[mike777]

What the heck does stoppage time mean and how is it measured?


It seems in these matches actual stoppage time is closer to 22 minutes but they only add 3 minutes...

I guess all of this is just pretty random and just part of the game, I never hear them comment about this on tv.

[Trinidad]

Stoppage time is the time that the referee has stopped the game. It is added afterwards. The referee typically stops the game for the treatment of injured players or for subbing players, which is why it use to be called injury time. The time the players take to stop the game (e.g. before a free kick is taken) is not counted.

This means that stopping time in soccer is typically 2-3 minutes. Sometimes there is no stoppage time at all.

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2012-June-27, 12:42, said:

Stoppage time is the time that the referee has stopped the game. It is added afterwards. The referee typically stops the game for the treatment of injured players or for subbing players, which is why it use to be called injury time. The time the players take to stop the game (e.g. before a free kick is taken) is not counted.

This means that stopping time in soccer is typically 2-3 minutes. Sometimes there is no stoppage time at all.

Rik

This about covers it, the referee uses a stopwatch which is where its name comes from, but doesn't use it for the time while the ball is out of play before a throw in, unless that extends to abnormal levels because for example the crowd won't give the ball back. Substitutions and injuries are the most common use, but deliberate time wasting is another, and having to stop the game while clearing flares happens regularly in some countries.

[lalldonn]

Why is it still done this way in this age of technology? Wouldn't it be far better if the clocks on the scoreboard and the tv were linked to the official time controlled by the referee? Then everyone would know exactly how much time remains at all moments, just like in any other sport with timed periods. It would also prevent manipulation by the referee, for example stopping the time more often when a certain team is winning or losing.

[lalldonn]

double post

[cherdano]

lalldonn, on 2012-June-27, 17:50, said:

Why is it still done this way in this age of technology? Wouldn't it be far better if the clocks on the scoreboard and the tv were linked to the official time controlled by the referee? Then everyone would know exactly how much time remains at all moments, just like in any other sport with timed periods. It would also prevent manipulation by the referee, for example stopping the time more often when a certain team is winning or losing.

Actually, the amount of stoppage time is determined by an additional referee off the field, and that will be displayed on your TV time as well. Football is special because the on-the-field referee has a bit of leeway when exactly to end the game, he is not supposed to stop a developing attack.

In any case, if you are worried about referee manipulation, the amount of stoppage time is the least to worry about.

[mike777]

do fans prefer the current rule of penalty kicks in overtime rather than say sudden death?

[Mbodell]

mike777, on 2012-June-27, 18:13, said:

do fans prefer the current rule of penalty kicks in overtime rather than say sudden death?

I think for soccer (and hockey) the way it should work is continued over time periods with a man removed from both sides. Say compare again after 2 15-minute mini-halfs and remove a player from each team after each set of mini-halfs (play full strength in the first OT). With fewer people on the field there will be more open space and more chances, and being a man down due to cards/ejections will be even more of a disadvantage. You can switch to penalty kicks after you've removed 6 men per side if it is still tied (after 270 minutes of play).

[cherdano]

Mbodell, on 2012-June-27, 21:07, said:

I think for soccer (and hockey) the way it should work is continued over time periods with a man removed from both sides. Say compare again after 2 15-minute mini-halfs and remove a player from each team after each set of mini-halfs (play full strength in the first OT). With fewer people on the field there will be more open space and more chances, and being a man down due to cards/ejections will be even more of a disadvantage. You can switch to penalty kicks after you've removed 6 men per side if it is still tied (after 270 minutes of play).

I guess that's where you end up when you start calling football "soccer"...

[gwnn]

cherdano, on 2012-June-27, 18:04, said:

Actually, the amount of stoppage time is determined by an additional referee off the field, and that will be displayed on your TV time as well. Football is special because the on-the-field referee has a bit of leeway when exactly to end the game, he is not supposed to stop a developing attack.

In any case, if you are worried about referee manipulation, the amount of stoppage time is the least to worry about.

From what I understand, the referee is the one who determines the length of the stoppage time, the fourth (now sixth?) official merely displays it.

[mgoetze]

120 minutes of soccer is already physically highly demanding for even professional athletes. Mbodell's 270 minutes are unrealistic, all the players would be in the hospital before the 200 minute mark.

[Zelandakh]

cherdano, on 2012-June-27, 18:04, said:

Actually, the amount of stoppage time is determined by an additional referee off the field, and that will be displayed on your TV time as well.

Mbodell, on 2012-June-27, 21:07, said:

I think for soccer (and hockey) the way it should work is continued over time periods with a man removed from both sides.

Wow, you are both Americans right? The amount of stoppage time is determined by the (on pitch) referee. He will tell the fouth official (off-field referee) the minimum amount of time which he is going to add via a radio connection. The fourth official then informs the crowd (and TV) as a matter of curtesy. In earlier times this information was not provided. The referee maintains complete discretion on the matter of additional time being added and may choose to play considerably more time than the fourth official holds up, for example if there is a major injury during the extra time or if one team is wasting an undue amount of time.

One of the major differences between football and ice hockey is that a team cannot interchange freely. This mechanism allows 4 on 4 overtime in ice hockey to continue at a fast tempo and a high level. In football what this would do is encourage teams to sit back and conserve energy. This is precisely the opposite effect from what is desirable. The simple truth is that many people have tried to come up with a better way to end a football match than a penalty shoot-out. Some, such as golden and silver goals and multiple periods of extra time, have even been played at the highest level. None of them have proved to be satisfactory which is why we are back with the traditional extra time plus penalties.

[mike777]

First off I dont know how stoppage time is defined or measured


At this point no one as cited a rule of law how it is defined or measured. I mean is there a rule of law?

If in fact stoppage time is just a culture term that is generally 3 minutes long no matter what fair enough.



Fans seem to know what it is but not really......

I mean in american football fans dont know the rules and the players dont know the rules........we just pretend.
Rule one is the all the players ...I mean 100% will get hurt.

In american hockey 200% of the players will get hurt on purpose....not sure if that math is legal but ok.

still trying to figure out what 6c3 means...etc...yes i know it means 20 but still I got to think about it.

rant..you guys could define it a bit better(clearer) if that means longer.....

[gwnn]

Zelandakh, on 2012-June-28, 01:50, said:

Wow, you are both Americans right? The amount of stoppage time is determined by the (on pitch) referee. He will tell the fouth official (off-field referee) the minimum amount of time which he is going to add via a radio connection. The fourth official then informs the crowd (and TV) as a matter of curtesy. In earlier times this information was not provided. The referee maintains complete discretion on the matter of additional time being added and may choose to play considerably more time than the fourth official holds up, for example if there is a major injury during the extra time or if one team is wasting an undue amount of time.

One of the major differences between football and ice hockey is that a team cannot interchange freely. This mechanism allows 4 on 4 overtime in ice hockey to continue at a fast tempo and a high level. In football what this would do is encourage teams to sit back and conserve energy. This is precisely the opposite effect from what is desirable. The simple truth is that many people have tried to come up with a better way to end a football match than a penalty shoot-out. Some, such as golden and silver goals and multiple periods of extra time, have even been played at the highest level. None of them have proved to be satisfactory which is why we are back with the traditional extra time plus penalties.

Wow, cherdano made a simple factual mistake as to who it is who determines the added time. He is so ignorant that he must be American! wtf?

[cherdano]

Zelandakh, on 2012-June-28, 01:50, said:

The fourth official then informs the crowd (and TV) as a matter of curtesy.

Wow, you are [insert nationality here], right? It is spelled "courtesy".

[Fluffy]

lalldonn, on 2012-June-27, 17:50, said:

Why is it still done this way in this age of technology? Wouldn't it be far better if the clocks on the scoreboard and the tv were linked to the official time controlled by the referee? Then everyone would know exactly how much time remains at all moments, just like in any other sport with timed periods. It would also prevent manipulation by the referee, for example stopping the time more often when a certain team is winning or losing.

Time, off sides, assuring that penalties are really penalties in the tv, agressions, faking agressions, and phamtom goals. All of this could be done more fair with technology.

Why not do it better?, because having a refereee paid by your lobby to take "close decisions" one way or another gives you power. This is the european way of thinking, I understand americans who support equity even on salaries don´t follow this phiilisophy.

[Mbodell]

Zelandakh, on 2012-June-28, 01:50, said:

Wow, you are both Americans right? The amount of stoppage time is determined by the (on pitch) referee. He will tell the fouth official (off-field referee) the minimum amount of time which he is going to add via a radio connection. The fourth official then informs the crowd (and TV) as a matter of curtesy. In earlier times this information was not provided. The referee maintains complete discretion on the matter of additional time being added and may choose to play considerably more time than the fourth official holds up, for example if there is a major injury during the extra time or if one team is wasting an undue amount of time.

One of the major differences between football and ice hockey is that a team cannot interchange freely. This mechanism allows 4 on 4 overtime in ice hockey to continue at a fast tempo and a high level. In football what this would do is encourage teams to sit back and conserve energy. This is precisely the opposite effect from what is desirable. The simple truth is that many people have tried to come up with a better way to end a football match than a penalty shoot-out. Some, such as golden and silver goals and multiple periods of extra time, have even been played at the highest level. None of them have proved to be satisfactory which is why we are back with the traditional extra time plus penalties.

I think we are in fact both not Americans (I'm not American - I'm primarily Canadian, although I have dual Australian citizenship as well; and from the other posts it sounds like cherdano isn't American either). I know that teams would get tired. But I'm not convinced they'd get equally tired equally fast. I don't think it would go on forever (I think it would be rare you'd go past 3OT). But yes, I like seeing the elite athletes at the failure point. I much prefer the golf tournaments where there is only 0, 1, or 2 golfers below par to the ones where the winner has -20 or whatever. I like in tennis where there is no tiebreak and the 5th set goes on for a long time (and wish all the sets were win by 2 with no tie breakers). I don't think it's impossible that this is better than shot outs.

[Cyberyeti]

It's not the only way this has been done, in the glory days of North American soccer when Pele and Beckenbauer played there, I seem to remember the shoot out involving players getting the ball 35 yards out and basically having to beat the goalkeeper one on one by any means without going backwards.

My preference would be a penalty style shootout, but with spots placed at various distances and angles. Assigning your takers to the right spots then becomes important.

[mgoetze]

Fluffy, on 2012-June-28, 05:17, said:

Time, off sides, assuring that penalties are really penalties in the tv, agressions, faking agressions, and phamtom goals. All of this could be done more fair with technology.

Agreed.

Quote

Why not do it better?, because having a refereee paid by your lobby to take "close decisions" one way or another gives you power. This is the european way of thinking,

Wtf?

Quote

I understand americans who support equity even on salaries

WTF?!?

[cherdano]

Wow, now there are already two posters calling me American! What did I do?