How hard is it for a ref to have the ability to start and stop a clock at his will? Instead we get this magical number, of which I have no clue if it's accurate or not. It's likely not since all stoppage time is in whole numbers. Then if a team is attacking, the time can get extended. No other sport has the ambiguity. If it's a 90 minute game, prove it with a clock that stops.
And don't even get me started on fake injuries. Every game should be reviewed after the fact and yellow cards given for dives. I saw a guy get hit in the neck and he went down to the ground covering his eye. This crap needs to be out of the game. If there's no consequences, they'll keep diving.
It keeps the game moving. With a stopped clock you get players milking time to rest, receiving coaching instructions, etc.
Why does basketball count hoops that go in after the clock has expired, unlike hockey? Why does FB not end play when the clock hits zero?
For soccer, added time and allowing the attacking team to within reason complete it's possession adds to the drama, which is the point any spectator sport.
Yes, it's confusing to casual fans and isn't applied consistently but it does work fine.
What doesn't work is the nebulous rules for awarding PKs. VAR hasn't helped much but a few rule tweaks have improved things and a few more would be welcomed. IMO
1. Clear and obvious error is a good standard glad they stopped reviewing every close call on the field.
2. Offsides, the rule should be changed so that an attacking player is onside unless his foot is clearly in front of the last defender. Don't care about heads, hips, shoulders, etc. Also don't care if one toe or heel is a couple inches in front.
They should pick one reference and require clear separation to disallow a goal. Ties go to the attacker, so to speak. I'm tired of waiting for poorly drawn lines over arbitrary video frames that purport to be the moment the ball was played. At 30+ frames per second, that's nonsense at that distance and resolution.
www.bbc.com
