What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***Official Soccer Discussion Thread*** (5 Viewers)

Barca has looked flat the past two games (fatigue, injuries, etc?). I hope they step it up v. Chelsea next week.

 
Ok, I need help...

Why is there a 90 minute running clock in soccer? Why isnt it like hockey or something??

I had no dog in the fight today with RM and Barca...I kinda jumped on the RM bandwagon when I started following soccer, but have since not really taken to either of those teams...But once RM scored, they literally started with the time wasting....wether it was throw ins or falling down and rolling around or whatever...it wasnt ridiculous, but it was there...

Doesnt that turn fans off? Like US fans in particular? We have instant replay on like every play in football, basketball, and baseball and we are stupidly obsessed making sure every game is fair and decided by exactly the letter of the law...just seems like US fans are always gonna see that as a hang up.

 
Barca has looked flat the past two games (fatigue, injuries, etc?). I hope they step it up v. Chelsea next week.
They were a half step slow today, it appeared. Passes were delivered late or in the wrong spot, the few chances they had to finish were poorly taken (still surprised at how poor Xavi's finish was in the first half), and Valdes got caught in no man's land. Real Madrid played their game better than Barcelona played theirs. Ugh. They need to get their act together against Chelsea or what was a potentially fantastic year a week ago will turn into a so-so one, at least from a silverware standpoint.
 
Why is there a 90 minute running clock in soccer? Why isnt it like hockey or something??
When MLS first started the time was kept on the field, and the referee indicated when he was stopping the clock for injuries, time-wasting, etc. So the time on the clock always represented the time actually left in the game.MLS dropped that change to make the game more like soccer in the rest of the world, but IMO they should have kept it. It was a clear improvement on the way it's done everywhere else and completely prevents the problems you described.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, I need help...Why is there a 90 minute running clock in soccer? Why isnt it like hockey or something??I had no dog in the fight today with RM and Barca...I kinda jumped on the RM bandwagon when I started following soccer, but have since not really taken to either of those teams...But once RM scored, they literally started with the time wasting....wether it was throw ins or falling down and rolling around or whatever...it wasnt ridiculous, but it was there...Doesnt that turn fans off? Like US fans in particular? We have instant replay on like every play in football, basketball, and baseball and we are stupidly obsessed making sure every game is fair and decided by exactly the letter of the law...just seems like US fans are always gonna see that as a hang up.
One of the principles that FIFA has always tried to stick to is that the rules are fundamentally the same at every level of the game, from park recreation leagues to the professionals. That's started to come unglued in some small ways e.g. the fourth official but in general, refereeing is identical. So, if a parks ref doesn't have an independent timekeeper, neither does the guy running the World Cup Final. It's up to the ref to add time for time wasting, spurious substitutions and so on.
 
Ok, I need help...Why is there a 90 minute running clock in soccer? Why isnt it like hockey or something??I had no dog in the fight today with RM and Barca...I kinda jumped on the RM bandwagon when I started following soccer, but have since not really taken to either of those teams...But once RM scored, they literally started with the time wasting....wether it was throw ins or falling down and rolling around or whatever...it wasnt ridiculous, but it was there...Doesnt that turn fans off? Like US fans in particular? We have instant replay on like every play in football, basketball, and baseball and we are stupidly obsessed making sure every game is fair and decided by exactly the letter of the law...just seems like US fans are always gonna see that as a hang up.
One of the principles that FIFA has always tried to stick to is that the rules are fundamentally the same at every level of the game, from park recreation leagues to the professionals. That's started to come unglued in some small ways e.g. the fourth official but in general, refereeing is identical. So, if a parks ref doesn't have an independent timekeeper, neither does the guy running the World Cup Final. It's up to the ref to add time for time wasting, spurious substitutions and so on.
I didnt know that...I just never really understood the concept.
 
Barca has looked flat the past two games (fatigue, injuries, etc?). I hope they step it up v. Chelsea next week.
They were a half step slow today, it appeared. Passes were delivered late or in the wrong spot, the few chances they had to finish were poorly taken (still surprised at how poor Xavi's finish was in the first half), and Valdes got caught in no man's land. Real Madrid played their game better than Barcelona played theirs. Ugh. They need to get their act together against Chelsea or what was a potentially fantastic year a week ago will turn into a so-so one, at least from a silverware standpoint.
Barcelona is a great team. But Real is too good to lose to them every time. It was Real's turn.
 
Ok, I need help...Why is there a 90 minute running clock in soccer? Why isnt it like hockey or something??I had no dog in the fight today with RM and Barca...I kinda jumped on the RM bandwagon when I started following soccer, but have since not really taken to either of those teams...But once RM scored, they literally started with the time wasting....wether it was throw ins or falling down and rolling around or whatever...it wasnt ridiculous, but it was there...Doesnt that turn fans off? Like US fans in particular? We have instant replay on like every play in football, basketball, and baseball and we are stupidly obsessed making sure every game is fair and decided by exactly the letter of the law...just seems like US fans are always gonna see that as a hang up.
One of the principles that FIFA has always tried to stick to is that the rules are fundamentally the same at every level of the game, from park recreation leagues to the professionals. That's started to come unglued in some small ways e.g. the fourth official but in general, refereeing is identical. So, if a parks ref doesn't have an independent timekeeper, neither does the guy running the World Cup Final. It's up to the ref to add time for time wasting, spurious substitutions and so on.
I didnt know that...I just never really understood the concept.
When I refereed back in England, I used to tell the players when I was stopping the watch. There isn't very much time wasting at the levels I was reffing at but there certainly is at the higher levels. IMO, refs should add more time than they do but anything more than 4 or 5 minutes and it gets really controversial.
 
Barca has looked flat the past two games (fatigue, injuries, etc?). I hope they step it up v. Chelsea next week.
They were a half step slow today, it appeared. Passes were delivered late or in the wrong spot, the few chances they had to finish were poorly taken (still surprised at how poor Xavi's finish was in the first half), and Valdes got caught in no man's land. Real Madrid played their game better than Barcelona played theirs. Ugh. They need to get their act together against Chelsea or what was a potentially fantastic year a week ago will turn into a so-so one, at least from a silverware standpoint.
Barcelona is a great team. But Real is too good to lose to them every time. It was Real's turn.
It's going to swing back and forth between the two, in all of the comps., for the forseeable future. They both just spend too much money and will get so many great players for either team to have a big upper-hand for a long time. RM had more injuries last year, Barca had more this year. They're so close that that's probably going to be the difference most years.Derek> As a fairly new fan to the sport, I've found that you really can't ascribe any logic to several soccer rules. How can somebody be offside when the ball is played from 10 yards away from the goal? How come there's no instant replay on close goals? I don't get why there isn't a running clock either, it just is how it is.This thread doesn't have an RM fan, so you should definitely step in and fill the void. And that you'd be rooting for a team that has Ultras who have fascist/Neo-Nazi ties shouldn't dissuade you at all. They're a great bunch. :thumbup:
 
Ok, I need help...Why is there a 90 minute running clock in soccer? Why isnt it like hockey or something??I had no dog in the fight today with RM and Barca...I kinda jumped on the RM bandwagon when I started following soccer, but have since not really taken to either of those teams...But once RM scored, they literally started with the time wasting....wether it was throw ins or falling down and rolling around or whatever...it wasnt ridiculous, but it was there...Doesnt that turn fans off? Like US fans in particular? We have instant replay on like every play in football, basketball, and baseball and we are stupidly obsessed making sure every game is fair and decided by exactly the letter of the law...just seems like US fans are always gonna see that as a hang up.
One of the principles that FIFA has always tried to stick to is that the rules are fundamentally the same at every level of the game, from park recreation leagues to the professionals. That's started to come unglued in some small ways e.g. the fourth official but in general, refereeing is identical. So, if a parks ref doesn't have an independent timekeeper, neither does the guy running the World Cup Final. It's up to the ref to add time for time wasting, spurious substitutions and so on.
I didnt know that...I just never really understood the concept.
When I refereed back in England, I used to tell the players when I was stopping the watch. There isn't very much time wasting at the levels I was reffing at but there certainly is at the higher levels. IMO, refs should add more time than they do but anything more than 4 or 5 minutes and it gets really controversial.
Should have been 7+ minutes added in that second half. Thought it was ridiculous when they were going end to end as fast as some of the best atheletes in the world could go that one ref is supposed to cover the entire field. Don't really think anyone in FIFA cares though so long as their kickbacks keep coming.
 
Ok, I need help...Why is there a 90 minute running clock in soccer? Why isnt it like hockey or something??I had no dog in the fight today with RM and Barca...I kinda jumped on the RM bandwagon when I started following soccer, but have since not really taken to either of those teams...But once RM scored, they literally started with the time wasting....wether it was throw ins or falling down and rolling around or whatever...it wasnt ridiculous, but it was there...Doesnt that turn fans off? Like US fans in particular? We have instant replay on like every play in football, basketball, and baseball and we are stupidly obsessed making sure every game is fair and decided by exactly the letter of the law...just seems like US fans are always gonna see that as a hang up.
One of the principles that FIFA has always tried to stick to is that the rules are fundamentally the same at every level of the game, from park recreation leagues to the professionals. That's started to come unglued in some small ways e.g. the fourth official but in general, refereeing is identical. So, if a parks ref doesn't have an independent timekeeper, neither does the guy running the World Cup Final. It's up to the ref to add time for time wasting, spurious substitutions and so on.
I didnt know that...I just never really understood the concept.
Hi Derek,Here are my thoughts1) I would love to see the clock handled the way you stated. With soccer being arguably the most corrupt sport on the planet, it would add in a level of transparency that would be welcomed. IMO we may never see this though as FIFA's interest in improving the sport that does not relate to money in their pocket is limited. 2) That being said, I don't see this turning off the average American. So many American's grow up with the sport now, this is not a fancy foreign concept it used to be in the 90's. The two items, from my experience, that turn off an average American sports fan from liking this sport is the low amount of scoring chances and the diving. Heck, I am a huge fan and I would love to see both those items improved.
 
Quick MLS update

*KC dropped their first points of the season, at last place Portland 1-0.

*LA appears to be righting the ship with another win in Colorado to bring their record back to .500 now

*Wondo scored again for the surprising Clash who took over first place in the West after spanking Salt Lake 3-1 at home. Wondo has taken over soul possession of the scoring lead from Henry and Cooper. NY plays tonight

*Toronto continues to be much worse than I predicted. 6 games played, no points.

 
1) I would love to see the clock handled the way you stated. With soccer being arguably the most corrupt sport on the planet, it would add in a level of transparency that would be welcomed. IMO we may never see this though as FIFA's interest in improving the sport that does not relate to money in their pocket is limited.
Worked really well when MLS did it for the first 3-4(?) years of the league. Was the only change from the world game they got right IMO.
 
Quick MLS update

*KC dropped their first points of the season, at last place Portland 1-0.

*LA appears to be righting the ship with another win in Colorado to bring their record back to .500 now

*Wondo scored again for the surprising Clash who took over first place in the West after spanking Salt Lake 3-1 at home. Wondo has taken over soul possession of the scoring lead from Henry and Cooper. NY plays tonight

*Toronto continues to be much worse than I predicted. 6 games played, no points.
Who are the Metrostars playing tonight? :)
 
Quick MLS update

*KC dropped their first points of the season, at last place Portland 1-0.

*LA appears to be righting the ship with another win in Colorado to bring their record back to .500 now

*Wondo scored again for the surprising Clash who took over first place in the West after spanking Salt Lake 3-1 at home. Wondo has taken over soul possession of the scoring lead from Henry and Cooper. NY plays tonight

*Toronto continues to be much worse than I predicted. 6 games played, no points.
Who are the Metrostars playing tonight? :)
The Wiz. :bag:

 
City need to take advantage of this gift. If City win, they cut the lead to 3 points before hosting Man U next Monday. City hold the edge in GD so a win today and next week and they move into first with at least a 6 GD advantage over Man U with only two games to play in season.

If City goes on a 4 game winning streak, they are very very likely to win title.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
1) I would love to see the clock handled the way you stated. With soccer being arguably the most corrupt sport on the planet, it would add in a level of transparency that would be welcomed. IMO we may never see this though as FIFA's interest in improving the sport that does not relate to money in their pocket is limited.
Worked really well when MLS did it for the first 3-4(?) years of the league. Was the only change from the world game they got right IMO.
Shoot out and count down clock were eliminated after the 1999 season, I think as one of the first acts of new commissioner at the time Don Garber.
 
City need to take advantage of this gift. If City win, they cut the lead to 3 points before hosting Man U next Monday. City hold the edge in GD so a win today and next week and they move into first with at least a 6 GD advantage over Man U with only two games to play in season.

If City goes on a 4 game winning streak, they are very very likely to win title.
If City wins their last four, they can only lose on GD, right? I don't think they're goign to lose on GD, especially after today. But City still has to go to Newcastle, who have been on fire lately.Next Monday is going to be good.

 
City need to take advantage of this gift. If City win, they cut the lead to 3 points before hosting Man U next Monday. City hold the edge in GD so a win today and next week and they move into first with at least a 6 GD advantage over Man U with only two games to play in season.

If City goes on a 4 game winning streak, they are very very likely to win title.
If City wins their last four, they can only lose on GD, right? I don't think they're goign to lose on GD, especially after today. But City still has to go to Newcastle, who have been on fire lately.Next Monday is going to be good.
CorrectStill have to beat united and Newcastle...knowing mcfc though, they probably lose today 4-3

 
City need to take advantage of this gift. If City win, they cut the lead to 3 points before hosting Man U next Monday. City hold the edge in GD so a win today and next week and they move into first with at least a 6 GD advantage over Man U with only two games to play in season.

If City goes on a 4 game winning streak, they are very very likely to win title.
If City wins their last four, they can only lose on GD, right?
that is correct. And to get into that spot with wins in the next two games, they will have at the lowest, a 6 GD advantage on Man U with two games to play.You have to figure though that a 4 game winning streak is the only way Man City is going to win the league. You have to think Man U can get the max 6 points from their last two games especially coming off a draw and a loss (assuming things line up).

Of course none of this really matters unless City goes out and gets 3 points today. if they do, then the fun speculation can really start.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
2) That being said, I don't see this turning off the average American. So many American's grow up with the sport now, this is not a fancy foreign concept it used to be in the 90's. The two items, from my experience, that turn off an average American sports fan from liking this sport is the low amount of scoring chances and the diving. Heck, I am a huge fan and I would love to see both those items improved.
Actually, I would say that it's one of the most criticized things that I hear from my soccer-hating coworkers. They gripe about the diving first, low scoring second, and the fact that they don't know when the game is going to end third. That said, these guys are mostly men in their 30s - 50s who didn't grow up with the sport and I'm sure other people have different experiences. I don't go around the office ranting about soccer, but I think they got the hint when I took off work to watch all of the USMNT World Cup games in 2010....
 
2) That being said, I don't see this turning off the average American. So many American's grow up with the sport now, this is not a fancy foreign concept it used to be in the 90's. The two items, from my experience, that turn off an average American sports fan from liking this sport is the low amount of scoring chances and the diving. Heck, I am a huge fan and I would love to see both those items improved.
Actually, I would say that it's one of the most criticized things that I hear from my soccer-hating coworkers. They gripe about the diving first, low scoring second, and the fact that they don't know when the game is going to end third. That said, these guys are mostly men in their 30s - 50s who didn't grow up with the sport and I'm sure other people have different experiences. I don't go around the office ranting about soccer, but I think they got the hint when I took off work to watch all of the USMNT World Cup games in 2010....
I have just recently (3ish years) started turning into a soccer fan so I think I am a pretty good indicator of the "average american"....and I hate time wasting more than diving. And its not really the blatant rolling around like you are injured stuff...but the taking forever to get the ball for a goal kick. Purposely putting a free kick kin the wrong spot so the ref has to stop you and move you...kicking the ball away from the opposition after conceding a throw in or free kick. It is embarrassing and I hate it.I dont really mind the low scoring and the diving doesnt get to me that much....its not ideal, but it doesnt burn me up.
 
Good sight at the end of the Wolves match this morning with the home Wolves fans giving the team a standing ovation at the end of the game as the team has secured relegation.

 
2) That being said, I don't see this turning off the average American. So many American's grow up with the sport now, this is not a fancy foreign concept it used to be in the 90's. The two items, from my experience, that turn off an average American sports fan from liking this sport is the low amount of scoring chances and the diving. Heck, I am a huge fan and I would love to see both those items improved.
Actually, I would say that it's one of the most criticized things that I hear from my soccer-hating coworkers. They gripe about the diving first, low scoring second, and the fact that they don't know when the game is going to end third. That said, these guys are mostly men in their 30s - 50s who didn't grow up with the sport and I'm sure other people have different experiences. I don't go around the office ranting about soccer, but I think they got the hint when I took off work to watch all of the USMNT World Cup games in 2010....
I have just recently (3ish years) started turning into a soccer fan so I think I am a pretty good indicator of the "average american"....and I hate time wasting more than diving. And its not really the blatant rolling around like you are injured stuff...but the taking forever to get the ball for a goal kick. Purposely putting a free kick kin the wrong spot so the ref has to stop you and move you...kicking the ball away from the opposition after conceding a throw in or free kick. It is embarrassing and I hate it.I dont really mind the low scoring and the diving doesnt get to me that much....its not ideal, but it doesnt burn me up.
Yes I agree. I was not equating time wasting with a running clock but it is very clear that they are tied together and it makes for an ugly spectacle (if you are a new fan wait till you get a load of qualifying in Central America, they make time wasting look like an art form).I would be more than happy if the clock stopped on goal kicks, corner kicks, fouls, throw in's, and subs (especially subs, the ref never adds enough time for the slow walk off the field). I am undecided whether to stop it on a goal but if you stopped it on the others then you would need this.
 
Re: running clock

The refs can do a better job at stopping when they need to and adding the proper time to the end whether it is a controversial amount of time or not. If it is the correct amount, the tape will back them up.

Knowing that will never happen, I still like the way it is now much better than a public clock. What happens when the clock strikes 90 on a public clock and a team had just put a throw ball into the box? Call it because the ball didn't cross the line before 90? That would just cause even more controversy and calls for instant replay (I hate the idea of replay).

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top