One of the world’s oldest organized team sports, and perhaps the world’s most popular, is soccer, or football, or futbol as it is called elsewhere.  To Americans, it does have one rather odd rule, regarding how the games are timed.  I refer specially to “Added Time”.

“Added Time” or “Injury Time” or “Stoppage Time” –  A quick explanation for those that don’t watch a lot of soccer. This is time added to a game, after the regulation 90 minutes have expired, to account for non-activity (originally this was mostly for injuries, thus the name).  Soccer features 2 halves, each 45 minutes long, and has a running clock. The clock never stops except for the halftime break.  This rule was to insure that the teams get 90 minutes of actual play (and fans get 90 minutes of action).   Stoppage time is actually added at the end of both halves.

Soccer has a long history, and according to my research “stoppage time” was introduced in 1891, to insure there was an entire 90 minutes of actual play. The intent behind the rule is obviously a good one.  I wonder if the origin of this rule was due to the fact that the most common time piece available to match officials in the 1800’s were pocket watches!  A little stop watch history: The first stop watch is credited to Louis Moinet in 1816, and the first one that was not a one-off hand-made device was created by the American Watch Company in 1859 (initially used for horse racing).  Stop watches were also used at the first modern Olympics, in Athens in 1896.  But the stop watch was not popularly available  until the Heuer “Micrograph” patent in 1916.   But I digress.  The intent is clearly to provide a full game of action, and Soccer/Futbol is very proud of the tradition of continuous action and a running clock.  

 In practice, at the highest level of soccer, the “fourth” referee, on the sideline, signals “added” time, but it is actually determined and controlled by the head referee. He has complete discretion on determining the final number, although he can consult the fourth referee.    It’s based on the number of things, including injuries, free kicks near the goal that require lengthy positioning, goal celebrations, substitutions, disciplinary actions, etc. Fairly new to the game, are hydration breaks and VAR reviews.   Good things for the game, but they take time.  The referees have guidelines and their own experience to help them come up with an appropriate number, and the use of a second watch to keep track of extra time is sometimes used, but not required. 

The question I have is the accuracy of this system. Referees are busy people….does this system actually provide the full 90 minutes of action we are looking for? Plus added time is always in whole minutes.

I’m not the first one to ask the question. “FiveThirtyEight” Sports timed every game of the World Cup, with stopwatches recording stoppages.  Their conclusion was that the time added was wildly inaccurate. Their analysis showed an average of added time in 32 World Cup games of 7 minutes.  Actual stoppages recorded via stopwatch averaged a little over 13 minutes per game.  Curious myself, I used a stop watch to time stoppages in the 2^nd half of a Copa America game this summer.  I did not stop the time on the usual sluggish restarts by the winning team, just the true stoppages (injuries, VAR reviews, goal celebrations).  It came out to about 8 minutes.  The actual extra time awarded was 4 minutes.     

How can this be?  Well, for one thing, the team ahead near the end of the game engage in deliberate delaying tactics. Of course they do.  Players are experts at it.  Goalies make an easy save, and plop on the ground, then take an extraordinary time to stand up and punt the ball.  Minor nicks become agonizing, excruciating incidents, complete with rolling on the ground.  Players stand around free kicks waiting for the grass to grow. Coaches can’t resist….late substitutes are a standard practice.

Then there’s the issue of incidents during the added time.  There are stoppages, perhaps goals, injuries, etc.  So, the head referee will often let the match continue after the allotted added time, to account for these stoppages. I’m sure the referee does his best, but it is very much an estimate, and I doubt he has time in this instance to consult with the assistant referees.   It is also apparent that if the losing team has the ball in an attacking position, play is continued until the ball is in a more neutral position.  This last point does not sound fair, to say the least, to the side that is ahead.  Does a side deserve more than 90  minutes of actual play if they are losing?  Does a losing (American) football team get an extra minute if they are in the red zone?   During a Concacaf game I watched this summer the referee added 5 minutes to a 1-0 game.  He let the game run to 6 1/2 minutes until the tying goal was scored, despite a lack of any stoppages during the added time period.   Controversial to say the least.

Do we really want important games to be decided by by such an arbitrary and often inaccurate timing system? One can argue that it is very exciting for a team to tie or win the game in the 7th minute of added time when there was only 5 initial minutes of added time, but I doubt that is very exciting to the other team and their fans…..and how is it fair?  Isn’t the whole purpose of rules in sports to insure fairness?  

How simple to give the referee the ability to stop the clock. Like virtually every other known sport that has a time limit. Injury; stop the clock.  When a lengthy (and they can be lengthy) VAR review occurs, just stop the clock. Hydration breaks, substitutions, goals…..stop the clock.   Side benefit: when the team ahead starts the annoying delaying tactics or faking injury….just stop the clock!   As the effectiveness of these tactics diminish, so will their frequency.  In this way, the ability to stop the clock can actually increase the continuous play soccer aficionados are so passionate about.

But perhaps I’m missing something.  Maybe I am indoctrinated by the stadium clock at American football.  Is it more exciting for the fans to not know when the game will end?   I’m not sure.  There are certainly many famous and dramatic finishes in injury time.  Would they have been less dramatic with a stadium clock ticking down the last seconds? I know that for me, I love the end of close football or basketball games where I see the clock race down amid frantic field/court action.  Or the exciting countdown by the crowd of the winning side.   I wonder how professional players and coaches feel (I don’t know any or I would ask….).  How do you feel? Do you like the uncertainty?

There are some other issues with the “beautiful game”.  When goals are so hard to come by, it seems very harsh to award a penalty kick for any foul in the penalty box, even if inconsequential. Or for that matter, the clearly unintentional hand ball.  It seems reasonable that the referee at least have the discretion to award a free kick outside the box when the foul is minor, or clearly did not prevent a scoring opportunity.

But please don’t get the impression I am dissing this sport.  I love it, I played club soccer with my wife for 30 years, I was a season ticket holder for the original North American Soccer League (NASL) in the late 70’s, I’ve been to World Cup games, Copa America games, MLS games, NWSL games, even a Premier League game in Scotland, and I can not wait for the World Cup coming to the US.  I will be there!

So what do you think?  Will these rules ever change? They seem embedded in the tradition of the game, so I am doubtful.  Plus, glaciers often seem to move faster than FIFA, although their embrace of VAR technology has been an exception.

In the meantime, long live the pocket watch!