Should Soccer Have a Visible Game Clock?
By: Daryl | September 21st, 2009
Plenty of controversy following Sunday’s Manchester derby and Michael Owen’s late late winner for Man Utd. I don’t want to get into the question of whether added time works differently at Old Trafford (and other Big Four stadiums) than it does elsewhere.
We could debate whether the minimum four minutes of added time, plus Bellamy’s goal celebration, plus the substitution, adds up to enough time for Michael Owen to score in the 96th minute. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. But maybe if football had a more visible time-keeping system then we wouldn’t have to debate it in the first place. Yep, this is another one of my wacky proposals. Read on if you dare.
The time-keeping in the beautiful game is anything but. It’s 90 minutes according to the referee’s watch, and then an arbitrary amount of minimum added time at the end of each half, which is again decided by the referee’s watch. And then time added to the added time for stoppages. Again decided by the referee’s watch.
But what happens on the referee’s wrist is for some reason top secret. Like a mini-Las Vegas. He’s the only man who knows when the game is going to end, leaving plenty of room for players, managers, fans, TV viewers, TV pundits, journos, bloggers and commenters to be either confused or angry or both.
Compare this to other sports where the game clock is visible. In American football and basketball for example, the amount of time remaining is writ large for all to see. It’s not just the referees who know how long’s left, it’s players and fans and everyone else too.
Not only is that a more open approach, it also produces great drama. Drama like The Shot, when Michael Jordan scored the game and series winner vs the Cleveland Cavaliers in 1989.
Football has last minute winners, but we miss out on the added tension of physically seeing the game clock running down as the action unfolds. So maybe it’s time for football to have a visible game clock.
One potential problem is that the game clocks in basketball et al usually count down to zero, while football goes from zero to ninety, then added time. So it’s a little more complicated.
But we could still have the referee’s watch linked to a screen, and display it for all to see. Then when addded time comes, we can see the minimum added time, plus we’d see whatever he adds on for stoppages. It’s not perfect, but it would take out the arguments over whether the whistle should already have been blown for full time.
 |
Soccer Forums | Team/International Results |  |
 |  |
Category: World Football
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share
      |
Comments | Add your comment
-
The refs have mouth-pieces. If the 4 minutes of added time was the minimum then right before the end of the 4 minutes, the ref should have notified the fourth official that he would add some more time. The fourth official would then have re-displayed the added time. It is as simple as that.
“Time for the refs to concentrate on applying the rules, let time keepers take over this contentious area, the reason it is contentious is people do feel, as with other things, ALL the big 4 tend to get the benefit in this area particularly when they are seen to be dropping points.” – I totally agree.
Some say that some of the added time was due to City’s third goal celebrations. Fine. When a player delays in taking a goal kick he is shown a yellow card for delaying tactics. If the added time was due to City’s third goal celebrations then City players should have been shown yellow cards.
Some say that both United and City had equal chances of scoring the fourth goal after the 4 minutes of added time elapsed. I disagree because after the 4 minutes of added time elapsed extra added time was only know to the ref. I have seen refs blowing the final whistle seconds before a team they hate takes a penalty.
I have no problem with added time but I need transparency and consistency. Added time for substitutions and goal celebrations? If that’s the case then the Chelsea/Spurs game was supposed to have at least 15 minutes of added time. Whether one team is up 3-0 or the teams are tied, same rules should apply. Whether it’s a “big” game or “small” game if the rules say it is supposed to be a penalty, a penalty should be awarded.
Posted from
United States
-
I have long thought that it would be a relatively simple way to take all the guessing and any chance of fixing out of the equation. The referee would still control the clock, but it would be visible for all to see. It would just require a simple hand signal or something from the referee for time stoppages during the game. It wouldn’t slow the game down, the clock should only be stopping in instances where the referee, theoretically is adding time anyway.
Beyond removing the secrecy and suspicion from timekeeping, I think this could also put a stop to time-wasting tactics. If the referee signals a clock stoppage in the 80th minute when a player — whose team is up by a goal — is rolling around “injured”, the incentive to do that is greatly diminished. In theory the referee should be adding time for this nonsense, but in reality we all know that there is never enough time added on to account for it. A visible game clock, stopped for said behavior, would render it much less effective.
Posted from
United States -
I can see the appeal, add one more official and constant clock-on/off style of timekeeping (although I agree with the EPL Review Show that showed how the City v Utd ref got it right).
But you lose some of the simplicity of the game. At junior/amateur levels, you lose that function, cause you don’t have the equipment. So it only applies to professional games. And then you have to carefully draw lines through the grey areas of all the time wasting tactics: carefully timing everything from rolling around after a foul, waiting on goalkicks or ballboys, players slowing the game by mobbing the referee, and even how long the keeper takes to kick the ball after a save (whole crowds counting to 6). God forbid we ever get time outs. And then, like basketball/NFL, the last 2 minutes of a game takes about 15.
Do we want to go there? Remember, this is a game where the linesmen usually screw up at least one offside per game. Don’t we have more pressing issues than just the latest jump-on-the-ref Issue Of The Week?
Just not convinced it can be done smoothly yet. I’d rather see goal line technology/officials first and then post-match suspensions for diving.
There are more contentious penalties than contentious last second goals.Posted from
United States -
sscouser, the situation wasnt that the city players took too long with the celebrating (it was a pretty average-sized celebration), it was that the celebration added enough time to warrant the extra time being added. the difference with goal kicks is that the ref doesnt stop his watch for them, so he will be more strict with time wasting. he stops his watch after a goal, though, which is why that isn’t a yellow card offence.
Posted from
United States -
In the world, defeats suffered in the time added on for injury leave a more bitter taste than those inflicted in the course of the standard 90 minutes. As well as having to take decisions on technical points of the game, the referee has an enormous responsibility as a time-keeper, with very little room for maneuver. And I happen to know what I’m talking about, having played with the same fire myself once in a World Cup semi-final in 1990 between Italy and Argentina when, for reasons that I still cannot understand but which remain inexcusable, I let the play run on far too long, fortunately however without any effect on the final score.
Some people quote basketball or handball as examples where the clock on the scoreboard can be stopped whenever play is interrupted, but of course this would be impossible at amateur level, where there are already too few officials available as it is. It is no less true that all the tetchy gesticulating that coaches go in for from the bench becomes all the more irritating as the end of each half approaches to let the referee know that time is up – except for the team that is losing. And all the impatient whistling by the fans is yet another form of pressure on the poor old referee.
Recognition is due to Paolo Casarin and his colleagues in Italian refereeing circles who came up with simple solutions to problems complicated by all those human emotions. First, they used stop-watches to determine how much time was lost on average when players had to be treated for injuries that may or may not have been genuine (one minute) or by substitutions (30 seconds) that are intended above all as a way of playing for time. Then they let the fourth official hold up a luminous panel to indicate how many minutes were to be added on to each half to make up for the time lost this way or by deliberate time-wasting and other stoppages.
Gone are those good old days when the referee believed in sending the players off to the dressing-rooms on the stroke of 45 minutes, without taking any risks of adding time on, just at a point in most games when players were tired and emotionally more likely to behave excessively. The new system makes the referee more credible and also enables everyone else to see that he is adding on a minute for each of a couple of injuries plus four substitutions for a further two minutes, making a minimum total additional time of four minutes, which is rarely contested. But it is a shame that the Laws of the Game do not formally impose such a consistent mathematical formula as is already done in several countries, where everyone involved can easily figure out why a specific amount of time is being added on even when time is officially up.
http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/developing/refereeing/news/newsid=81197.htmlSP, if you didn’t have time to ready the entire article, here is the main point: The new system (luminous panel) makes the referee more credible and also enables everyone else to see that he is adding on a minute for each of a couple of injuries plus four substitutions for a further two minutes, making a minimum total additional time of four minutes, which is rarely contested.
Now go back to my earlier comments. Again, I have no problem with added time but I need transparency and consistency.
Posted from
United States -
I thought the moderator was going to do the editing for me. Supposed to be “….read the entire article”
FIFA LAWS OF THE GAME
LAW 7 – THE DURATION OF THE MATCHAllowance for Time Lost
Allowance is made in either period for all time lost through:
• substitution(s)
• assessment of injury to players
• removal of injured players from the field of play for treatment
• wasting time (including goal kick)
• any other cause (including goal kick)
The allowance for time lost is at the discretion of the referee.The refs have two much power. BTW, how much do the PL refs get paid? I may need to change my profession.
Posted from
United States -
“And I happen to know what I’m talking about, having played with the same fire myself once in a World Cup semi-final in 1990 between Italy and Argentina when, for reasons that I still cannot understand but which remain inexcusable, I let the play run on far too long, fortunately however without any effect on the final score.”
sscouser, are you telling us that you are French referee Michel Vautrot? I call BS here.
Posted from
United Kingdom -
And regarding the scoreboards, I am personally against anything which may Americanise the sport. The stop-start nature of American football / Basketball are what necessitates transparency in the timing. I don’t feel it would add any tension, and claiming that there is none using the present system is just not true.
Posted from
United Kingdom -
Martin, my comments were preceded by an article from FIFA website. I even gave you a link. Sometimes it is very important to read all preceding comments and articles before expressing one’s opinion.
You call BS here and you hate anything that may Americanize the sport? No wonder Blatter is against Instant Video Replay.
Posted from
United States -
If you think a Clock is a great idea, you should watch an NCAA game sometime. The last minutes is the worst crap soccer ever to be shown on a field. Just hacking and kicking the ball away to save the scoreline.
I’ve watched more than a few NCAA final games come down to that silly crap at the end of the match, doesn’t matter how many fouls the ref calls, the players have done their job and wasted enough time to save their game.
Posted from
United States -
“The refs have two much power. BTW, how much do the PL refs get paid? I may need to change my profession”
It’s a great job….but if you’re over 24 you’re probably too old to make it to the MLS. Making it there will take years and years of the hardest most thankless work you’ll ever do. You’ll get abused, assaulted, threatened, spat upon and loathed for pittance.
You wanna make money, Ump Softball or try for American Football.
Posted from
United States -
no, i wouldn’t change it….the “visible” clock is why you have such painfully obvious time wasting in American sports…can anyone think of anything more unsporting than the practice of running the clock out by kneeling in American football.. (for a bunch of tough guys what a pussy ass way to close out a win) ….or in basketball where they had to add a shot clock so that they couldn’t run “four corners.” The MLS tried a “visible clock” when it first started and if FAILED SPECTACULARLY (how quickly some forget)….those games were horrible….the last few mins were spent just booting the ball as far into the stands as possible since they KNEW how much time was left…with the current system you can’t do that because the referee may add more time so you play out that time honestly.
Posted from
United States -
The systems fine the way it is. Players and coaches already know when they enter extra time. Why should one team be disadvantaged by the other just wasting time with fake injuries and irrelevant subs? The whole point of extra time is to makeup for time wasted during the first 90 minutes. The referee keeping that last x minutes of time and adjusting for time wasting is how it should stay.
Posted from
United States -
sscouser…Ok I’ve read your comments but there is no way I’m reading that article as well. Just because you have posted a link written by that same ref that’s doesn’t mean its you.
Are you or claiming to be Michel Vautrot or not?
Posted from
United Kingdom -
martin, I ‘plead’ no contest. lol!
Ben, sometimes extra time is added before the end of the first half. So if the ref already added 2 minutes to the first 45 minutes he doesn’t need to add it again to the second 45 minutes.
Posted from
United States -
We don’t think we should have a clock in soccer.
Posted from
United States -
Just to clarify: I wasn’t proposing a replica of the basketball countdown clock.
I’m proposing the exact same system of timing as we have now, but with the referee’s calculations made visible for all to see.
So if there are four minutes of added time announced, and then there’s a substitution or a goal celebration and the ref has to add another 30 seconds, we’d see that time get added and know how long was left.
Posted from
United States -
I am with you Daryl 100%. Somebody said that nobody cares about transparency. It seems we do.
Posted from
United States -
I’ve looked at the article. You should really use quotation marks, that’s what they’re there for.
Posted from
United Kingdom -
Son, it is not always a must to put quotation marks. If you have copied and pasted the entire article all you need to do is to put the source at the end.
“Omit quotation marks around long direct quotations, unless the direct quotation is a quote within a quote, and then use double quotation marks”
Posted from
United States -
Hmm…this almost sounds like gasp! what NCAA soccer already does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_soccer
Posted from
United States -
Maybe that would be the case within a larger document yes but you gave absolutely no indication that you were quoting anything. I don’t know where you got this latest quotation from, but I am guessing that the writer was not talking about a website comment box. Since you didn’t format the text to indicate a quotation the marks are completely necessary. Or at least saying “the following is taken from an article…” How else is anyone supposed to know? People put links in their posts all the time.
Posted from
United Kingdom -
1) “You gave absolutely no indication that you were quoting anything” – martin
That’s why before you comment you have to read up to the end. (“Play to the whistle”). I gave you the link.
2) “I am guessing that the writer was not talking about a website comment box” – martin
I am glad that you are agreeing with me that this is a comment box and not a research paper. By the way, is your name martin or Martin?
3) “Since you didn’t format the text to indicate a quotation the marks are completely necessary” – martin
Try to format the text of your comments and see if they will appear formatted.
Also try this in the comment box:
“Quotations of more than four lines (even four lines and one word) of prose or three lines of verse must be set off. Skip an extra half-line, indent one full inch on the left margin. Follow the quotation with a parenthetical citation on the next line (either on the right margin or just where the line above ends — either is acceptable, but be consistent), skip an extra half-line, and resume the paragraph without indenting. Note: If you have set your word processor to automatically indent after hitting the return button, you must manually remove the indent after every long quotation. This may be done in MSWord simply by backspacing over it, or by making a change under Paragraph in the Format pull-down menu.”
http://classweb.gmu.edu/rnanian/quote&cite.html4) “Or at least saying ‘the following is taken from an article…’ “ – martin
One can choose to state that at the beginning or at the end of the article. Here is an example: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4498060 Did you want ESPN to precede the article (report) by stating the following: “Information from The Associated Press was used in this report we are about to share with you” ?.
5) “People put links in their posts all the time.” – martin
I decided to copy and paste the entire article because I have noticed that some people don’t have the time to click on the link(s). No wonder they give un-informed opinions.
If you still got “beef”
either with me or my comments then shoot me an email: sscouser@gmail.comPosted from
United States -
1) “You gave absolutely no indication that you were quoting anything” – martin
That’s why before you comment you have to read up to the end. (“Play to the whistle”). I gave you the link.
2) “I don’t know where you got this latest quotation”
Time is money. I spent time looking for that quote and you want me to state the source as well for free? Please don’t be lazy. Please google or something.
3) “I am guessing that the writer was not talking about a website comment box” – martin
I am glad that you are agreeing with me that this is a comment box and not a research paper. By the way, is your name martin or Martin?
4) “Since you didn’t format the text to indicate a quotation the marks are completely necessary” – martin
Try to format the text of your comments and see if they will appear formatted.
Also try this in the comment box:
“Quotations of more than four lines (even four lines and one word) of prose or three lines of verse must be set off. Skip an extra half-line, indent one full inch on the left margin. Follow the quotation with a parenthetical citation on the next line (either on the right margin or just where the line above ends — either is acceptable, but be consistent), skip an extra half-line, and resume the paragraph without indenting. Note: If you have set your word processor to automatically indent after hitting the return button, you must manually remove the indent after every long quotation. This may be done in MSWord simply by backspacing over it, or by making a change under Paragraph in the Format pull-down menu.”
http://classweb.gmu.edu/rnanian/quote&cite.html5) “Or at least saying ‘the following is taken from an article…’ “ – martin
One can choose to state that at the beginning or at the end of the article. Here is an example: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4498060 Did you want ESPN to precede the article (report) by stating the following: “Information from The Associated Press was used in this report we are about to share with you” ?.
6) “People put links in their posts all the time.” – martin
I decided to copy and paste the entire article because I have noticed that some people don’t have the time to click on the link(s). No wonder they give un-informed opinions.
If you still got “beef” either with me or my comments then shoot me an email: sscouser@gmail.com
Posted from
United States -
I’m bored of this now
But for the record you can use HTML within your comments for formatting.Posted from
United Kingdom
Read the rest of the comments
Leave a Reply
If you have not commented here before, please take a moment to peruse ourCommenting Guidelines.
Home 
