Not sure it really warrants a separate thread, but didn't find a good other place for it. For those who don't know the site, fivethirtyeight is a site that focuses on statistical analysis of lots of stuff. The link is to their analysis of added time in this WC. I thought some on here would find it interesting. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/world-cup-stoppage-time-is-wildly-inaccurate/ All in all, in the games that I have watched enough to have an opinion, I've been reasonably satisfied with added time in terms of what I think is the spirit of what is expected. The caveat I would have would be that some games, IMHO, have not adequately addressed the time lost during the added time, and have not extended the added time as much as I thought they should have.
It's a well known issue. We will see how IFAB decide to deal with it over the next few years (if they do at all).
I'd really like to see data comparing apples to apples on that one. In other words, is the time from goal to KO actually longer this WC than last one, or are we just attributing the time it takes to VR and assuming it is taking longer. I honestly don't know, and am curious. On most goals, VR should not be making any difference.
The ball being in play for 44:36 in the IRN:MAR is just incredible. With numbers like this, it's really hard to see how IFAB doesn't do something in the next cycle. Teams have become professionals at wasting time and making a match shorter.
This is deceptive. VAR might average to :31 seconds per game But in the games in which it is actually used in a substantial way, the time loss is not being covered by added time.
But it is accounted for as well as it should, but 75+% of the time is accounted for and that's a lot better than other things.
I am going to say that this is the game the players currently want. They NEED the downtime to recover inside the matches. If the authorities ever get around to adding the actual time back in, the players will be walking for longer stretches of the match. Wait until we see the AET in the knockout stages.
Of course, while I absolutely appreciate the statistical nerdery, 538's analysis doesn't consider the spirit of the Law, the spirit of the game, or the expectations of the players, coaches, and spectators. It's more akin to when I was a newly certified grade 8 and took a stopwatch to a Dynamo game: an interesting experiment with no real application.
An interesting article. Thanks for posting. A few thoughts on it: The article states they decided anything more than 30 seconds was an "excessive delay" at a stoppage. For your basic restarts this seems fine but after a goal being scored or a free kick with a caution, a minute seems more the appropriate amount of time. As mentioned above, there is a lot of downtime for a reason. Soccer has the strongest limitations of subs for any sport yet is probably the sport that requires more endurance than any other. You look at American football or ice hockey and those guys play hard for no more than a minute before they are subbed out. Even rugby, which has a finite number of subs somewhat similar to soccer, definitely isn't as fast-paced as soccer. There is a reason KFTM is still used to end drawn matches – because everyone realizes the players are gassed after 120 minutes and couldn't have an unlimited overtime like other American sports. All that said, I wouldn't be shocked if that sometime in the coming decade, FIFA switched to a timekeeping method more like rugby where everyone knows the time elapsed and the referee would just signal whenever a stoppage is required (eg: injury, excessive delay). If FIFA wanted to go a step further to prevent time-wasting late in the game, they could stop the clock in the last 5-10 minutes for all GKs, CKs, KOs.
Another 538 statistical piece, this time on how much teams delay on restarts and subs. Not particularly surprising to anyone who watches the game. Overly simplified result: a team leading takes 35% longer to put the ball in play (or complete sub). https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-world-cup-team-is-the-best-at-wasting-time/
This is an interesting article with some good data. However it is clear that it is compiled by people with not a lot of soccer knowledge or background. For instance in their penultimate paragraph they blame Trippier for taking 70 seconds to complete his corner kick. What they fail to realize was that much of this was delay was due to the referee trying to sort out all the pushing, holding and jostling that occurs at almost every corner but it was particularly bad in that England-Panama match. This is probably the case for most corners, and for some FKsNG, where problems with wall set-up etc, eat up time, in which the delay is caused intentionally by the defending team, and indirectly by the referee himself, rather than deliberate delay by the attacking team. Exactly the same for PKs although they did not mention that in the article. It is also a bit simplistic in that many teams know how to burn time effectively with the ball in play, of course while leading or protecting a tactical draw. Also don't forget Japan wasting time while losing and of course France-Denmark. PH
Makes sense, doesn't it, to avoid timewasting and also the controversy over how much added time there is. I guess the fear is, if you open the door to that, it would lead to "timeouts" and inevitably, commercial breaks.
The original NASL used this method for a while, also including stoppages for cards. The stadium clock was official and often counted down! Whereas it did take some pressure off the referee for timekeeping, there were some problems such as the shot that hit the net after the clock hit zero, some clock malfunctions, and some operator errors. Referees (and linesmen) still had to keep time as well. It was eventually eliminated and reverted to time being kept solely by the officiating crew. But then there was always an announcement when the stadium clock ran out (or got to 90) that the time was kept on the field. Back then there was no requirement to announce the added time, but generally most referees would tell the captains casually. (They usually asked!) PH
That's interesting--I had not heard that. My first referee class was in 1977 from retired FIFA ref Ken Mullen. His recommended response to players asking how much time left was "enough," "plenty," or "time to score a couple of goals."
Who is Ken Mullan? Do you mean Ken Ridden of England? He was not on the FIFA list. But he probably was referring to players asking much before 90 mins. I was talking about after 90. Most refs would feel it reasonable to let them know. PH
Nope, Ken Mullen. He wrote Sounds of the Whistle in the 70’s, which I believe was a column in a FIFA newsletter. I have his book A Case in Mind somewhere—I’ll have to check his bio details in it. I believe he was a FIFA ref in the 60s, but it’s been a long time since the class and I could have garbled memories. He was a good teacher!
I *think* he was from England, but not really sure--I was 11! I think he was doing some sort of circuit teaching classes in different places. It was in San Jose--I don't know if it was a class just for the PAL league or if there were other people there. I'll see if I can find his book, which I should have somewhere.