NEW: MLS has had preliminary discussions with IFAB about potentially trialing the use of a stopped clock during matches, a potentially fundamental, massive change to the laws of the game. I have more on the Guardian, w/@MattHughesMedia:https://t.co/jBjYe9DrEk— Pablo Iglesias Maurer (@MLSist) May 20, 2026 Even after over 30 years, it still seems like MLS executives fundamentally hate soccer and what makes the game so great.
The funny thing is if the Swedish league volunteered for it I suspect it would be an interesting trial. MLS doing it will be seen as America trying to ruin the sport.
But the thing is those leagues wouldn't trial something as extreme as that because it would mess with the sanctity and continuity of their competition. They have too much respect for their fans and their competition. MLS just doesn't care. See how they constantly tinker with the play-offs and the regular season structure. Other than the two referee system that Serie A trialed earlier this century in the Coppa Italia when was the last time any major league trialed something so fundamentally extreme? The frustrating part is that MLS seems to think their fans want a different product compared to the rest of the world. Fans of the league don't want their league to look and feel different than the Premier League or any European league. They want the same thing played on American soil.
I would say to have a timekeeper with a stopwatch on every ball out of play so you can get the ACTUAL stoppage time added on (so 10-15 minutes per half), but then I realized that then you have stoppage time within stoppage time and it will never end. Even though I would like for the actual time to be played and not the arbitrary BS stoppage time used now, the stopping clock will definitely lead to ad breaks, which I’m sure is going to be the future of this sport as the world continue to go down the toilet with respect to endless advertising and subscriptions
The article implies that any initial test would be MLS Next, not MLS. I’m not a fan of stop clock for a whole host of reasons. But unless people feel that some of the time wasting is addressed meaningfully, I won’t at all be surprised to see trials done the road. And I don’t necessarily think trials are terrible—sometimes the result of a trial is to show something is a bad idea.
It's hard to tell since the American fanbase is currently diehard season ticket holders and those on Apple TV. It's the hardest sport to watch on "traditional" TV in the US, so who would really know what the American fans wan't? In the 70's and 80's, there was a term called "Euro Snobs", but even they turned out to watch NASL games, in a league where you had these stoppages they're suggesting. They also had a clock that went down to "Zero" and you blew the whistle to end the half or gam, regardless if someone had an attacking opportunity. People didn't care because they were entertained. I doubt this will ever happen in the near future and I understand all about "tradition", but not a single fan globally will stop watching the game if this ever passed down the road.
Bingo. Stopping the clock will lead to commercial breaks. Which even I have to admit is a worse outcome than the nonsense added time that we get in most non-FIFA competitions nowadays. I think maybe if it’s just “accurate accounting of stoppage time” instead of a countdown clock, that will be more resistant to the commercial break scourge. If you want the time wasting theatrics out of the game, you can’t do that without ensuring that all the lost time is played eventually.
I could have sworn I heard that they were gonna do something like “if a throw in free kick gk ck isn’t taken within 5-10 seconds, it’s a turnover” to try to stop the endless time wasting
TI and GK only, and it’s 5 sec after the R decides it’s taken too long. Q is whether it is going to be used and be effective or not. (And it is weirdly asymmetrical as to GK and CK.)
Almost like hydration breaks at every game . . . Has anyone heard further on whether the U.S. broadcasters are going to use it as a commercial break? I seem to recall hearing early after the announcement that wasn’t the plan, but I certainly lack confidence it wound become the plan.
I suspect the mandatory hydration break will become one of the biggest stories of the World Cup outside of the US.
While I agree that the VAR review issue with incorrect CKs versus GKs is weirdly assymmetrical (actually, I'd go further and just say stupid, lazy, and counter to promoting attacking soccer)... the timewasting issue on GK v CK is necessarily assymetrical. A CK is an attacking set piece, more akin to a DFK in dangerous territory. The game understands it takes some time to set up in a way that a GK does not. In the situation where an attacking team wants to delay at a corner kick... well, first, most people just accept that (you're down and the other team earned a CK by continuing to attack? that's your problem/fault) but also teams can and do waste time by taking the short corner kick and keeping the ball; the "stand and wait 15 seconds to take a corner kick for no reason except to waste time" doesn't really exist as any sort of widespread phenomenon.
All that is true. But the count also doesn’t start until the R decides it has been taking too long. So having it symmetrical would just mean it rarely comes into play. Or do they fear a ref would get weirdly aggressive and take away a corner?
Maybe they fear a ref would be weirdly aggressive. Maybe they think it's something a referee shouldn't be having to think about on the set piece that most needs their attention for foul play (this would be my reason). But maybe they just see it differently per the above and don't care.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c9v39x2v8yxo "Don't leave the field for a tactical timeout while the goalkeeper is "injured" but if you do no yellow card will be given." Also, IFAB determined to expand VAR to the limits so it can disallow as many goals as possible, but never expand scope to give more penalties.
Thankfully fourth officials have been great at managing the technical areas so this shouldn't be an issue at all.
“The International Football Association Board (Ifab) has also approved a request to change video assistant referee (VAR) protocol to allow reviews of attacking fouls that happen before the ball is in play.” My head is exploding. At least the suggestion is that it should be a retake and not a DFK. But then… we now have a “do-over” standard? What’s a clear and obvious do over? Despite Dale’s language, this isn’t a foul. And since the remedy is a redo and not a change of possession, surely VARs and referees will be more comfortable intervening. But seriously, what’s the standard? There’s all sorts of bumping and jostling we often intervene at before a corner where we’d never actually call a foul for. Sorry, this is insane. They have to invent two new standards to get things here. Two weeks before a World Cup.