[Rodo]

yes ******* vuvuzelas, dammit they just don't stop blowing that piece of plastic.-

[Mongoose]

i don't know what you're on about with the stoppage time, but that is how all sports should work.  what is assinine is taking 3 hours to play a 1 hour game.

So all sports should arbitrarily determine about how much time elapsed during stoppages in play, and then smack an approximate number of minutes onto the end, instead of using a lovely little invention called the start/stop button on a stopwatch?  Seriously, I think stoppage time is the one mechanical issue about the sport of soccer that bugs me above anything else.  Every other sport I've seen that's time-based pauses its clock during stoppages in play and restarts it when play resumes, so that the moment the clock hits zero, the quarter/half/game is over.  American football, ice hockey, basketball, lacrosse--hell, even water polo--they all operate like this, because it's a simple and logical system.  There isn't any human judgment involved in determining when the game's over, just the pure progression of time.  In contrast, stoppage time is a wholly-illogical system, obfuscating to the point where one isn't even sure when a game's about to end.  (Literally, the announcers of a match I was watching the other day weren't quite sure the half was over at first.)  There simply isn't any legitimate justification one can make for it.

(Also, that graph iamzack posted really is true. )

[The E]

You will notice, however, that there's a clearly defined system for communicating the amount of stoppage time to everyone. If your commentator misses it, it says more about the quality of the commentator than about the flaws of the system.

[Mongoose]

You will notice, however, that there's a clearly defined system for communicating the amount of stoppage time to everyone. If your commentator misses it, it says more about the quality of the commentator than about the flaws of the system.

No, the commentator saw how much time had been added, but at the end of it, he wasn't quite sure if the referee was blowing a whistle for a call or because the game was over.  And that's what gets me...there doesn't need to be that ambiguity there in the first place.  When the clock hits 90, the game should be over, period.

[Lucika]

According to some studies, there is an average of ~36 minutes of active play during a half. As such, the usual stoppage times (especially if you subtract the time wasted DURING the stoppage time) rarely manages to make the active play 45 minutes... not even close.
I'd agree with stopping the clock every time the play stops.

Germany won't drop out

Germany didn't drop out 

Don't worry TopAce, the awesome English team will annihilate the Nationalelf with Ronny's Rooney's hat-trick.

[The E]

Wait, so Rooney's going to miss the goal even more menacingly?

[Lucika]

Wait, so Rooney's going to miss the goal even more menacingly?

  Even Yakubu will be astonished.

[Mongoose]

According to some studies, there is an average of ~36 minutes of active play during a half. As such, the usual stoppage times (especially if you subtract the time wasted DURING the stoppage time) rarely manages to make the active play 45 minutes... not even close.
I'd agree with stopping the clock every time the play stops.

That's sort of the thing that gets me...implementing a clock-stopping system wouldn't even have to affect the pace of the game in any way.  You wouldn't need to have unnatural pauses for TV timeouts (I'll agree that our commercial breaks for professional sports can get absolutely brutal, especially for nationally-broadcast games), and there wouldn't be any functional difference for the players on the field.  The clock would simply start for the ten seconds it takes to set up a throw-in, then just start again when the throw is made.  Since I don't really follow the soccer world, has anyone out there suggested doing things that way?

[Klaustrophobia]

that's not the point of stoppage time.  the break for a throw-in or similar is part of the 45 minutes.  stoppage used to be called injury time, and is only for stoppage that isn't usual or part of the standard game.

[Mongoose]

Well that would make the change even less disruptive, then.  Just pause the clock during those unusual stoppages like injuries, and have everything else remains as it is.  You take the needless judgment call out of the equation, and everyone goes home happy.

[Klaustrophobia]

that's really the whole idea behind it, so the ref CAN make a judgement call.  the game is not supposed to be stopped in the middle of a scoring chance.  there is a "spirit of the law" style of reffing in soccer that really isn't seen as much in most other sports. 

[Mongoose]

Hmm, maybe that's why it irritates me so much.

[Colonol Dekker]

Italy - 8
Ethiopia - didn't
 
 

[swashmebuckle]

The bottom line for me is that no other sport is so clearly focused on the refs as soccer, as opposed to what actually happens on the field.  All you need is a couple guys up in a replay booth quickly reviewing critical calls where a point is at stake (either the ball has ended up in the back of the net or someone has gone down in the box) or a yellow/red card has been issued.  This would discourage diving, prevent horrible injustices like the Ireland-France handball, and shut up the disgraceful practice of faking serious injuries.  The technology is there to seamlessly integrate near-100% accurate officiating into the game, and I think it's kinda sad that FIFA chooses not to use it.

Everyone always complains about losing the human element in sports when you suggest removing even the most blatantly subjective elements, but honestly I think getting the calls right just makes sports better.

[Klaustrophobia]

i wouldn't mind seeing a video replay system in some kind of limited capacity,  but it can't be used as a crutch.  it has the potential to completely destroy the flow of the game, which is what the current system is centered around.  do the best job possible, but don't disrupt the match.  handballs and offside are really the only calls i can see benefitting from video.  fouls ARE subjective calls.  the best way to use video for taming cards and diving is to have post-game review and dole out fines/suspensions without messing with the game in progress.

[TopAce]

FIFA is a very conservative organization if it comes to game regulations. All the arguments presented here have been discussed numerous times before. Unless there's a radical change in leadership or very convincing counterarguments are raised, there'll be no change in the field.

I would implement a video referee, but limit his duties to repairing serious on-field referee mistakes. No overturning offsides and faults that require no cards issued, though. I would like to see Hand-of-God-style goals canceled, but that's about it. Human fallibility has always been part of this sport, from the part of the players and from the part of the three referees.

[Colonol Dekker]

God says to freddie mercury
'im giving you another chance on earth what
do you want 2 go bk as? he replys the
england goalkeeper,why asks god? freddie
replys because i will hav 10 arseholes in front
of me and i wont be able 2 catch anything!

 

[Nemesis6]

For once, I wish I had a television, then I could watch this. Gah.

EDIT: I found a place to watch it live I think, and oh my dear ****ing God, I can't watch this! http://webcric.com/fifa-world-cup-live-streaming.htm

I guess Hitler was right about the vuvuzelas - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-Ln_rqPpPk

[TopAce]

Italy-Slovakia

What a match! It's been the best one yet.

[Klaustrophobia]

All I was able to see of it was stoppage time

Does ESPN website show replays?