I believe some discussed having extra officials as time-keepers. My impression was that meant starting and stopping the scoreboard time for stoppages.
Which really, as I mentioned before, only the center referee has enough of the necessary data to make decisions on adding time.
If they meant a scoreboard showing the running time then we already have that in stadiums. (Also watches and cell phones 
)
Maybe I dont totally understand?
To be fair, soccer doesn’t seem to have a well defined definition of what constitutes “a play” the way gridiron football does.
That’s why I think the whole idea of leaving it up to a ref keeping time in their head might arouse suspicion in someone not familiar with the game. What if the ref favors one side, and adds or subtracts time to help their preferred side? My guess is that in reality this isn’t an issue, or we would have heard about it by now.
Having extra time keepers wouldn’t requiring stopping the clock. Why would it? Let’s say there are 3 officials who are there who we allow to have input on overage time - two on the field, one in the VAR booth. When a penalty/injury/etc. occur, they each tap on their phone/watch/device that they are adding X seconds to the game. Officially, the average of those times is added. You can put it up on the board or not - I think that’s a different issue.
I believe you know exactly what others want - for there to be a visible running tally of what the overage is as the game progresses. It would add to the transparency of potential officiating bias.
It could cause riots. No need for it.
And
I was just offering both choices while asking which you meant. As i said, i wasnt totally clear on your post. Probably my fault.
Thank you for such a reasoned and logical response. 
You really don’t understand the distinction between a clock showing how much time has elapsed since the start of the game, and a clock accurately showing exactly how much time, down to the second, remains in the game?
What I find puzzling is your assertion that only the referee on the field can possibly be in a position to judge when a team is wasting time. If a team is taking 45 seconds to get a routine throw-in off, what information does the ref have that anyone watching the game in Uzbekistan doesn’t have?
I know it used to be widely believed that Premier League refs would favor Alex Ferguson’s Manchester United teams by giving more or less stoppage time depending on whether United were leading. But in general, I don’t think that’s a common concern. Certainly there are lots of other ways crooked officials could hypothetically affect the outcome of a game.
The referee is in charge. He/she is the final arbiter. There are constant little judgements to be made. These are not the sort of things you have votes on.
Why have addition people doing the same job the ref is already doing? Do you think the ref cant hack it?
No, I think that it would slightly add to the fans’ enjoyment of the game. As has been pointed out, every other timed sport has chosen to use such large, easily visible time clocks counting down. Seems to me that the only real reason soccer doesn’t is that its rules were codified before those clocks were invented.
Nor do the umpires.
In AFL the ball is in play for 20 mins per quarter. A quarter may last upward of 30 mins in lapsed time.
Whenever the ball goes out of play or play is stopped by the umpires who signal this by a whistle and the timekeepers stop the clock. Time played is restarted when the players touch the ball after the umpire throws/bounces the ball up.
I disagree. I am under the impression that soccer/football doesn’t have a visible clock that counts down and the half ends immediately when the time reaches zero because pretty much everybody likes the “let the referee decide when a half ends” method the way it is.
I am assuming that the clock that counts down is the “official time remaining,” as opposed to the referee adding time when it reaches zero. In fact, when MLS first started, the clock did run from 45 minutes to zero, but they kept playing until the referee blew the whistle to end the half. (“The version I heard was,” they switched to the traditional “start at zero and count up” method because, at the time, most of the fans were fans of Mexican soccer, where they do it this way.)
Also note that USA university level (NCAA et al.) matches do use the scoreboard as the official clock, and the half ends when it gets to zero - in fact, to get the point across, the PA announcer has to count down the final ten seconds.
The reason it’s done that way in soccer is that’s how it’s done in soccer. Why do you play exactly 9 innings in baseball with 3 outs, and not two innings with a larger number of outs like in cricket? Why don’t we play basketball until one team scores a certain number of points, and have that be the goal of the game, like in tennis or volleyball? Why shouldn’t we score golf by whoever takes the least elapsed time to play their round, like in an athletics race, regardless of the number of shots they take?
Just because some sports do things one way doesn’t mean other sports have to do them that way.
Tbh, this is the first time I considered that others simply want an additional number that adds up the overages (which would then probably be added as stoppage time). It seems to me that a lot of people want something similar to American Football or Basketball where there is an official timekeeper and the center ref signals when they want the clock to stop and when it should start again - and the scoreboard stops and starts based on that.
I would guess that the percentage of people who HATE soccer in the USA is highest (by some orders of magnitude) than any other country in the world.
You say this as if there haven’t been rule changes. The changed the rule about passing back to the goalie in living memory, they changed the rule about goal kicks in the last couple of years.
And, the time-keeping rule was clearly modified for this World Cup, with much more added time in each game than we’ve come to expect.
“This is the way we’ve always done it” is a poor rationale for not making things better.
Experiments with timed ball-in-play games are already underway and I’ll be very interested in seeing the conclusions from them.
But fuck taking commercial breaks.
American gridiron football has taken obsession with the play clock to a ridiculous (imho) extreme, with referees on the field tweaking the public clock by a few seconds multiple times per game, and coaches and commentators arguing about distinctions of a few seconds. Here’s hoping that association football doesn’t go this route.
I think this is an unwritten rule though. I recall a game in the recent World Cup when the ref ended the game as a team was about to take a free kick (or a corner) and there was a bit of brouhaha about it.
It was one of South Korea’s matches and the manager went through the roof protesting. I was a little surprised at the call to end it, too.
IIRC, this is a fairly recent innovation (the last 20 years or so). Before the advent of the electronic boards, the fans (and possibly players) didn’t have any idea how many minutes of stoppage time there would be. Am I misremembering?
Thinking about it, I have to agree that having a visible clock in stadiums or TV inserts showing the time left in a soccer game is the first step on the road to perdition, i.e. commercial breaks.
Non-corporate traditions must be maintained. We can’t have money corrupt the purity of a match between Qatar Airways and Fly Emirates.