Here's a question that not a single soccerfag has not been able to answer beyond a rattled, high-pitched "muh tradishun", "muh beautiful gaem" or similar:
Why, whenever play stops, do you not simply stop the clock as well? We've had the requisite technology for decades and "stoppage time" is a comically-sloppy fix whose only purpose seems to be conceding that the clock should have been stopped earlier. Actually fixing this problem would discourage stalling and lead to more exciting endgames. Almost every other timed sport uses this model and it results in some of the most exhilarating moments in all of sport (e.g. a buzzer-beater to invert a 1-point lead in basketball).
So, FIFAcucks, why don't they just stop the clock in soccer?
Fuck you thats why
Why don't you stop the cock in your mom's poophole?
>>66927644
>So, FIFAcucks, why don't they just stop the clock in soccer?
Because the game would take much longer. I actually measured it a couple of times and the usual stoppage in play amounts to 25-40 minutes
To allow for the game to continue without interruption. If you stopped the clock you would get the same shit you have in the NFL and NBA with endless garbage commercials every 5 minutes. I hope this never happens.
>>66927867
Aside from this.
In basketball or football you can get a last second score from one play with a few seconds, but you can't just build an attack with a few seconds. So the game ends when the last goal scoring opportunity ends
>>66927867
Then what's the point of adding 2-5 minutes of stoppage time? It's just a woefully inadequate way of fixing things.
>>66927900
But the game is already being interrupted, it's just that the interruption isn't reflected in the timekeeping
>>66927790
Thanks for the insight britfriend
>>66927900
the clock in lacrosse stops and starts and its runs really fast.
>>66928012
well yeah, but if it weren't possible to waste 2 of the final 5 minutes of the game by clearing out-of-bounds repeatedly then there would be many more last-second attacks
>>66927644
>So, FIFAcucks, why don't they just stop the clock in soccer?
Because football it's a real sport, not like handegg
Because momentum is a thing in football. Stopping the time in between would lead to bullshit like in american sports, showing adds during the game and fucking up fluid play.
>>66929340
but anon, play stops when the ball goes out of bounds, or after a goal or penalty, right? Do you think letting the clock run during these times has any impact on the action on the field?
Just the way things are and will continue to be.
>>66929522
Yes.
>he never saw a striker grab the ball out of the goal and run to the centre because his team was chasing a lead
>>66929555
but why does it have to be that way? how is the game enhanced when players have to hustle outside of normal play to perform actions that should be performed by officials?
>>66930092
Because there is something appealing about a merciless clock ticking down.
>>66927644
as someone that enjoys watching american sports with stopping clocks and soccer, i think there are good parts of either.
but the way that the game is shaped around stopping the clock like in basketball totally ruins watching the game. similarly, whining about there being 2.2 or 1.8 seconds left and having to replay a clip 100 times to figure it out is a pain in the fucking ass and just ruins the end of games frequently.
>>66930126
sure, that annoys me about basketball too, but hockey is mechanically a lot more similar and doesn't seem to have this problem
>>66930103
so in other words you like that intentionally stalling the game out by faking injury or clearing the ball into the stands is competitively beneficial? Players shouldn't be penalized for outside-the-game stuff like resetting the ball that they have no control over
A lot of throw ins and free kicks are literally like 2 seconds, it would be ridiculous to keep stopping and starting the clock.
Because part of the "beautiful game" is time wasting tactics and diving anon
>>66930582
well if you think that natural "flow of the game of stuff" doesn't apply, that's one thing, but how does that principle also apply to goals or injuries, which consistently take a while to resolve while the clock ticks and no football actually occurs?
>>66930626
Well that's the stuff the ref adds time on for. 30 seconds per goal and then he stops his watch on subs and injuries.
The thing you have to understand is that a few decades ago there were no subs, injuries were very rare and never embellished, yellow and red cards were unusual events, goal celebrations were a bit more restrained and set pieces nowhere near as rehearsed. So injury time was virtually nil as the ball going out of play was just part of the momentum of the game.
The game may have changed but the appetite for stopping the clock has never developed. A lot of people would probably say it's 'too American'. Americanisation of sport is not a popular proposition.
>>66930873
That makes a lot more sense, I hadn't considered the historical evolution. Maybe if a WC final or something gets tarnished because a player writhes around clutching his ankle for 3 of the last 4 minutes people will start to notice the competitive moral hazard
>>66927900
>If you stopped the clock you would get the same shit you have in the NFL and NBA with endless garbage commercials every 5 minutes
No you wouldn't. The clock stops in rugby and there aren't adverts every 5 mins
>>66931023
Exactly, ad breaks have nothing to do with clock stoppages and everything to do with play stoppages
>>66930594
>hurr durr diving
>>66927644
>Why, whenever play stops, do you not simply stop the clock as well?
Because Europeans aren't aware of stop-watch technology.
>>66927867
>25-40 minutes
Then, why isn't stoppage time equal to that?
Why doesn't one team just stop time and score a goal when the other team are frozen?
It happens all the time in my Japanese special interest movies.
It would be a dull affair, and would not be meaningful enough in the big picture.
Would pander to advertisement breaks, and stoppages, people in and out of seats, constant movements all over stadia.
Would no longer be a match of 90 minutes, but an event taking place on said day starting at said time.
Would get rid of all the excitement and tension of added time, and the speculation of said added time (being 1 - 0 up and seeing the linesman adding 5 minutes is a horrible feeling.)
Would destroy SSN as all games typically start at the same time and finish at the same time give or take a few minutes, including general broadcasting.
Ultimately, football is not made to be played in bursts, or quarters or even halves. There's only a half time to swap ends for fair, and for a break and tactical decisions which can alter a game, and at 15 thats more than enough. Football is supposed to be flowing from kick off to the minute the ref blows the whistle, and you play your football for those 90 minutes.
Any proper stoppage in play kills mommentum, kills fluidity, and kills a general aesthetic that has been involved in football since its early formation, a rule change on timing would be the most retarded of all.
A NBA game can change within two possessions of play after a break, where as a goal in football is way more significant, but a lot harder to achieve. Low scoring sports like football are supposed to be thrilling due to the difficulty in scoring a goal, and the difficulty of defending your goal.
Try the NFL without any stoppages, roll on the offence after a score etc, it would be so much more fun for casuals and non-yanks to watch, but like hell would they be able to do it. There are not many yank sports where possessions involve defending at the same time as attacking, baseball no, NFL, no, Ice Hockey has the possibility but 5 on 4s etc kill all sense of level playing fields.
>>66928034
>Then what's the point of adding 2-5 minutes of stoppage time? It's just a woefully inadequate way of fixing things.
>American education
>>66929202
I love you Chile..
>Unrelated image
>"muh muh muh"
>"cuck lmao"
>Flag
WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL REPLYING?
>>66942009
But people can do all of those things already, it's just that the clock keeps running while people replace the ball or tend to an injured (or "injured") player.
I agree that TV advertisement breaks would be bad for the flow of the game but that's really an unrelated policy on the league's part that would probably not happen since it would be anathema to the fanbase
Tf
Tp
>>66927644
There's nothing wrong with the present system, why change?
>>66927644
What's "soccer"?
>>66944428
An irrelevant sport that third worlders like to watch
>>66944428
it's like rugby but toned down so women can play too
>>66942057
it's very crude since it's rounded to the minute, and it doesn't account for stoppage that takes place *during* the stoppage time itself
>>66944428
A term the British invented yet won't own up to.
>>66927644
Because the game would take 4 hours. Players would want to rest. TV would want to show commercials. Coaches would want "timeouts".
Fuck you and your shit sports, americucks.
>all the mental gymnastics ITT
kek. love it. there's no reasonable rebuttal to this.
Why even time the game to begin with? Just use the sun and moon or some equally stupid shit like having a clock, but not using it.
Grade 8 ref reporting. I may be the only person ITT actually qualified to answer this. There is no reason, it's fucking stupid and outdated. It defies logic. You are correct about "muh tradishun" being the only response to this asinine way to run a game.
>try to "fix" soccer
When you have a sport where you can't even use your hands, you know it's beyond repair, senpai.
>>66928034
I think they put on the 2-5 minutes to create that "They only have X amount of minutes AND THEY'RE ON THE ATTACK" AGGGUUUEEEEERRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
TLDR; Soundbites for Match of The Day
american football would be better if they didnt stop the clock, i hate how if one team is clearly going to win they all just stop playing with 1 or sometimes 2 minutes to go and the game just completely dies off
if they kept the clock going that would never happen and the fucking thing wouldnt take 5 hours
>>66946842
>>66930929
If time wasting goes on in injury time, the ref just adds it on again. Everyone knows he will do this.
>>66948088
>>66948167
The problem is you don't understand the sport. Football is popular because of the art behind it, not the science. Unpredictability rather than certainty, intuitive counter attacks rather than playbooks. People don't want to get anal about timing it.
It's the same reason behind the reluctance of referees using tv replays. It would eradicate a lot of the natural drama.
>>66950356
>if one team is clearly going to win they all just stop playing with 1 or sometimes 2 minutes to go and the game just completely dies off
as if this doesn't happen in every sport that uses a clock
>>66950505
Actually what makes more of a difference is that a majority of association football games end either drawn or won by a margin of one goal. So in most games the result can still change with only a few seconds left.
I doubt that's the case in many other sports.
>>66950768
It's quite common in other codes of football (randomly checked week 13 games from the NFL last year, 9 out of 16 ended with a margin of 7 points or less) as well as ice hockey, and not that unusual in basketball
There is a bit of a problem in American football where it's much easier to retain possession, so there's literally nothing a defense can do to wrest the ball from you in only 2 minutes, but that's much more tightly wound into the spirit of the game than timekeeping procedure
>>66950419
>natural drama
*bad calls
Guys, learn the fucking rules of the game.
Normally, no time is added on for the ball going out of play. Here are the rules from the FA on stoppage time:
>Many stoppages in play are entirely natural (e.g. throw-ins, goal kicks). An allowance is to be made only when these delays are excessive.
>The fourth official indicates the minimum additional time decided by the referee at the end of the final minute of each period of play.
>The announcement of the additional time does not indicate the exact amount of time left in the match. The time may be increased if the referee considers it appropriate but never reduced.
>The referee must not compensate for a timekeeping error during the first half by increasing or reducing the length of the second half.
source: http://www.thefa.com/~/media/files/pdf/the%20fa%202015-16/laws-of-the-game-2015-16.ashx
In other words, the ball just going out of play doesn't count as stoppage. It's really to cover for things like fouls and penalties. In reality in these situations maybe the clock should be stopped. But it would be annoying to stop the clock sometimes, and not other times.
>>66951269
Oh and to follow this up, here are the reasons to make allowances:
Allowance is made in either period for all time lost through:
• substitutions
• assessment of injury to players
• removal of injured players from the field of play for treatment
• wasting time
• any other cause
The allowance for time lost is at the discretion of the referee
>>66927644
Because that would be an american-tier retarded thing to do.
>>66951269
>But it would be annoying to stop the clock sometimes, and not other times.
That's seriously the lamest reason not to do something that would make the game objectively fairer
>>66952174
>make the game objectively fairer
Nobody cares. Jog on yank.
>>66948184
t. Ann Coulter
cause germans are cucks
>>66943068
lol poor berber bastard, only voice of reason in the thread
>>66927867
>25-40 minutes
You are telling porkies and people are buying them
>>66948184
Is this really how retarded Americans are
"Foot"ball is irrepairable...
Because you can't use your "hands"...
I dont know much about soccer so I wont argue for your point. I will say this about stopages in time though. Teams have a chance to meet with the coach and form a strategy based on the situation they are in. It allows plays like Stan Van Gundy's "form a fucking wall" and football coaches to adjust a defense/offense based on the situation.
>>66927644
In England its mainly because it interferes too much with the 'game' and this is sacrilege according to english media living in the past.
I kind of agree, it does kill momentum. They have it in Rugby League and there is way too much interference from the ref, they end up sometimes ruining the match too many times to mention thinking they're the star of the show
because the game would take lot longer
players would die for fatigue if they had to play 120 min games every three days
The entire sport was built with poverty in mind. Literally every rule facet of the game, every rule, and every tradition is a direct result of this. Why isn't time kept precisely? Because when a group of euros get together to play, they just say "oi let's play for like an hour and a half or whatever" and then they just kick a ball around and try to get it between two sticks lying on the ground.
