Hacker News Reader

Comment by nemo44x | Hacker News Reader

> Unfortunately, it's a part of the game due to football's insistence on using a running clock, which makes zero sense from a competitive aspect and needs to be changed

Can anyone explain why this is, either than historic reasons like "it's the way it has always been done."? It seems a bit odd in today's world that they don't have a clock that everyone can see and the ref having the ability to signal to stop and start it.

And perhaps it's just accepted but I've often found it strange too that in extra-time the ref will usually let play continue through the time while a team is on the attack and only ending the game after the defense has killed the threat. It seems like a lot of discretion for a single person, the ref, to have.

View on HN

From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_football#Duration_...

> Added time was introduced because of an incident which happened in 1891 during a match between Stoke and Aston Villa. Trailing 1–0 and with just two minutes remaining, Stoke were awarded a penalty. Villa's goalkeeper kicked the ball out of the ground, and by the time the ball had been recovered, the 90 minutes had elapsed and the game was over

If you didn't let the ref continue the game to their discretion it would make time-wasting tactics even worse. At least now if a team is adjudged to be taking the piss with the timewasting the ref can just mentally tack another minute or two onto the game. It's good that there isn't a "hard stop" that will end the game even if an attack is in full flow.

Right but what I’m saying is why can’t the ref just stop the clock with a hand signal when the ball isn’t in play and restart it when it is? Every other sport with a clock that I’m aware of does this.

Well I guess my question would be are those sports really better for it?

Anyone who has watched the fourth quarter of an American football game will know how paramount clock management is to that sport. Even more infuriating (for me) is basketball where the losing team is constantly stopping the clock with fouls to prevent the winning team from running down the final seconds... the last "minute" of the game can feel like an eternity.

At least soccer's timekeeping has the benefit of being simple. It works the same way whether a match is being played in the park or in a huge stadium. Personally I prefer it to having a clock that stops and starts like other sports have.

I think that's an apples to oranges comparison though. Clock management is part of the game in basketball and American football - teams are given timeouts and use tactics to stop the clock so they can setup a new play. In soccer, this doesn't exist and with an official clock that everyone could see and that the ref starts and stops (like they assumingely do today) the game would play like it does today. Just that the clock stops and restarts would be visible to everyone.

For instance, the ref wouldn't have to stop the clock for basic throw-ins, setting up corners, etc as that's part of the game. So long as it's done in a timely manner. But for flops/injuries, setting up bookings, substitutions, etc they could stop the clock and restart it when action resumes as they do privately today.

It just feels like having a single person secretly control the clock and make what appears to be arbitrary calls as to how much time is added and when play is officially over is odd.

I guess my point is the game could be played exactaly as it is today but there would be transparency on the game clock. The game isn't that tied to tradition using VAR after all.

> Even more infuriating (for me) is basketball

The fact that a foul stops the clock isn't really the problem. The problem is the cost/benefit in that scenario favors stopping play with the intentional foul. Remember that the only reason stopping the clock even helps is because the foul (essentially) ends the opponent's possession. With a slightly different penalty (like a free throw but they keep the ball) that strategy is no longer viable.

> Well I guess my question would be are those sports really better for it?

Depends on your definition of better. Better for simplicity? I suppose. Better for entertainment? Arguable. Better for competition? No.

Right now, the rules incentivize time wasting. If you're up goal in the 85th minute, you should fake an injury or take 30 seconds for a goal kick because it improves your chances of winning. Other sports have solved this decades ago because of how flawed it is. Hell, even tennis, a sport that doesn't utilize a clock, added a serve clock due to players attempting to waste time to their benefit.

> At least now if a team is adjudged to be taking the piss with the timewasting the ref can just mentally tack another minute or two onto the game.

But anyone who regularly watches football knows that stoppage time is ridiculously inconsistent. A half can have 3 goals and VAR reviews and only have 4 minutes of stoppage time. Then within those 4 minutes, the winning team will take 30 seconds per goal kick and then the ref will blow time at 4 minutes on the dot.

Again, it makes zero sense from a competitive aspect.

A starting and stopping clock is one of the things I absolutely can't stand about American football. Games last entirely too long because of it. One of the things I like most about soccer is that games start and end quickly, and I can do other things with the evening. When I was a student in Europe I could meet up with some friends at a bar after class and be home in time for dinner.

It’s definitely been considered but football has some entrenched traditions and this change would be hard to get through. I don’t think fans would want it.

The rules state that the referee should add on any wasted time at the end, but it rarely seems to happen particularly accurately.

Agreed but VAR is a thing abd I don’t hear too much griping over it. Then again it is used sparingly.

FIFA is currently trialing a 30:00 half with a countdown clock that stops when play is interrupted. Along with that throwins would become kickins, teams have unlimited substitutions, a yellow card would result in a five minute penalty similar to hockey, and the ability to self-kick (dribble) on set pieces.

The trials took place at the end of July this year at a youth tournament.

You can read a bit more about it at https://theathletic.com/2730341/2021/07/27/the-future-of-foo... if you have a subscription.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com