I was talking to my friend the other day who refuses to see why the FIFA way of keeping time was good. I obviously perfer this method of time keeping to anything that NCAA/NFHS have devised as yet. However, that discussion led me to think of a possible rules amendment regarding timing at the end of a period of play - the text I drafted follows: I'm sure I failed to consider some contingencies, but I think you all get my drift. Any thoughts, do you like it or do you hate it?
Lengthy, but it looks like a good compromise. What if the text simply said, "The period of play ends when the clock reads 0:00 and, if applicable, a current attacking sequence is completed", or something along those lines. I know it's kind of vague as to what constitutes an attacking sequence, but it would be less stuff for us to remember. But, since NFHS/NCAA likes to have everything spelled out precisely, I'm sure they'll love it. Heaven forbid referees are given too much power.
Precisely. They will need it all written out and specified exactly so the time period can end in a way that is black and white. They don't want to leave this up to the referee, else I think they would have adopted the conventional stoppage time method used in FIFA by now. (That's why I made it so long, you have to write for your audience, which in this case would be a rules commitee). So, yes its longer, but look at the NCAA/HS rule books and compare that with the 17 laws of the game from IFAB. I think the difference in length is noticeable there too.
ball goes out for a ck with 2 seconds on the clock. ref determines no add time is needed for the match, or only a few seconds are needed. why should the game continue? time has run out, why give the attacking team a late bite at the apple? (expiration a.) time runs out just after a defensive foul. same logic at above; why extend time to benefit the fouled team? (expiration c.) an attack doesn't count if it is near the midline in your own half? (expiration b.) like most of the college/hs changes, this adds lots of complexity to what whould be a simple concept - the end of play.
Well nothing will ever be perfect beyond what I consider the best system, which is that the referee controls the time on his watch on the field. so to your questions 1. Because the referee presumably stops the match when time needs to be stopped, the referee will never reasonably think that the match needs any more time (as it's all been played). This provision allows an attacking movement to be seen to its completion. When thinking about this I felt that earned corner kicks are valuable parts of an attacking play. So, do you think it would be better to just say time ends as soon as it goes out of play and don't allow the corner kick exception? 2. According to what I wrote above if a foul was committed by the defending team and time subsequently expired before the restart, the period would end. Now that you mention it, this could be a critical flaw in the proposal - encouraging a late foul just before time expires to prevent the untimed portion of the match from ever begining. Would it be better off allowing these situations to extend the time like a corner kick? The reason I felt the defending team committing a foul shouldn't be cause for ending the time, is that it encourages a foul during the extended time period to end the game. This would discourage that foul. 3. I didn't know how to define "break away" and I didn't think this extra bit of time should last very long. I asked myself "when do I usually end the match in a USSF game" and generally it's when the time expires and an attack is completed - most times this is easy to tell when the ball has changed possession and I figured such a thing could be defined by saying if the ball crosses the half way line that would be it. Obviously there are times when a break or counter can developing in the defending half and if time expired just before 0:00 then yes the idea is defeated, but there isn't any good way to define such plays so that there is a concrete way to end the match. The only other option is to remove this provision and allow the time to continue as long as it takes for the ball to go out of play. 4. It sure does make it more complicated. But frankly, I HATE the way the game ends now. Some games its fine, both teams accept that time is about to run out and they quit. In other cases, and I've litterally seen it where the attacker beat the keeper and had the ball on the way into the goal only to have the horn go off with the ball 5 yards from going in. I think those situations, while few and far between, are awful for the game. I would much rather see these attacks play out then come to a premature ending. Maybe the proposal is a solution in search a problem to some degree, but I at least thought this concept was an interesting one for discussion.
yes to 1. just let it end. if we are mainly worried about last second shots on goal being horned, why not do it like roundball? if the shot is before the horn, the result counts.
In those cases it's easy to say when the shot has been taken and when it's over. (Ball going up or above the rim). Soccer is more complex in this regard defenders can stand in the way and touch the ball and it could still go in... Plus it's not just the shot, but the full development of an attack on goal that I would like to see finished out, not only the shots.
Steve. do you think this has the proverbial snowball's chance in the hot place? I'd change (b) to "the team in possession of the ball is in it's own half of the field." No sense having a team deep in their end run around with the ball for what could be a few minutes until they get it across the half line. I might also add a condition (g) when the ball changes possession from one team to the other. NFHS is good on using possession (for the IFK restart that replaces the dropped ball in many situations) so possession could be used in defining the end of the game.
Thats a perfect example. What if a defending just bats the ball down from a shot after the horn. Where do you go then? Let them do a set piece? That could lead to a series of neverending attacking.
Not a snowballs chance in hell. Still find the conept interesting. But why oh why can't they adopt the USSF/FIFA timing structure. That would be the best scenario. I just hate to have the games end like they do. HS timing is no good.
I remember watching a girls varsity match last year where exactly what you describe occurred. Home team was winning 1-0, conceded a foul about 20 yards out on the left attacking channel, with as far as I could see from my watch about 30 seconds left to play. I don't think there was any tactical intention in the foul, the players weren't that sophisticated. Nor was there any deliberate wasting of time in organising the wall, it just took about those thirty seconds. So as the player is about to run up and take the kick, with a fair degree of tension in the air, an exciting moment in the match, the trail official does his job to the letter and blows the whistle to end the match. Neither set of parents or players were happy with that outcome. The prevailing sentiment was "how stupid was that", yet the officials had merely applied the letter of the law, sorry, rule. Earlier that season I had been pilloried in an officials' meeting for suggesting that flexibility might be in order. Meanwhile, is that a pig I see trying to find some wings?
Because in this country, we must do everything differently at every level in order to maximize confusion.
IMO it is patently unfair to allow one team to continue its attack after time expires. Allowing a team that is down by a goal to continue after time expires is a disservice to the team that did what it needed to do to win during the natural length of the match. Scott
I'm taking my NFHS soccer test this afternoon...I wonder if this will be on the exam. Although I'll freely admit to not diligently studying the high school rules as well as I should, I can't imagine I'll get the question wrong on the test since it's OPEN BOOK! What's the point of that...should I just go ahead and plan to carry my "rules book" with me on the field so I can refer to it whenever necessary?
According to our rules interpreter, the point of having an open book test is to get you to open the book. At the margins, it might get some of the refs who've "always done it this way for the past 20 years" to try to get themselves up to date on some of the rule changes.
I don't think anybody is suggesting that time be extended beyond the normal duration of a match. It's about deciding when exactly that normal duration has ended, and there is one person at the match who holds that decision. For those who believe that this can be determined exactly, I would offer up the name Clive Thomas.
It is funny how keeping time varies among the states. In NJ, they kept the clock at the scorers table in a varsity match and the referee kept on the field in JV matches. Most referees kept it on the pitch anyway and the clock wasn't really seen as important by the coaches. Most clocks were damaged or died by the end of the year. A kid kept the clock. In VA, where I like the rule the best, the clock is kept on the scoreboard and the referee on the field and stopped with two minutes left, and the referee ends the game with the clock on his watch. BTW..I never saw ANY controversy with this, and I think would solve a lot of problems in high school. A school official kept the clock, could be a kid or an adult. In TX, they are so football anal that the clock is kept on the scoreboard all the time. Any problems with the time and the game could be contested and replayed. We had an incident at a high school were the timer would stop the clock in between the countdown on the scoreboard thereby extending the length of the game. It would be very subtle, but it would take 1.5 seconds to move the digit instead of the usual 1. A an adult always kept the clock.
Just about anything would be better than a system in which a player can take a shot with 0:02 left but which enters the goal just after the buzzer, thereby precluding a game-winning or game-tying goal.