's touched by any player except in the case of being deflected by the goalie into his own goal as part of a failed save attempt. Basically, as long as you take your shot before the whistle blows and it doesn't touch anyone other than the goalie, it's good.
I'm no defender of soccer (I really don't enjoy it at all) but the one thing I don't like about football is the team ahead running out the clock. It's just pathetic. Teams that are ahead in soccer can try to do that, but it's still possible for the other team to try to score. Unlike football, where they are just going through the motions.
I thought you said you dislike games that continue beyond the point when a winner is known?
I'm no defender of soccer (I really don't enjoy it at all) but the one thing I don't like about football is the team ahead running out the clock. It's just pathetic. Teams that are ahead in soccer can try to do that, but it's still possible for the other team to try to score. Unlike football, where they are just going through the motions.
I thought you said you dislike games that continue beyond the point when a winner is known?
Running out the clock in handegg doesn't take very long at all. You kneel down a few times, and that's it. They could and should have a rule that if a team could possibly run out the clock at the end of either half, they can elect to do so, and have the game end immediately. I suspect the extra TV commercial break is the reason they do not do this.
Even so, it is worth having the kneel down, because in exchange you get all that end of game clock management drama. If the losing team is behind by one or two scores near the end of the game, they start to do crazy exciting and suspenseful things like onsides kicks, going for it on fourth down, last second field goals, hail mary throws, etc. There is also a lot of strategy involved with teams using their time outs appropriately. If a team loses one during a challenge, and they really needed it to win a game, that's a big deal.
If the game ended "when it's fair" you wouldn't see people trying to do crazy shit at the last second. Even in basketball they try to shoot from beyond half-court, and sometimes it goes in. In soccer they just sort of play it out. I'd much rather see them frantically trying to score with long distance shots at the very end.
I also enjoy all of that, but at the moment that isn't part of the game, and the only way to make it part of the game would be to allow a way to stop the clock. Soccer isn't about clock management in that way, and I don't think making it so would improve the game at all.
Allowing the ref to decide what is fair in terms of clock management works in other sports. Tennis is a good example. There are rules about how long you can wait before serving, but on hot days, or in strong wind, the umpire is allowed to be lax with it. The players are fine with this. The game is better for it, I think.
They could and should have a rule that if a team could possibly run out the clock at the end of either half, they can elect to do so, and have the game end immediately. I suspect the extra TV commercial break is the reason they do not do this.
Actually, there is a simpler reason than just TV commercial breaks for this. By making the team that can run out the clock actually snap the ball, it still gives the other team a small chance of getting it back as they could screw up the snap and fumble the ball. In fact, Tampa Bay tried to take advantage of this several times this year by attempting to force a fumble in those situations. It's considered poor sportsmanship to do so, but it's perfectly legal within the rules. Also, once upon a time, the kneel down was discouraged in the NFL (and it's illegal to this day in some minor leagues such as the Arena Football League) and the team with possession often ran real plays. There was a famous incident between the Giants and the Eagles where the Giants had the lead and possession at the end of the game, fumbled a hand-off on a running play, and the Eagles recovered, scored a touchdown on the recovery, and ended up winning. It wasn't until after this incident that the kneel down was considered a legitimate time killing play.
Allowing the ref to decide what is fair in terms of clock management works in other sports. Tennis is a good example. There are rules about how long you can wait before serving, but on hot days, or in strong wind, the umpire is allowed to be lax with it. The players are fine with this. The game is better for it, I think.
Tennis doesn't have a fixed clock, however. It's a game decided by "first to score so many points wins." Any clock management in tennis is purely a case of making sure the game flows, either for the entertainment of the spectators or to make sure that an exhausted competitor doesn't take excessively long breaks between serves just to catch his/her breath. Baseball also has similar rules for how long you can take to warm up a pitcher between innings, pauses between pitches, and so on, but likewise has no fixed clock as the game duration is set by a maximum of 27 outs per team in regulation and 3 outs per team in extra innings, if necessary, with the additional rule that if the home team is ahead and only has 3 outs or less left to it, it doesn't have to play those final outs.
Soccer, on the other hand, does actually have a fixed clock (90 minutes plus injury/stoppage time). Injury/stoppage time is a bit vague, but in theory it's just time lost due to stopping the game (as the name implies) due to injury, a badly kicked ball going into the stands, and so on. Otherwise, the clock should be running continuously during the entire game. Now there is some fuzziness as to how long stoppage time is and should be because the referee is the only person on the field who actually has the official time, but at some level the game is supposed to play with a fixed clock. If a game actually has a fixed clock, then it should abide by said fixed clock and not just allow anyone to make an arbitrary decision as to when the game is over or not.
I guess I've never seen soccer as having a fixed clock. That would mean it was fixed. But it is flexible. By design. I don't see the decision as arbitrary, just subjective. If a team is making a break towards the goal, and the seconds counted down to zero, and the ref blew the whistle just before a shot on goal, it would spoil the end of the game.
The only way to fix this would be to have a clock visible to everyone, and a clock each end behind the goals, so the players can keep up. This would change the game totally.
Now, I don't mind the game totally changing, but there is something to be said for any two teams with three refs being able to play association football. The idea to bring in a fourth official and video review would make top level games fairer, but the basic game would be the same. Introducing clocks would only be possible for monied clubs, leagues or tournaments, and the extra technology would create two very different rules sets.
Using technology to make a single game fairer is fine, but using technology to create a totally new game to the exclusion of those who don't have access to that technology isn't so good.
Yes, it is true. If you have fancy rules that require clocks and technology it will make it so that the professional game is not the exact same thing as the amateur game. But why do so many people, especially soccer lovers, view this as such a big problem? It's not a problem at all!
NFL football and college football are not identical. High school football is different from that. And pee-wee football is different again. College, NHL, AHL, and Olympic hockey are not identical either. Minor league, major league, and little league baseball are all very different. NBA, olympic, and NCAA basketball are all different from each other. Nobody gives a fuck. Not one person is complaining or upset that the little league baseball isn't identical to the major league baseball. In fact, if you tried to make them identical you would create some really big problems. The kind of problems that soccer already has because they do insist on keeping them identical.
Clocks aren't expensive. Even the elementary school I went to had a big score board with a clock that had one second precision. I hope anyone playing semi-serious soccer can afford a few clocks. It will probably cost less than the goals and balls, which are also sort of essential.
There is a precedent in other sports to have fewer officials at the lower/minor levels than at the highest levels. I don't see why soccer should be any different. Even in Major League Baseball, regular season games only have 4 officials on field, but the playoffs get two more in the outfield when it's extra-important to get things right. Lower level baseball games may only have one or two officials. So yeah, when it comes to elementary school level games, stick with three refs. When you get up to something like the World Cup or UEFA Champions' League or something, then you'd better well get more officials on the field (at least 7, based on the number used to cover the slightly smaller NFL field, plus a video review official off the field). There's no excuse not to. It certainly won't affect the way the game is played in any meaningful manner. Let the "head" ref still be the time keeper and make the decisions with respect to the clock as well as having veto power over the others (much like an NFL officiating team's crew chief/referee), but the "assistants" can be in better positions to judge things such as goals, fouls, and so on.
You may have a valid point concerning clocks, although I don't think the cost is a major issue. It's not like clocks are that expensive for any sort of organized league. When I played organized basketball as a kid, we had proper, albeit portable, clocks for all our games. There is a kids' football league that has a field not far from my house now that also has portable clocks for their games.
As far as the whole "whistle blowing ending a break on goal" issue, then use a rule similar to the NFL -- the clock may be zero, but the game doesn't end until the ball is dead or turned over to the other team. This gives the team with possession a chance to accomplish its final break on goal with the game only ending if the ball goes into the goal, out of bounds, or a player on the opposing team manages to gain possession of the ball. To be fair, this is probably just codifying what any sane soccer ref would probably do anyway.
It's moot, really. Soccer won't change, because the existing fans like particular aspects of it that the rest of us don't. This will effectively limit it's maximal interested among USians (who for whatever reason care more about these aspects than other parts of the world, and who independently of this have an entire "world" of intra-national sports). A common theme I've seen in people I know is a progression along the lines of:
Ignore soccer > learn about soccer > interested in soccer > start watching soccer > learn more rules of soccer > see a bunch of dives > lose interest in soccer.
I can easily see soccer overshadowing baseball and hockey in the long run in the US, but probably not ever even coming close to handegg. Us USians like our polished, heavily officiated, technology-assisted sports.
Soccer has enough fanbase to never change, and will limit its US fanbase for this very reason. My opinion won't matter, so I simply don't watch soccer.
Yeah, I know all that. I've no problem with different rules for different games.
However, if FIFA isn't going to allow goal-line technology or video review, there's no way they are going to allow play clocks with time outs and all the changes that would bring. It's just not going to happen.
Clocks in soccer is a solution looking for a problem. Video review and goal-line technology is a solution to many, many problems.
For example, this:
The only people who complain about refs letting the game go on are snide comments about Manchester United always getting a few more minutes at home if the team is behind.
I'm not arguing that FIFA needs play clocks and timeouts and whatnot. That's overkill. Just a single game clock like hockey should be sufficient. Timeouts aren't necessary, and I'm pretty sure NHL hockey didn't even always have timeouts, though they always had game clocks.
Fun fact: the name "football" dates to ancestral proto ball games played in ye olde England. Back then, there were basically only two ball games, one played on horseback which evolved into polo and one played on foot, which was obviously called "football." The whole "football" name came from being played on foot as opposed to being on horseback. This eventually split into Association Football, AKA soccer with "soccer" being an abbreviation of "association" and a proto-rugby which evolved into modern rugby, gridiron football, and all the other various non-soccer football games out there. Sorry to be pedantic, but I had to contribute this when I saw gridiron football (for lack of a better distinguishing term for it) referred to as "handegg."
What I would LOVE is for there to be a shot-clock like in basketball. You have to make a shot on target every minute, or else possession goes to the opposition's goal keeper. That would make soccer awesome!
But it's not going to happen. It would be a totally different game, and not what anyone but me wants. I'll be happy with the sports I do enjoy watching, like tennis and football, and sports I like to play, like three club combat.
I agree with you that a shot clock would make soccer, well, not soccer. It'll be a soccer-derivative, sure, much like how gridiron football, rugby, Australian rules football, Celtic football, and so on are all derivatives of proto-rugby. Not that there's anything wrong with that -- especially since we have so many proto-rugby derivatives doing well in the world already anyway.
The thing is, I do like watching soccer to an extent. I was raised with it, my dad bought me a soccer ball as a baby much like the stereotypical American dad might buy his baby son a baseball glove, and my dad even played semi-pro soccer before he was drafted into the army and then moved to the US. This is why it maddens me when I see so much potential in the game, but see so much brokenness to it. Especially since fixing the brokenness wouldn't require any sort of radical change in the game IMHO -- just the small tweaks I've already mentioned.
As much as USians seem to not like soccer, MLS attendance is actually way way up. It's a legit league now. In the US it seems it will probably be bigger than the non-lockout NHL, if it isn't already. It could very well be bigger than MLB and NBA in our lifetimes in terms of average attendance, even if it lacks TV ratings.
Not that surprising if you think that soccer is probably the most popular participant sport in the US. All those kids who play soccer now are also watching the pros and when they grow up, they'll probably continue to watch them.
Not that surprising if you think that soccer is probably the most popular participant sport in the US. All those kids who play soccer now are also watching the pros and when they grow up, they'll probably continue to watch them.
Well, I think the MLS real problem is that it doesn't have the best players in the world. So even though there may be lots of soccer fans in the US who go to their games in person, they are going to watch Premiere League, UEFA, World Cup, Champions League, etc. on television.
As a live event, it's actually really good value. You know how long the game will last, and there's constant action, or at least not a lot of down time. I've only been to one professional baseball game, and if I wasn't with friends I would have needed a book to keep me entertained between plays. The video screens telling us all to cheer certainly didn't do anything for me.
The thing that makes it such a great game to watch with a crowd, with the ebb and flow making the energy rise and fall, is the same thing that makes it difficult for American TV networks. There are just not many advertising slots.
Well, I think the MLS real problem is that it doesn't have the best players in the world. So even though there may be lots of soccer fans in the US who go to their games in person, they are going to watch Premiere League, UEFA, World Cup, Champions League, etc. on television.
That is a huge problem. Their style of play isn't always all that exciting either, at least to some people. My dad, being from Portugal, was a huge soccer fan (sadly, he passed away a few years ago). One year, I treated/accompanied him to a soccer double-header featuring the women's Boston Breakers followed by the men's New England Revolution at the then brand new Gillette Stadium as a Father's Day present. My dad had been watching Portuguese soccer for years, and the Portuguese soccer style is very dynamic and heavily based on offense, much like the Brazilian style. The American style, on the other hand, he felt was quite dull and much more defensive, more like the German style. He actually preferred the women's game over the men's game as it was, in his opinion, much more entertaining to watch and much closer to his preferred style of soccer.
Baseball is a wonderful game to watch/listen to in the background. I really can only focus on watching a game during the playoffs... and I'm a huge Red Sox fan. Any other time and it's just not that interesting to me.
I have to agree with Rym in that my favorites of the major sports to watch are hockey and gridiron football. Baseball, like its nickname of "America's pastime" implies, is just something good to have in the background while I'm busy with other stuff.
I used to be much more interested in basketball when I was a kid, but the style of play just isn't what it used to be and I lost interest. There's much less teamwork and much more individual showmanship and I think the game is suffering as a result. Basically, unless it's the late round playoffs with my home team, the Boston Celtics, playing or the NCAA basketball tournament with all its craziness, I just can't get myself interested enough to watch it.
Basketball is the worst to watch, in person or on TV, but it is the best to play. Even in the Michael Jordan days when basketball was huge I would play a lot, and barely even watched. I know I did watch some, but I have almost no memories. I think I remember one slam dunk contest. Meanwhile, I have lots of very specific memories of handegg, baseball, and hockey.
I enjoy attending baseball games not for the sport itself, but for the atmosphere and culture surrounding the event. It can be a great way to spend time chatting and hanging out with friends.
I enjoy attending baseball games not for the sport itself, but for the atmosphere and culture surrounding the event. It can be a great way to spend time chatting and hanging out with friends.
I used to enjoy it in that capacity, but now I'd rather do that same thing with the same people in a park.
I'm only cheering for New England tonight because I want the Niners to lose.
I find the trick plays done by Seattle to be hilarious. A lot of people are calling it "klassy". I say, U MAD? If anything it's if the 49ers and Seahawks tie at the end of the season.
I'm also all for Russell Wilson getting Rookie of the Year.
Comments
Of all the things wrong with soccer, I don't think the clock is anything worth worry about. Human judgment on when to stop play is fine, human judgment on if a guy tripped 50 yards away is not.
I thought you said you dislike games that continue beyond the point when a winner is known?
Even so, it is worth having the kneel down, because in exchange you get all that end of game clock management drama. If the losing team is behind by one or two scores near the end of the game, they start to do crazy exciting and suspenseful things like onsides kicks, going for it on fourth down, last second field goals, hail mary throws, etc. There is also a lot of strategy involved with teams using their time outs appropriately. If a team loses one during a challenge, and they really needed it to win a game, that's a big deal.
If the game ended "when it's fair" you wouldn't see people trying to do crazy shit at the last second. Even in basketball they try to shoot from beyond half-court, and sometimes it goes in. In soccer they just sort of play it out. I'd much rather see them frantically trying to score with long distance shots at the very end.
Allowing the ref to decide what is fair in terms of clock management works in other sports. Tennis is a good example. There are rules about how long you can wait before serving, but on hot days, or in strong wind, the umpire is allowed to be lax with it. The players are fine with this. The game is better for it, I think.
Soccer, on the other hand, does actually have a fixed clock (90 minutes plus injury/stoppage time). Injury/stoppage time is a bit vague, but in theory it's just time lost due to stopping the game (as the name implies) due to injury, a badly kicked ball going into the stands, and so on. Otherwise, the clock should be running continuously during the entire game. Now there is some fuzziness as to how long stoppage time is and should be because the referee is the only person on the field who actually has the official time, but at some level the game is supposed to play with a fixed clock. If a game actually has a fixed clock, then it should abide by said fixed clock and not just allow anyone to make an arbitrary decision as to when the game is over or not.
The only way to fix this would be to have a clock visible to everyone, and a clock each end behind the goals, so the players can keep up. This would change the game totally.
Now, I don't mind the game totally changing, but there is something to be said for any two teams with three refs being able to play association football. The idea to bring in a fourth official and video review would make top level games fairer, but the basic game would be the same. Introducing clocks would only be possible for monied clubs, leagues or tournaments, and the extra technology would create two very different rules sets.
Using technology to make a single game fairer is fine, but using technology to create a totally new game to the exclusion of those who don't have access to that technology isn't so good.
NFL football and college football are not identical. High school football is different from that. And pee-wee football is different again. College, NHL, AHL, and Olympic hockey are not identical either. Minor league, major league, and little league baseball are all very different. NBA, olympic, and NCAA basketball are all different from each other. Nobody gives a fuck. Not one person is complaining or upset that the little league baseball isn't identical to the major league baseball. In fact, if you tried to make them identical you would create some really big problems. The kind of problems that soccer already has because they do insist on keeping them identical.
Clocks aren't expensive. Even the elementary school I went to had a big score board with a clock that had one second precision. I hope anyone playing semi-serious soccer can afford a few clocks. It will probably cost less than the goals and balls, which are also sort of essential.
You may have a valid point concerning clocks, although I don't think the cost is a major issue. It's not like clocks are that expensive for any sort of organized league. When I played organized basketball as a kid, we had proper, albeit portable, clocks for all our games. There is a kids' football league that has a field not far from my house now that also has portable clocks for their games.
As far as the whole "whistle blowing ending a break on goal" issue, then use a rule similar to the NFL -- the clock may be zero, but the game doesn't end until the ball is dead or turned over to the other team. This gives the team with possession a chance to accomplish its final break on goal with the game only ending if the ball goes into the goal, out of bounds, or a player on the opposing team manages to gain possession of the ball. To be fair, this is probably just codifying what any sane soccer ref would probably do anyway.
Ignore soccer > learn about soccer > interested in soccer > start watching soccer > learn more rules of soccer > see a bunch of dives > lose interest in soccer.
I can easily see soccer overshadowing baseball and hockey in the long run in the US, but probably not ever even coming close to handegg. Us USians like our polished, heavily officiated, technology-assisted sports.
Soccer has enough fanbase to never change, and will limit its US fanbase for this very reason. My opinion won't matter, so I simply don't watch soccer.
However, if FIFA isn't going to allow goal-line technology or video review, there's no way they are going to allow play clocks with time outs and all the changes that would bring. It's just not going to happen.
Clocks in soccer is a solution looking for a problem. Video review and goal-line technology is a solution to many, many problems.
For example, this:
The only people who complain about refs letting the game go on are snide comments about Manchester United always getting a few more minutes at home if the team is behind.
Fun fact: the name "football" dates to ancestral proto ball games played in ye olde England. Back then, there were basically only two ball games, one played on horseback which evolved into polo and one played on foot, which was obviously called "football." The whole "football" name came from being played on foot as opposed to being on horseback. This eventually split into Association Football, AKA soccer with "soccer" being an abbreviation of "association" and a proto-rugby which evolved into modern rugby, gridiron football, and all the other various non-soccer football games out there. Sorry to be pedantic, but I had to contribute this when I saw gridiron football (for lack of a better distinguishing term for it) referred to as "handegg."
What I would LOVE is for there to be a shot-clock like in basketball. You have to make a shot on target every minute, or else possession goes to the opposition's goal keeper. That would make soccer awesome!
But it's not going to happen. It would be a totally different game, and not what anyone but me wants. I'll be happy with the sports I do enjoy watching, like tennis and football, and sports I like to play, like three club combat.
The thing is, I do like watching soccer to an extent. I was raised with it, my dad bought me a soccer ball as a baby much like the stereotypical American dad might buy his baby son a baseball glove, and my dad even played semi-pro soccer before he was drafted into the army and then moved to the US. This is why it maddens me when I see so much potential in the game, but see so much brokenness to it. Especially since fixing the brokenness wouldn't require any sort of radical change in the game IMHO -- just the small tweaks I've already mentioned.
http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2012/10/30/mls-sets-new-attendance-marks-second-straight-year
As a live event, it's actually really good value. You know how long the game will last, and there's constant action, or at least not a lot of down time. I've only been to one professional baseball game, and if I wasn't with friends I would have needed a book to keep me entertained between plays. The video screens telling us all to cheer certainly didn't do anything for me.
The thing that makes it such a great game to watch with a crowd, with the ebb and flow making the energy rise and fall, is the same thing that makes it difficult for American TV networks. There are just not many advertising slots.
I really only enjoy (of the major sports) hockey and handegg.
I have to agree with Rym in that my favorites of the major sports to watch are hockey and gridiron football. Baseball, like its nickname of "America's pastime" implies, is just something good to have in the background while I'm busy with other stuff.
I used to be much more interested in basketball when I was a kid, but the style of play just isn't what it used to be and I lost interest. There's much less teamwork and much more individual showmanship and I think the game is suffering as a result. Basically, unless it's the late round playoffs with my home team, the Boston Celtics, playing or the NCAA basketball tournament with all its craziness, I just can't get myself interested enough to watch it.
I find the trick plays done by Seattle to be hilarious. A lot of people are calling it "klassy". I say, U MAD? If anything it's if the 49ers and Seahawks tie at the end of the season.
I'm also all for Russell Wilson getting Rookie of the Year.