Hahahah. Exactly! Criticisms of timekeeping are often raised, but of I've always thought soccer was the most consistent of sports with a clock. If a game starts at three in the afternoon, you've pretty much got until 4.50p to score more goals than the other guys. England is a particularly good example, as halftime whistles are blowing up and down the country at 3.47p to 3.48p and full-time a few minutes before 5pm (more true, obviously, before tv influence crept in). If you regularly videotape league or group-stage football matches, you know just how predictable the timing is.
This is quite a cynical attitude. Do you believe most referees are incompetant or corrupt? I guess that at the top levels of soccer the referees have to file a match report and probably have some sort of debrief or performance review. If this is indeed the case then there are people that are aware of the mistakes. One has to wonder if the cure is any better than the ailment. This statement is pure genius.
The reason people countdown the New Year or a space shuttle launch or any other public communal timed event has little to do with knowing the exact moment a change has occured. Do many people celebrating in Times Square care if the ball dropped 1.75 seconds to early and therefore said Happy New Year early as well? Is anyone disappointed that the space shuttle does not break free of the ground at the exact moment they say zero? People count down becuase they have been doing it since they were in kindergarden and becuase of the shared experience. Soccer is, generally, not a game of precision. Play is allowed to go on after some fouls due to advantage or the perceived severity. Not all handballs are called, not all balls going over the touchline are called. The pitch itself is not required to be completly level according to the laws of the game (though Fifa and other governing bodies require it at high levels). Placement of the ball for a freekick and player position for a throw-in is not precise. Soccer is, or at least ought to be, a game of fluidity and simplicity. Technicalities should not rule the pitch (unless you love NCAA micromanagement). This is not to say that accuracy should not be the goal or encouraged. Referees should strive for perfection, but it is not fundamentally unfair for the referee to allow a run of play come to a conclusion. Afterall, both teams had already had 90 minutes in which to score. By the very nature of having an official in charge of the game we are put in a position to trust their judgement. If one cannot tell if the ball has completely gone out of bounds it is determined to be in. One cannot equate scoring a goal and the ball going into touch. Awarding a goal is not a reward for exciting or even good play. It is simply the reward for the ball completely crossing the line. Someone has to make the call. It is not as if the referees, consistantly, at the top levels arbitrarily make calls. Sometimes it appears to be the case, but from my observation it is not the norm. Becuase of the relative importance, logistical simplicity and level of discretion required of the various issues.
Why do you think the amount of mistakes they make drop when you no longer can tell they are making them? Do these match reports have records of how long each stoppage took place? I don't think so.
I think it is more than learned behavior. I think it is innate in people. There is a reason why most sports switched to it as soon as technology was available - or even drove technology to make public time possible. Heck, that need to know beforehand when something is supposed to be done extends to work itself and the birth of clocks. When I was an hourly worker I sure looked forward to the time I can leave work, and not have to depend on the boss arbitrarily keeping me longer than we agreed. I watch college soccer and I like the clock management there very much. The clock does not stop the flow anymore than balls going out to touch do, and it only does it twice a game. But because the line and goal is there, we can tell when the ref makes a mistake and boo him and provide a clear way to determine mistakes after the match. I want that for all aspects of the game. I'm not looking for absolute perfect time control, but I do want to make sure that gross mistakes are caught. I can in the sense that both are laws devised beforehand with definite boundaries and rules to be followed with a public touchstone to compare against. I want, in a general sense, for all laws to be the treated the same. Exactly. Then why do you want to reward teams that are still controlling the ball after the 90 minutes of play have passed? The ref is there to judge when the play clock should be stopped and started. He is not there to determine when the game is over. The game is over when the time completely passes the 90 minute mark, just like a goal is when a ball completely crosses the line.
I never said that they make fewer mistakes if the public is unaware. I simply asked if you believe the majority of referees to be incompetant or corrupt. Which you still have not answered. I do not know. I have never seen them. The point is that there is oversight of the referees at the top levels. I cannot see how it is possible to have an absolute accountability of every second of play and every second of time wasting in an effective, simple and universally accepted manner. Soccer games ought to be won and lost based on the play of the participants not on technicalities of the clock or by tactical, dead ball time-wasting. I do not want to watch a soccer game end with the officials watching a monitor to determine whether the ball completely crossed the goal line at +0.01 seconds or at -0.01 seconds relative to the end of the game. I just do not believe that it is a game that should be based on technicalities. That's great, but I dislike college soccer and the NCAA and everything they stand for. Ooops wrong discussion. There are several things I like about the way time is kept in soccer. I like that the referee has some discretion on the timekeeping to keep some time wasting in check. I like to hear the home fans whistling to encourage the ref to end the game when their team is ahead. Mostly, I like that a run of play can come to a conclusion. I do believe that most referees make an effort to call a fair game regardless of their officiating skills. Obviously, there are some corrupt referees, but timekeeping is probably not the most effective way for them to favor one team over another.
Well, there are a lot of things that could fall under this category, e.g., what the coaches tell the players at halftime, what the players tell each other on the field during play, how and with whom the players had sex the night before. But, none of that information is supplied to fans, no matter how much they want to know them. Yes, and that reason is that nothing else is happening while that time is elapsing except waiting for the clock to reach zero, which is THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT! In your movie examples, those are artificial devices, gimmicks to create drama, something that is unnecessary when a soccer team is pressing for a winner or an equalizer, while not knowing exactly how much time is left. Not knowing the exact time adds mystery, drama and excitement to soccer games. The only downside is, apparently, the principle of your being denied information that you want to know. I'm sorry, but the satisfaction of your curiosity is not reason enough to justify losing that mystery, drama and excitement. Well, if you like watching a guy dribble a basketball just waiting for the clock to tick down to where he knows he can take the last shot of a quarter, or seeing a QB take a knee because he knows how many seconds he needs to kill before the end of a half, then that reason is for you. Both games would be much improved, in my opinion, if those situations were eliminated by having the players play the game until the moment that the game is over. Both games are diminished by those frequent non-action sequences that are the direct result of having the exact time posted for all to see. It is, of course, not a matter of not trusting a referee, it is a matter of witnessing the action of a ball going into the net. If you think that witnessing numbers changing on a scoreboard is comparable, then I don't know what to tell you. Because withholding the information regarding the time enhances the game, and withholding the information in the ridiculous examples that you cite would not. Soccer became the world's most popular sport in large part because most people can understand the difference between watching a game and watching numbers on a scoreboard changing. You are apparently not one of them.
Anyone who has ever played the game, not even at a very high level, can tell you about the emotional rush when added time is winding down at the end of a game. If you are behind, you are desperately trying to make one last forray into the attacking zone, hoping that you will have enough time to set up a shot that could give you a result. If you are ahead and getting more tired by the second, you are desperately waiting to hear those three short whistle bursts, but in the meantime hoping to absorb and defuse what you hope will be the final wave of attack. Regardless of which side you are on, it beats the hell out of the game being essentially over because everyone can see only 30 seconds left and a defender hoofs it out of touch. Oh, and Spejic, on the game reports to media (in MLS at least), they do mention how much extra time was added on in each half. Certainly at this level there are referee evaluators and if a fourth official added seven minutes of time when there might have been cause for 2-3 minutes to be added, you can be sure that will be questioned. The system is not perfect, but it is a hell of a lot more perfect than the alternatives. There is a reason why soccer is the greatest game on planet earth, and the drama at the end from not knowing precisely when it will end is certainly part of that. Tom