QuakeFan;342701 said:

---

They don't want there to be the equivalent of the kneel-down. Yes, the team in the lead can still use stalling tactics, but they have to do so in a way that actively controls the ball and keeps it in play in a way that prevents a quick counterattack.

---

I know what you mean but that's an odd reason for that rule -- if the indistinct end time was important to keep players playing until the end, they'd have the game be officially "88 to 92 minutes long".

BearyWhite;342705 said:

---

I know what you mean but that's an odd reason for that rule -- if the indistinct end time was important to keep players playing until the end, they'd have the game be officially "88 to 92 minutes long".

---

Well, what I posted is not the reason the rule exists--it's a reason that it stays. The reason it exists is that it's the way it's been done since long before anybody invented an electronic scoreboard clock, and even today the game is played in many places without that technology. And, in theory, the rules under FIFA are supposed to be the same whether it's the World Cup Final or some amateur league in Burkina Faso.

QuakeFan;342752 said:

---

And, in theory, the rules under FIFA are supposed to be the same whether it's the World Cup Final or some amateur league in Burkina Faso.

---

This also probably explains why it's so damn hard to change other rules, like adding extra refs or amending offside. How can you get all of these countries to agree on something like that?

You could add extra refs just for major tournaments like the worldcup. I don't see that as a rule change, just making sure current traditional rules are properly enforced.

sycasey;342777 said:

---

This also probably explains why it's so damn hard to change other rules, like adding extra refs or amending offside. How can you get all of these countries to agree on something like that?

---

I believe the head of FIFA makes all the decisions, or at least controls the debate, which explains why some rules don't change. Blatter doesn't like instant replay so until he's gone it won't be part of the game.

BearyWhite;342877 said:

---

I believe the head of FIFA makes all the decisions, or at least controls the debate, which explains why some rules don't change. Blatter doesn't like instant replay so until he's gone it won't be part of the game.

---

Actually FIFA doesn't have full control the rules, which may be a good thing since Blatter often spouts off half-baked ideas that the world ignores. The rules are governed by a board that consists of FIFA plus the four home nations of the UK. FIFA has four votes and each home nation has one, with six votes required to make a change. Since FIFA always casts its four votes as a bloc, a rule change requires agreement between FIFA and two of the home nations.

Rules changes do happen on a regular basis, but most of them are pretty minor. The latest, newly in effect for this World Cup, is a ban on feinting the approach to a penalty kick.

I think you have hit upon a big problem for soccer with American audiences. I think Americans think that if the game action is going on, it should actually be IMPORTANT to watch it. Yes, there is a lot of standing around time that soccer doesn't have. But it says something that a producer can say, while the ball is live, "gee nothing important is going to happen in the next 15 seconds, throw on a replay."

tequila4kapp;342250 said:

---

For the same reason there is off-sides in hockey.

---

That's close enough to the truth.

The thread is over.

That doesn't make sense to me. So, if the ball is like 70 yards from the goal and there is 15 seconds left, we don't want everybody to acknowledge the inevitable and pack it in? Meanwhile, you could have a guy in a position to take a shot on goal who would do so if he knew the clock was about to expire, but because he doesn't know tries to work it for a better shot, or the opposite, taking bad shots because their could be five seconds left instead of a minute left to work for something better.

I'd rather guys know when it mattered so they can put the effort in when it mattered rather than being essentially fooled into putting in meaningless effort.

I do think that it is this kind of lack of precision in timekeeping and officiating that hurts the ability for the sport to catch on in the US, a country with no cultural connection to soccer.

That being said, we talk a lot about rule changes that would make the game more palatable for Americans, but the bottom line is there are a lot of countries that have a deep cultural connection to the sport. They've made the rules and if they are happy with them, there is probably a reason, and that is what counts. (of course that doesn't stop the rest of the world from messing with the rules of basketball, but I digress).

QuakeFan;342896 said:

---

Actually FIFA doesn't have full control the rules, which may be a good thing since Blatter often spouts off half-baked ideas that the world ignores. The rules are governed by a board that consists of FIFA plus the four home nations of the UK. FIFA has four votes and each home nation has one, with six votes required to make a change. Since FIFA always casts its four votes as a bloc, a rule change requires agreement between FIFA and two of the home nations.

Rules changes do happen on a regular basis, but most of them are pretty minor. The latest, newly in effect for this World Cup, is a ban on feinting the approach to a penalty kick.

---

Thanks, I didn't realize this. Are you saying that Wales is a world soccer power (in a regulator sense)?

GB54;342307 said:

---

First it will be vuvuzelas, then they will take away our right to bear arms,

---

... OK ... as long as we can still arm Bears.

;-)

BearyWhite;343010 said:

---

Thanks, I didn't realize this. Are you saying that Wales is a world soccer power (in a regulator sense)?

---

Pretty much. Basically, the original rules were set by the Football Association in England, then Scotland, Wales, and Ireland (now Northern Ireland) set up their FA's, and all four started playing national team matches amongst themselves, and set up a board called the IFAB to keep the rules standardized. FIFA started up in continental Europe in 1905, agreeing to use IFAB's rules, and to get the UK nations to join they allowed them to (a) stay separate despite them being politically united and (b) maintain a large amount of control over the rules.

Why can't Offensive Lineman move before the ball is snapped?