I can't understand why they don't just stop the clock during an injury and re-start it once the ball is back in play. At least we know when the game ends.
Come on. Did you see that? "Stepping" is not a good descriptor. There was barely enough pressure on Neymar's leg for him to register it.
Because you'd have guys flopping all over the place like they'd been hit by sniper fire trying to stop the clock at the ends of games.
I mean really what is the ratio of blatant flops to blatant flops that receive a card? I'm betting it's a pretty high number.
Doesn't matter. Officials shouldn't allow that to happen. The ankle step wasn't an accident, even if it was only meant to rattle rather than hurt.
It happens regardless if you stop the time or not. The point is, there's been games where there was 4 mins of of injury time and the refs let the game go on for 6 mins, totally screwed up. You don't see many hockey players flopping the last minute of a game.
Blatant flops should get carded, but to Underdog's point, they happen so frequently that the cards wouldn't stop flying - hence, they're almost always unpunished. The problem is, the consequence of a card would potentially discourage the flopping, but the consequences of the card are also so severe, and put the ref in a very difficult position. This is a problem for the game that needs to get solved, but there's not one simple answer / fix. Stopping the clock is a bad idea. Like Underdog said, you'd be stopping the game left and right. Most of these flops go ignored - watch away from the ball in any given game, and you'll see how often refs let the game play on without concern. Hockey is not even remotely a comparable - the refs do the same thing there. The only time a game is stopped for an injury is if the player is down on the ice, can't get up/move, and their team has possession. Otherwise, that game plays on too. Not even remotely comparable, to justify the point. Yeah, that's at the top of the list, Joe. How closely do you watch these games? This stuff happens all the time, everywhere. Again, the guy's foot barely applied enough pressure to Neymar to even register - I don't know what you want the ref to do about that. Award a card because you touched someone? Come on, now.
Embellishment deserves a yellow IMO, you only stop the clock on the refs signal. Look at this situation, it's the 90 min mark. The ref has determined that another 3 mins of injury time should be added on. They play on and the 3 mins has elapsed, but they continue to play. The ball is driven out of bounds by the defending team behind the net. A corner will be rewarded, but they've played above and beyond the injury time. Out of 10 refs in this situation, how many would stop the game and how many woild allow the corner? It's the only sport that has no definite ending to it. Is this ref one of only 2 that would keep the game going, leaving it to their discretion? Smh I need to know that zero time left, means "0", goose egg. Your out of time, out of luck, see you next time.
You must not watch / play much soccer. That's okay. Time is stopped based on possession and situation, much as it is in hockey (relating to your earlier example). If it's reached the end of stoppage time, but the team that's down 1 has the ball in a potential scoring position, play is allowed on. This is uniform, to my knowledge and experience.
Now the idea that the application and administration of stoppage time is too vaguely regulated by the LOTG I can get on board with. But as the LOTG is currently written, when the ref adds time, it's a minimum, not a hard number.
Except last world cup where France shot the ball and it went in but while it was in midair the ref blew the whistle. lol
