a game in need of a clock
bring in a clock that everyone can see and stop time.
shareNo. Keep that Yank shit away.
share2 things you will never hear a Yank say after a game:
- "That's bullshit, the referee didn't give enough injury time."
- "That's bullshit, the referee gave too much injury time.
It makes no sense for the clock to keep going. It gives the referee too much power to control a game. Allowing time to continue isn't even stopping people from purposely wasting time.
It gives the referee too much power to control a game
He is the ref, who else is supposed to be controlling the game?
He keeps a rough track of time and it gets added on, somtimes its a lot and sometimes it isn't. No real issue tbh share
No one is supposed to be controlling it. A referee is supposed to make calls to ensure they abide by the rulebook.
I saw a Premier League game this year that had 4 goals in the opening half and there was 1 minute injury time. Are they really telling me that each goal was scored, the team celebrated and the ball was brought back to centre in 15 seconds?
No one is supposed to be controlling it. A referee is supposed to make calls to ensure they abide by the rulebook.
So in control. Got it
I saw a Premier League game this year that had 4 goals in the opening half and there was 1 minute injury time
Were there any subs or injuries. No. Then thats why it was a min.
The clock doesn't stop for throw ins, celebrations, freekicks or anything like that share
Yeah, but I said that they have too much power to control the game. It's an easy way for a referee to play favourites for a team.
The clock doesn't stop for throw ins, celebrations, freekicks or anything like that
Of course they do. Why do you think you see teams who are down score a goal and quickly take the ball out of the net? They want to score another one before it reaches the end of injury time. share
Yeah, but I said that they have too much power to control the game
Thats because they are the ref.
It's an easy way for a referee to play favourites for a team.
You cannot ref a team from which you are born or support. So unless you are trying to say that the refs are corrupt then no they don't. Time is added on quite evenly in all games.
Of course they do
It doesn't
Why do you think you see teams who are down score a goal and quickly take the ball out of the net?
Because the clock is still running and though don't want to waste time. As I said i doesn't stop for that. Thank you for proving my point share
You cannot ref a team from which you are born or support.
Every referee in the EPL is English. They all have soft spots for teams they support. Look at Mike Dean and Tottenham.
So unless you are trying to say that the refs are corrupt then no they don't.
They are corrupt. Go to Google and type in "Mike Clattenburg Chelsea Tottenham" and see what comes up.
Because the clock is still running and though don't want to waste time.
I'm no. They do it because they don't know if the referee is going to count the celebration time.
Seriously, what reason is there for referees to allow time to continue and then add it up at the end?
share
Every referee in the EPL is English
Well its a good job they are not all from the same town or cir=ty then isn't it.
Look at Mike Dean and Tottenham.
Mike dean was born in the Wirral, which is LIverpool. Are you suggesting he is corrupt. Better get onto the Premier League and tell them then.
They are corrupt. Go to Google and type in "Mike Clattenburg Chelsea Tottenham" and see what comes up.
Doesn't prove corruption of any kind. I didn't need to look it up. I watched the game. I live in the country these games are played.
I'm no. They do it because they don't know if the referee is going to count the celebration time.
Everybody knows except you. They grab the ball to start as quickly as possible because the clock is running constantly.
Seriously, what reason is there for referees to allow time to continue and then add it up at the end?
The literal rules. It is a suggested time, not a time set in stone, hence why in this world cup they are trialling adding extra for subs which is why we are now getting 10 mins. But the clock has and probabaly never will stop for throw ins, celebrations, freekicks or anything like that. Only really stops for injuries which was its original term. Injury time, now changed to stoppage time. share
Well its a good job they are not all from the same town or cir=ty then isn't it.
Mike dean was born in the Wirral, which is LIverpool. Are you suggesting he is corrupt. Better get onto the Premier League and tell them then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StRVqK7xgw4 (cheering against Villa)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si81XxId9zw (cheering against Arsenal)
Doesn't prove corruption of any kind. I didn't need to look it up. I watched the game. I live in the country these games are played.
So you're okay with him admitting that he should have sent off multiple Tottenham players for violent conduct, but didn't because he didn't want fans to blame him for a possible loss?
https://www.football.london/tottenham-hotspur-fc/news/chelsea-tottenham-mark-clattenburg-dier-13991270
Everybody knows except you. They grab the ball to start as quickly as possible because the clock is running constantly.
Literally from the FA's website:
3. Allowance for time lost
Allowance is made by the referee in each half for all playing time lost in that half through:
substitutions
assessment and/or removal of injured players
wasting time
disciplinary sanctions
medical stoppages permitted by competition rules e.g. ‘drinks’ breaks (which should not exceed one minute) and ‘cooling’ breaks (ninety seconds to three minutes)
delays relating to VAR 'checks' and 'reviews'
any other cause, including any significant delay to a restart (e.g. goal celebrations)
The fourth official indicates the minimum additional time decided by the referee at the end of the final minute of each half. The additional time may be increased by the referee but not reduced.
https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-7---the-duration-of-the-match
The literal rules.
That's not a reason.
share
So arms in the air i snow only for celebration. Do you want me to show you a 1000 examples of that same arms in the air to mean "play on" or "advantage being played"
Doesn't prove anything. Again jumping on the sport also doesn't prove anything. Even if he was celbrating doesn't prove corruption.
The additional time may be increased by the referee but not reduced.
The very important word in that line "MAY". He does at his own discretion.
As said not for celebration, throw ins, freekicks. You just proved my point. Thank You
So you're okay with him admitting that he should have sent off multiple Tottenham players for violent conduct, but didn't because he didn't want fans to blame him for a possible loss?
Did the spurs players committ the fouls? Yes. Clatternburg didn't make that happen. He is right. If he had sent off 3 players the game was over and leicester win the league. Spurs imploded on there own and didn't need his help. He isn't wrong. If he sent them off the headlines would be that he cost them league and shift the blame to him instead of the players themsleves. By allowing them to stay on, the game came to its natural conclusion which was a draw and spurs didn't win the league. The ref also has a repsonibilty to keep the game flowing.
Now should he have sent them off. Maybe. I watched the game live. I've seen the given, I've seen those same tackles not receive evena yellow or a foul before. Again it is under the discretion of the Ref and the Ref only. But to try and imply corruption of some kind is a stretch.
Finally what does it matter what I think. My opinion on this matter doesn't change anything so why bring it up
I notice how you also pick a spurs paper which of course will be in favout and bias towards Spurs. share
So arms in the air i snow only for celebration. Do you want me to show you a 1000 examples of that same arms in the air to mean "play on" or "advantage being played"
Where was the advantage in that clip?
The very important word in that line "MAY". He does at his own discretion.
It says "additional time may be increased by the referee but not reduced." They are saying they are allowed to increase, not decrease. The "may" doesn't mean it's up to the referee if he chooses to add the time.
If he sent them off the headlines would be that he cost them league and shift the blame to him instead of the players themsleves. By allowing them to stay on, the game came to its natural conclusion which was a draw and spurs didn't win the league. The ref also has a repsonibilty to keep the game flowing.
I see you're now excusing corruption. The game ended in a draw. Would it have still ended in a draw if Chelsea finished the game 2 men up?
As said not for celebration, throw ins, freekicks. You just proved my point. Thank You
What? It says right there and I even put it in bold: "for all playing time lost". They gave examples where time is added for celebrations, cooling breaks, substitutions etc.
I notice how you also pick a spurs paper which of course will be in favout and bias towards Spurs.
Uh, no. It's a London paper. It's right there on top: Tottenham, Chelsea, Arsenal, West Ham and Palace.
Here are more, if you'd like:
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42219327
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/mark-clattenburg-chelsea-vs-tottenham-spurs-comments-referee-abuse-twitter-game-plan-a8092376.html
https://www.joe.co.uk/sport/mark-clattenburg-admits-he-went-in-with-a-gameplan-to-infamous-chelsea-vs-spurs-clash-151688
share
As far as I was aware Spurs was in London unless of course my knowledge of my own country is wrong somehow.
You don't think London rags have a bias towards London clubs? Hmmm
Where was the advantage in that clip?
I never said there was. I said i'll show you a 1000 examples of that same arm movement being used to show advatage or play on. You are the one saying he weas celebrating which you can't prove. I don't have to do anything.
The "may" doesn't mean it's up to the referee if he chooses to add the time.
That is literally what it means. Under his discretion and no one elses.
I see you're now excusing corruption
I'm not excusing anything. Please quote me where is said i excuse corruption. It might take you a while. You are the one who has implied corruption it is on you to prove it not me to deny it.
What? It says right there and I even put it in bold
Again for the final time as you Americans seem to have trouble reading. Under his discretion.
Post as many paper and website articles as you want. Only proves what he said. Doesn't prove corruption or any wrong doing. Like previously said again. I have seen those same tackles not even get a foul let alone a card. So what. Refs interpret the rules as they see them. Just proves incompetence more than anything but not corruption.
All refs have a gameplan on how they are going to officiate. That isn't really news. If spurs were not in a title race no one would have even mentioned the game. With or without the players being sent off the outcome didn't chnage, they didn't win the league and lost the next 2 games. Is claterburg at fault for them as well.
The independant. Really. Up there with the worst of our rags. You might as well have copied a dialy mail article
And finally because I do seem to have to keep repeating myself.
It is also the responsibilty of the on field ref to keep the game flowing as much as possible.
share
As far as I was aware Spurs was in London unless of course my knowledge of my own country is wrong somehow
Apparently you don't. You said: "I notice how you also pick a spurs paper which of course will be in favout and bias towards Spurs." It's a London paper, not a Spurs paper. Why would you say it's going to be biased for Spurs when Chelsea are a London team too which they also cover?
I never said there was. I said i'll show you a 1000 examples of that same arm movement being used to show advatage or play on.
Yes, when there's an advantage. But there wasn't any on the clip. I mean, he claims it's an advantage, but he still claims celebrating it.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/10864794/mike-dean-claims-he-celebrated-an-advantage-when-tottenham-scored-vs-villa-as-hes-made-to-watch-back-infamous-reaction/
He knows very well he celebrated the goal.
Again for the final time as you Americans seem to have trouble reading.
I'm not American.
Under his discretion.
Funny how you initially said this: "The clock doesn't stop for throw ins, celebrations, freekicks or anything like that"
https://moviechat.org/tt12729982/2022-FIFA-World-Cup-Qatar/6393a2c77c6aae55e78862e6/a-game-in-need-of-a-clock?reply=6393d8fb9f1f617794e2dd73
The independant. Really. Up there with the worst of our rags. You might as well have copied a dialy mail article
And what about the other two links? That's 4 sources I gave you in total including your alleged "Spurs paper".
Stoppage time:
At the end of each half of a football match, stoppage time (or injury time) is added on to make up for any delays during that half. The amount of time added is decided by the referee and is rounded to the minute.
https://behindthefootball.com/football-stoppage-time-rules-faqs/
This is 2 sources I've given you now about stoppage time. You have shown me none to refute it. share
Here is a 3rd source to tell you that you are supposed to add time for celebrations.
Is the clock stopped for goals?
No, it's not. But they do add time (to cover celebrations). It's around 30 seconds as a rule of thumb, unless they spend five minutes celebrating. Every situation is different, they'll take each one on its merit.
Source: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/20159223
Seriously, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself now.
How is stopping the clock not considered controlling the game?
shareIf the ball is out, you stop the clock. If it's in, you restart the clock. When I say the referee has too much power to control the game by letting the time go, I'm talking about how they come up with arbitrary numbers to determine how much time is added. I mean, if they don't want to stop the clock, why not have a huge counter in the stadium that ticks up when the play is dead to let the crowd know how much time will be added?
shareBut the clock would also stop for a foul. So the referee is controlling the clock every time they make a decision.
A certain amount of uncertainty is left in the timekeeping to prevent teams from just stopping playing to run out the clock. In European competitions they used to prohibit teams from running a clock on their scoreboard so they couldn't spoil the game that way.
But that goes hand-in-hand. You could also argue that anytime the referee gives a foul, he is making up a general number how long he thinks the stoppage was.
I think a lot of people are against stopping the clock because America uses that, but European hockey and European basketball do the exact same thing. No one complains that there should have been more or less time on the clock, you don't see people faking injuries to let the clock run, you don't see players unaware of how much time is left.
If you can trust a referee to use their judgement stop the game when it's necessary, you can trust them to add any additional time for the dead ball situation when necessary.
By the way. The clock in NFL doesn't let everyone know exactly how long is left to play. It lets people know how long the ball will be allowed to be in play for the remainder of the game. There can be three minutes on the clock and they are still playing half an hour later.
Don't get me started with the NFL. Terrible league and the worst sport.
shareBut that's the sport that most people will be the most familiar with the idea of needing a clock to generate tension, interest and excitement. Followed by basketball which is just not comparable with soccer at all. So it's daft to to even bother talking about the two having similar rules.
shareBut I don't see the advantage for letting the clock run. Everyone is left in the dark for how much time is going to be added and we're just supposed to accept it. If people complain the refs gave too much or not enoughtime, why not change it?
shareBecause sometimes the game is stopped by one team just to gain an advantage. Not all stoppages deserve added time.
A constantly running clock provides constant tension.
Then the should have a stoppage time clock tick up on a screen in the stadium to stop people complaining about a referee giving the wrong amount of time.
shareWhether a stoppage merits time added on is down to the ref's judgement. If it's displayed on a clock it will not prevent complaints about the ref's judgement.
shareAnd that's the problem. The ref chooses the time. Time should be fact.
shareTime for what exactly?
It is a fact that football game last's 90 minutes (in regulation) plus any NECESSARY time added on for stoppages.
The game isn't 90 minutes if you're adding time. The ref shouldn't choose to give 5 minutes, he should give them 5 minutes if it was warranted over time of lost play.
shareThat's what the ref does and that's precisely what I said.
It's their judgement if it is warranted or not.
there's no need for the referee to be the timekeeper. other sports have timekeepers.
shareFootball. The time keepers are the on field refs
sharethe referee doesn't have a clock. there's a timekeeper who stops the play when the referee blows the whistle or someone scores.
sharethe referee doesn't have a clock
He literally does. It's this great invention called a watch share
he blows the whistle and the timekeeper stops the clock. the referee can't stop the clock.
shareHe blows the whistle and under his discretion stops or doen's stop his watch.
You seem to have a problem with this concept of someone having a stop watch on there wrist.
He will then confer with the 4th official to then tell the stadium how much stoppage time is to be played.
they stop the clock and the fans cans see it. it's transparent.
shareWe don't need to see it. We have watches, eyes and brains and can addd and subtract.
Not everything has to be spoonfed to you like American sports.
We haven't needed to know in the 160 years the game has been about. Why would we need to now.
Again it is just a loose time based off a few criteria. It has never been spot on and never will be. No one really cares except yourself for some reason.
it's called precision and the year is 2022 and it's time for soccer to embrace it.
shareThe go and write to all the countries football association and governing bodies. Crack on
shareThe sports culture in the rest of the world is quite different to that of north America. Where you see precision, we see rigidity.
There's a level of interpretation within association football that would not be permitted in most north American sports. We like it that way. And there's more of us.
It's not yank stuff.
All professional sports have it.