If teams could see how much time was left on the clock, they would go into “Four-Corners” mode and try to delay and stall.
Ideally the referee should stop the time when he sees teams trying to delay. But I like the fact that teams don’t know exactly when the game would end. In fact, only recently did they start even telling teams how much injury time there would be-before nobody even knew that, the game ended when it ended.
Like they don't already.
Ideally the referee should stop the time when he sees teams trying to delay.
Which is, I think, a fundamental flaw in the design of the game. I actually kind of like soccer. But leaving aside basketball, which is the most poorly designed and pointless sport ever (which is why it needs a shot clock), soccer lacks the end of game drama of other team sports; sports that are designed in such a way that protecting a lead by playing all defense and stalling just isn't effective. You just can't go into a defensive shell in football and hockey. The phrase "Prevent defense prevents you from winning" is true as often as not. And the best way to defend a lead in hockey is by peppering the opponent's net with shots while time goes by. If you aren't trying to score you are going to get scored on easier.
Not so with soccer. Which is why I find other things to do as an untied soccer game nears the end. It's not worth the time investment when the probability of seeing anything happen is so infinitesimal.
Even the ref doesn’t know when the game will end. Stoppage is an estimate. He can add time in stoppage to the game. Also, the game won’t be stopped if there is a chance of a goal being set up even if stoppage time is spent. The ref will wait until the ball is in a relatively meaningless area.