What would you think if the soccer gods decided that, instead of the current system of counting up from 0:00 and stopping at 45:00 and 90:00 (plus stoppage time), the opposite took place, and the clock counted down, as it does in hockey or basketball? Further, assume that the clock was actually, you know, stopped, for stoppage time, and resumed when play resumed?
From where I sit, this gives the fans precise information about when the game/half is going to end, rather than having to rely on the ref’s discretion combined with the ambiguity of “five minutes of stoppage time.”
I don’t see this as fundamentally altering the game.
The main reason that I don’t want the clock management to be out of the hands of the ref, and in the hands of an official timekeeper, is that will most likely lead to the introduction of commercial breaks during the half. Gee, the clock is stopped, can we go to a commercial and restart when the commercial is over?
Didn’t MLS try this in its first season (although I don’t remember if the half ended at 0:00, or if they added injury time anyway)? IIRC, the reason MLS got rid of it was, its fanbase consisted of “traditional” soccer fans who were used to the count-up clock.
The main advantage to not having a countdown clock with a required end at zero is, there is never a problem with having to determine if a last-second shot was entirely across the goal line before the clock reached zero.
I don’t understand the compulsion we Americans have to make everything “more American” (and that’s pretty much how always see these arguments; same with, hey, how about some soccer rules that will result in more scoring?). When I consider the sport of soccer, I personally don’t care that there’s a count-down clock in basketball and football because - and here’s the thing … basketball and football aren’t soccer. Chrissakes, baseball doesn’t have a clock at all and I’m fine with that too.
Eh… I don’t see enough of a benefit for changing it. Yes, fans may know better as to when the half or game will end, but that’s not necessarily that big of a deal. Maybe we can have the official’s watch synced to the stadium clock, but I’d rather not have home team timekeepers decide when to stop and start the clock.
And I think that mcgato’s fear is well placed. When a time clock can be seen to be officially stopped, there may indeed be a push to (re-)introduce commercials.
I don’t know that it makes that much sense, to be honest. A game like basketball, with several small times, sure, but there’s no real interest in a sports clock counting down for 45 minutes.
Maybe the extra time could go for that to add some excitement, but fast last-second plays aren’t really that common in soccer.
I hate to say this, but the IFAB is considering “count-down” clocks (clocks stopped when ball out of play).
I have one rule for proposed law changes in soccer: if they can be implemented at the most primitive local level, and will improve the game, then they are fine. Else, they should be avoided. The best part of soccer is that the laws as they exist can be used by the most basic, simple leagues anywhere in the world, so that the kids in rural America, or rural Kenya are playing essentially the same game the pros play in the World Cup.
Which, of course, cannot easily be said about clocks with stoppages. So, no, I don’t like the idea. And I’ve never understood the opposition to count-up clocks.
The clock is still in the hands of the ref, it is just that now they need to explicitly tell everyone when they are adding time and for how long.
I can see why there is a fear this would lead to commercials, but with the unpredictability of stoppages and the non-zero chance of having no stoppages, I don’t know if that is a realistic concern.
At least at the HS level, the ref is still controlling the clock and if the stadium clock gets out of sync with the ref watch, the ref will have the stadium clock adjusted.
I’m not interested in seeing the sport more “Americanized” per se. But the ambiguity kind of bothers me. In close matches (or in cases where the number of goals matters, win or lose), the last seconds can be critical. In this case, I think, it makes sense for the fans to know how much time is left.
As an example, I present this recent goal, by Orlando City, made in stoppage time. Knowing precisely how much time was left on the clock would have made it that much more dramatic for the fans, IMHO.
Also, what with wireless technology, can the ref not manipulate the stadium clock from where he stands? Doesn’t seem like too big of a deal to me.
I remember this being an issue in an NFL game some years ago. Somehow, the stadium clocks and the refs’ clocks were out of sync, and the head ref turned on his mic and told the scoreboard operator to turn the stadium clocks off. “It’s confusing the players. We’ll keep time one the field.”
I see no reason why it can’t work. In Rugby the clock is in the hands of the ref. He stops and starts it as he sees fit and when the 40 or 80 minutes are up, a hooter sounds and everyone knows that the next stoppage of play is the end.
It can work very easily as the amateur level as well, no fancy stadium clock required, all that needs to be decided are the circumstances under which the clock stops and the ability for the ref to tell the teams when there is 20, 10, 5 minutes to go etc.
As for the benefit? it stops time-wasting at a stroke.
I’m all in favor of it. I think it would heighten the drama as the clock ticks down 00:30…00:29…00:28…and one team is still desperately hunting for that equalizing goal.
In my experience, the half or full time has been called many times immediately following the repulsion of an attack, or immediately following a goal, far more often than chance would dictate. This has led to my opinion that the entire reason for the time-keeping system is so that referees don’t actively stop a fruitful attack that might be 5 seconds from finishing when earlier in the game there were numerous things that slowed the game down by a few seconds. Seems too socialist for Americans I suppose.
Exactly. During the course of 90 min. of play (or 45 if you prefer to think of each half separately), there are numerous reasons a referee could be willing to add time at the end of the half. It’s not a precision thing. As a general rule, referees are now pretty good about not going overboard on added time, since the approximate amount of added time has to be shown to the crowd at the expiration of normal time. The bad old days of endless added time just long enough for the winning/tying goal to be scored are gone.
If zero on the clock means the half is over (i.e. referee doesn’t have discretion) then you’d get some comedy moments of defenders trying to twat the ball 70 yards and the opposition defence all on the goal line to cover the long shot.
Seems a bit silly compared to the equivalents in football and basketball.
That doesn’t happen in college or high school games that use a clock that counts down.
I’m not sure how it would happen either. Defenders keep their eye on the clock, half paying attention to their mark, and when the clock hits 20s sprint back to the goal line? I think it’d always be more advantageous to pressure the offense. Otherwise they just advance the ball while the defense scrambles back to the line.
Are those games played on a full-size pitch?
I dunno, as a defender I think if the ball is nowhere near our goal, but the opposition has the ball, and the timer is counting 5…4…3 I might be inclined to go to the goal, expecting a super long shot.
But I’ll take your word for it that it doesn’t happen.
Still seems weird compared to basketball say. In basketball, you can try a long shot, and all anyone can do is watch to see whether it goes in. In soccer, you’d not only be doing a hail mary shot, but also hoping the keeper hasn’t noticed the clock, and is still off his line.