Strategic rule breaking: Time wasting to win soccer games.

Rules regulate behavior, but in competitive contexts they also create incentives for rule-breaking because enforcement is imperfect. Sports is a prime example of this, and one that lends itself well to investigation because strategic rule-breaking is often measurable. Professional soccer is a highly competitive team sport with economic rewards for winning given to teams and players. It has a set of rules to ensure fair play, but the enforcement is incomplete, and hence can lead to strategic behavior. Using newly available data, we examine strategic time-wasting, a behavior that help teams win games, or tie games against superior opponents, but is contrary to the objective of game play as entertainment for the spectators. We demonstrate that strategic time-wasting is widespread and is done through delayed restart of the game after goalie capture of the ball, goal kick, throw-in, free kick, corner kick, and substitution. The strategic time-wasting has substantial magnitude, and models of the value per minute predict time-wasting well. Because this time-wasting is a result of incentives created by not stopping the game clock, we predict that a change to rules with stopped game clock when the play is stopped would make game play more time efficient.

Introduction

Most arenas of social life have rules, ranging from norms for good behavior to regulations and laws with enforcement and penalties. The same areas of social life often have benefits obtained through competition, with potential to gain advantages through breaking the rules. Indeed, one purpose of rule systems is to distinguish acceptable and unacceptable competitive actions in order to increase social welfare [1]. A prototypical case is professional sports, which have clearly defined sets of rules and a lengthy track record of rule-breaking, in some cases providing great rewards to the perpetrator. Professional cyclists have engaged in significant and systematic doping [2], with the profits earned by Lance Armstrong alone estimated to USD 200 million. Manipulation of equipment is also done, as in the “deflategate” leading to National Football League’s New England Patriots receiving a fine and losing draft picks after they were found to have deflated the football to advantage their quarterback. Even the game field can be manipulated, as when ice hockey players deliberately move the goal when under attack.

The breaking of rules in competitive arenas is closely related to theory of rational crime and optimal law enforcement [3, 4]. Holding the benefit of rule breaking constant, it is more likely to occur when the enforcement, defined as the product of the discovery likelihood and punishment severity, is lower. Holding the enforcement constant, it is more likely to occur when the benefit is greater. Research on rule breaking in and by organizations has cast doubt on whether rule breaking is fully rational, however, because other factors have been found to matter, such as psychological strain, cultural beliefs, and interpersonal influence [5]. Because it is usually difficult to measure rule-breaking opportunities and benefits using field data, accurate answers to the question of whether rule breaking is strategic and, if so, how the strategy is formed, are rarely found.

We turn to soccer as an excellent empirical context for investigating this question. Soccer is the world’s largest sports in revenue, viewers, and athletes. The UEFA Champions League has 2.28B USD in prize money, the highest of any sports competition, and the top 5 highest paying sports competitions in terms of prize money, includes 3 other soccer competitions. Underlying the prize money are expensive broadcasting rights, such as the 5.3B GBP paid for the domestic broadcast of English Premier League. The broadcasting rights are expensive because of the high audience interest, as soccer is the most-watched sport in many nations, and the two last World Cup competitions each had more than 3B TV viewers. The number of people who regularly play soccer is around 265M worldwide. www.totalsportek.com/most-popular-sports/ summarizes these statistics.

Football has a detailed rule system that has been largely unchanged since it was formalized in the 19th century. Unlike many other sports, the game clock is not stopped when the play halts because the ball goes out of bounds or there is a foul or substitution. If there had been no strategic time-wasting, the loss of playing time would just be a random result of the events in the game. Indeed, to prevent loss of time from being used strategically, time-wasting is a foul that should be penalized by the referee. Strategic time-wasting is still done by delaying restart of play after game events that involve stoppage to retrieve and position the ball and players (goal kick, throw-in, free kick, and corner kick) or temporary holding of the ball to allow teammates to reposition themselves (goalie kick or throw of captured ball). The purpose of time-wasting is to secure a win when the team is ahead in the score, or even to secure a tie when the score is even and the opposing team is stronger.

Time-wasting is recognized as a potential problem by fans of the game and the soccer governing bodies. There are discussions in the international football association FIFA and the governing body IFAB of whether the current rules give too much room for strategic time-wasting, and hence need to be changed. Any changes in the rules, such as to stop the clock when the ball is out of play, would be a major break with the traditional way of playing the game, and would not be easy to make without clear evidence that time-wasting is significant in duration and could potentially affect game results. These are questions that can be answered by using management science techniques for analyzing the duration of game stoppages, as we do here. Indeed, the discussions at FIFA have been informed by findings from our research project.

Fig 1 can be used to assess the extent of strategic time-wasting. For each stoppage event, it compares stoppages in which the restarting team is ahead, tied, and behind in goals scored. The heat maps show the number of stoppages normalized to 60 minutes of in-play time (horizontal axis) and the duration of each stoppage in seconds (vertical axis). For all events except substitutions, the number of stoppages is determined by the course of play, with the team restarting the play having some ability to create stoppages, but often it is the team not restarting that creates stoppages. Thus, while movements North or East in the heat map means more time wasted, a movement North is more indicative of the restarting team’s influence. The histograms on each axis depict the distribution along the corresponding dimension, so the vertical (rightmost) histogram shows duration and is of particular interest for assessing time-wasting.

Fig 1

Frequency and duration of each stoppage.

Fig 1 shows that goalie restart of play after capturing the ball in play has many more lengthy events when the team is ahead. Goal kicks are not visibly different when the restarting team is ahead or tied (the mean is slightly larger when ahead) but are faster when it is behind. Consistent with strategic time-wasting, throw-ins are faster when the team is tied, and even faster when it is behind. Free kicks are similar: the duration is reduced as the restarting team goes from ahead to tied, and from tied to behind. Corners have longer duration when the restarting team has a less advantageous score. Throw-ins, free kicks, and corners are less frequent when the restarting team is ahead, which could be a natural result of the flow of play or a result of the team behind seeking to keep the ball in play. Finally, for substitutions the heat map shows movement towards Northeast when the restarting team is ahead in the score during the last 15 minutes of the game. We omit earlier substitutions, which are usually made to replace a player who is injured or has played poorly. This is because the team that calls for more substitutions also controls the duration. The scarcity and high speed of substitutions by the team that is behind are particularly striking.

Although this figure demonstrates strategic time-wasting, splitting the data into scores when the restarting team is ahead, tied, or behind is a crude approach that ignores multiple features of the game. First, the teams have unequal strength even in a top league, and a tied score has different meaning for two teams that have roughly the same strength and two teams with very different strength. A tied score is advantageous for the weaker of two teams, a fact that Fig 1 ignores. Second, the game of soccer has a nominal time of 90 minutes, and the effect of wasting time on the final result is very different depending on the time at which a stoppage occurs. Again, the weaker of two tied teams can accomplish little by wasting time in minute 10 of the game, but time-wasting in minute 80 could be very valuable. The division into ahead, tied, and behind, or indeed any score difference, is a simple heuristic that may underestimate the strategic nature of time-wasting.

To analyze the time-wasting strategy, we use a value-based model of time-wasting benefit as a reference point. We apply a model for in-play prediction of match outcomes [6] which is briefly described as follows. For each match, let i index each team and let j index the match outcome (team 1 wins, tie, team 2 wins), where the probability of outcome j is denoted p. The goals of the two teams are modeled as two independent Poisson processes with arrival rates λ, where the number of goals scored by team i up to time (in minutes) t is denoted N(t). With this, the probability at time t of an outcome given current score difference s(t) = N1(t) − N2(t) can be calculated. For an arbitrary pre-match predictive distribution of team strengths, there exists a unique pair of Poisson arrival rates λ1, λ2 corresponding to the above described model that in turn can be used to estimate the probability of the outcomes (team 1 wins, tie, team 2 wins) given any elapsed time of the game and score [6]. Below we describe how this model yields variables that predict strategic time-wasting.

In addition to the value-based model, we also use a semi value-based model assuming that the pre-game team strength is taken into account and the probability is adjusted for game state and time remaining as described in the psychological theory of anchoring and adjustment [7]. We fit these models to the data and produce parameter estimates and model fit.

The models show that soccer players strategically waste time, which means that the 90 minutes of nominal play time is reduced not only by natural stoppages such as fouls or the ball out of bounds, but also by teams strategically taking advantage of such stoppages. This suggests the potential for changing the rules of the game to one with a shorter effective play time where the game clock is stopped whenever play is halted, and such a rule change is currently discussed by IFAB/FIFA. Under current rules, effective play time is significantly less than 60 minutes per game, so this change of rules would lead to more effective play time. Because the incentive to prolong stoppages would disappear, the stoppage time would be reduced. The result would be an increase in the proportion of game time with the ball in play, to the advantage of game spectators. But even more importantly, the variability of play time would be eliminated, it would become a more fair game, and unethical behavior of players would be reduced, the latter of which is a concern because they are idols forming norms for children.

Materials and methods

Data

We study the top division of one of the top professional soccer leagues in Europe. It has 20 teams and plays according to a league (round-robin) system to determine a champion and three teams that will be relegated to the division below. The top four teams will advance to the Europe-wide Champions League, so the final position on the table determines whether the team will end the season in either of the three tiers of the league: Champions League, middle, or relegation.

We analyze data from Amisco-Prozone, which codes soccer matches from many professional leagues for analytical use by teams. The data contain player position on the field (x, y coordinates) every 0.1 seconds and events, which are coded from video recordings and classified into 58 types. Events can be as basic as a touch (player touches the ball, usually to drive it forward), or as specific as a goalie punch (with the fists), fumble (open hands, dropped ball), catch (open hands and holding) and save (shot block that prevented a goal). On average a game has 2,557 events. We use data from 2,231 matches from the 2009–2015 seasons.

The events of interest here stop the play and allow one team to delay the restart of play. We focus our analysis on common events, and hence we analyze the same events as shown in Fig 1. They are (1) goalie kick or throw after capturing the ball, (2) goalie kick after the opposing team has made the ball cross the goal-line, (3) throw-in after the opposing team has made the ball cross the touchline, (4) corner kick, (5) free kick and (6) substitution. Events 1 and 2 involve the goalie, whose unique control over the ball may make him a designated time-waster, and event 6 involves the manager. The other events involve regular team members.

Time-wasting should be seen as a game among members of the team controlling the ball, members of the opposing team, and the referee team. Referees are required to prevent time-wasting and to penalize it with yellow cards. When players of the team that will not restart the game are near the ball as the referee stops the play, they can try to speed up play by quickly returning the ball to the throw-in or free kick spot, or to slow it down by being slow to return the ball. The latter is a behavior that referees are especially alert to and may penalize. The incentives in favor of time-wasting could still influence a team to waste time despite referee and opposing team’s attempts to limit time wasting.

Models

In each analysis of time-wasting events, the dependent variable is the duration from the game stoppage to restart, on a scale of seconds. The game stoppage event is the referee marking a foul by whistle and arm signals or a ball being marked as out of bounds when it crosses the edge of the field. For goalie events that do not involve stop of game, those preceding events are usually saves of shot attempts, so the event of starting play is preceded by a goalie gaining control over the ball. Each analysis removes the observations with the upper and lower 5% of the event times in order to avoid outlier influence. We perform robustness checks that retain all observations and obtain the same results.

We use linear regression of the duration from the triggering event (play stoppage, ball out of bounds or ball captured by goalie) to play restart. The duration cannot be negative, so a censoring or event history model would have been possible. However, the distribution of the dependent variable shows that the boundary at zero does not cause observations to stack up at the lower bound, and hence a censoring model does not seem warranted. Nor are there cases of right-censoring (i.e., no ending event). Referees stop for half-time and the end of game while the ball is in play, not while waiting for a team to restart the play, so a major rationale for using event history models is missing for these data. We thus chose linear regression as an estimator with good overall properties. We performed robustness checks using event history models, and found that our findings held.

We also analyze total time-wasting during a game by modeling the effective playing time as a function of time-wasting incentives as a linear regression.

Variables

The independent variables for the team restarting the game are chosen to match the value-based and semi value-based time-wasting strategies. Our value-based model is parametrized using the betting odds as basis for the pre-match predictive distribution of team strengths. Prediction markets have been examined for bias and precision before, and found to have excellent properties in general [8, 9] and for soccer games [10, 11]. We obtain the odds from http://www.football-data.co.uk/, a site with odds for many leagues. For each match, we use the odds for home/tie/away prior to the match start to generate the corresponding Poisson arrival rates for goals λ1, λ2.

We define the following variables representing the value of a time-wasting strategy. Value of a minute is the expected value of wasting a minute to the restarting team, and equals the expected points (3 points for win, 1 point for tie, 0 point for loss) for the team in focus one minute later with the same score minus its current expected points. As the value of wasting an additional minute increases, teams should waste more time. Value of a minute is negative if the score relative to the expected playing time implies that the team would be better off gaining rather than wasting time (i.e., a superior team is behind in the score). To check whether the value of a minute has different effects for delaying or speeding up the game, it is split into a negative and a positive part. The absolute value is taken in the negative range, so a higher value means further away from the origin in either direction. The split variable will capture whether teams have different ease of speeding up and slowing down the game. Different ease of speeding up and slowing down the game could occur because there is no penalty for rushing a re-start except that the team-mates will have less time to position themselves optimally. Slowing down the game can attract referee attention and potentially be penalized.

To examine the semi value-based model with anchoring and adjustment, we define two variables. Initial advantage is equal to the expected points of the restarting team less the expected number of points of the opposing team, and is calculated at the start of the match using the betting odds. The longer the duration of a stochastic process, the smaller the ratio of randomness to expected value, which means that longer effective playing time makes a favorable outcome for the stronger team more likely. Hence a team with larger value of initial advantage will have less incentive to delay the game. Performance reflects the change in expected points from the start of the match until the current time in the match, taking time and score into account. A positive value of this variable means that the team is doing better than expected, so to finish the game while the fortunate position remains it has an incentive to waste time.

The difference between the variables value of a minute and performance is important. Value of a minute represents a nearly optimal time-wasting strategy because it measures, at each time point, how much the team stands to gain from wasting a minute. The only omission from the model is the yellow card risk, which is difficult to quantify because it usually does not affect the current game, but may cause a player to lose eligibility for a later game. Performance is not optimal, though it has a similar analytical foundation. It corresponds to a backward-looking aggregate change in expected points since the game started. Thus, initial advantage is an anchor of the likely points the team will take; performance is an adjustment for the current state of the game. These variables correspond to a cognitive operation of anchoring judgments at a reference point and making adjustments thereafter [7].

We also estimate a heuristic model similar to the graphs in Fig 1. It has the difference in goals between the restarting team and the opposing team, broken into the intervals -3 (3 or more goals behind), -2 (two goals behind), -1 (one goal behind), 0 (tied), 1 (one goal ahead), 2 (two goals ahead), and 3 (3 or more goals ahead). It has an indicator for whether the home team is the one restarting, and indicators for the nominal time played so far, divided into 6 time intervals of 15 minutes of play time. The estimates of this model are available from the authors and show that (as expected) this model is a worse fit to the data than the value-based and semi value-based models, for all events.

For the model of effective playing time, we divide a match half into three time buckets ([0 − 15), [15 − 30), [30 − end]). For each time bucket, we calculate positive incentives as mean(max(0, Value of minute)) for either the home or away team, and negative incentives as mean(max(0, -Value of minute)) for either the home or away team. In some models, we also enter fixed effects for each team.

Results

We display the model estimates in Table 1. In the top panel, the signs of all coefficient estimates match the prediction of the value-based model of time-wasting. Higher value of a minute leads to greater time-wasting when the value of a minute is greater than zero. When the value of a minute is below zero, the further below zero it is, the less time is wasted. This finding is remarkably consistent across the many types of stops modeled, especially when considering the great variation in players involved in each case. The two first outcomes are controlled by the goalie, throw-ins are often done by players in side-back or wing positions, and free kicks and corner kicks are typically done by the strongest and most accurate kickers. For some outcomes the coefficients for below-zero value are larger than those for above-zero value, suggesting that it could be easier to speed up play than to slow down play. The finding points to a role of the referees in countering the time-wasting strategy, as slowing down the game can be penalized but speeding up is not rewarded.

Table 1

Models of time-wasting.

Outcome	Goalie restart play	Goalie kick in play	Throw-in	Free kick	Corner kick	Substitution
Value-based model
(Intercept)	25.436***(0.040)	6.590***(0.032)	12.009***(0.024)	26.936***(0.077)	25.033***(0.052)	50.52**(0.241)
Value of minute, positive	129.637***(6.079)	165.078***(5.021)	187.904***(4.363)	315.646***(12.904)	189.899***(10.602)	195.340***(26.936)
Value of minute, negative	-407.510***(7.539)	-175.778***(5.300)	-180.017***(3.765)	-208.627***(12.532)	-226.028***(7.147)	-291.373***(30.989)
AIC	211,970	181,936	543,524	406,259	131,795	75,393
Semi value-based model
(Intercept)	24.397***(0.029)	6.363***(0.023)	11.879***(0.017)	26.972***(0.055)	24.808***(0.038)	49.851***(0.169)
Initial advantage	-0.761***(0.024)	-0.724***(0.019)	-0.475***(0.015)	-0.868***(0.047)	-0.596***(0.031)	0.325**(0.141)
Performance	2.506***(0.038)	1.500***(0.030)	1.757***(0.022)	2.473***(0.071)	2.130***(0.047)	2.787***(0.168)
AIC	211,206	181,065	542,133	405,934	131,253	75,323
Observations	34,238	32,119	89,332	51,504	21,247	8,981

Note:

***p<0.001;

**p<0.01;

*p<0.05; two-sided tests.

Standard errors in parentheses below coefficient estimates. AIC is the Akaike Information Criterion for model fit (lower means better model).

Interpretation of the coefficients is easy. If wasting a minute gives (say) a 0.1 increase in the expected points from the game, a goalie will waste 12.96 seconds when starting play with a goal-kick. This is a very large effect, but such benefits are found in the data. However, the value of a minute has a standard deviation of 0.007, so it is more normal to expect goal kick delays of just below two seconds, corresponding to a two standard deviations difference. This is already noticeable for spectators (especially fans of an opposing team that is behind), and the model accurately captures spectators’ impression that goalies waste time when it benefits their team. Other events such as free-kicks have much greater coefficients, indicating that they are more amenable to time-wasting. Part of this may be explained by the fact that a free kick is often due to foul play that can result in temporary pain. It is hard to assess how the fouled player is affected, so he has the opportunity to exaggerate the impact. A two standard deviation difference in the value of a minute predicts more than four seconds added when taking a free-kick. The value-based models have good fit to the data, but comparison of the AIC statistics with the semi value-based models in the bottom panel shows that the semi value-based models fit the data best.

In Table 1, bottom panel we see negative coefficients for the initial advantage, showing that stronger teams do not tend to delay the game, which is expected because a stronger team is in a better position to score, and needs to score in order to win the game. It is also more likely to be the one scoring when ahead in order to secure the win. Also, the coefficient for performance has a positive sign, indicating that a team that does better than expected will waste time. This coefficient is significant across all the events we analyze, in support of our prediction of strategic time-wasting.

These differences are large enough to be visible in simple graphical displays. Fig 2 shows box plots for the duration of four restart events grouped into low (bottom 10%), medium (center 80%), and high (top 10%) game-time performance. Compared with the analysis, this summation of the data gives an incomplete view of the strategic time-wasting because the initial advantage also affects the delay and varies among the observations in each of the groupings. Still, the graphs show clear effects for all outcomes, with the median increasing exactly as the theory would expect in all three graphs, the first quartile increasing in all four graphs, and the third quartile increasing in all graphs except free kicks. The proportional increase is remarkably large for throw-ins, whereas free kicks see a large absolute increase but much smaller proportional increase due to the many observations with very long duration. For corner kicks, both the proportional and absolute increases are large. Graphs dividing the data in percentiles of value of a minute showed similar effects.

Fig 2

Delay of game as function of performance.

Performance level. 1 = Bottom 10% (low performance). 2 = Middle 80%. 3 = Top 10% (high performance).

Next, we estimated the total effect of the time-wasting incentives on the effective playing time. The findings are in Table 2. We see that the R square statistic is 0.091 in Model 3 before the fixed effects for teams are entered, which means that the full set of time-wasting incentives explains 9.1% of the time lost. This explanatory power is good considering the significant variation in random sources of loss in effective playing time loss, such as actual (not faked) player injuries. The significant increase in R square in Model 4 indicates that teams also differ greatly in time-wasting, and by inspecting the coefficients of the team indicator variables it is easy to find pairs of teams whose expected effective playing time differ by at least five minutes per game. As one might expect, the team fixed effects are related to the team strength. Fig 3 shows scatterplot of average effective playing time per home game by average points by home game (green triangles) and away game (red circles) with fitted lines. Teams are awarded zero points for a loss, one for a tie, and three for a win. The fitted lines shows greater effective playing time for teams that earn more points per game, as one would expect if time-wasting is a way for weak teams to seek wins against stronger teams. The dispersion of expected effective playing time is signficant, both on an absolute scale and relative to the fitted line. The large effects of time-wasting incentives and the large interteam variation suggests that rule changes that control time-wasting would be valuable. Whether stopping the clock when the ball is out of play is the best solution cannot be determined from these findings, but it is clear that the norm of fair play and the adherence to rules against strategic rule-breaking are under threat.

Table 2

Systematic components of effective playing time.

Variable	Model 0	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Incentives home		yes		yes	yes
Incentives away			yes	yes	yes
Home fixed effects					yes
Away fixed effects					yes
Observations	2231	2231	2231	2231	2231
Residual std. errors	297.143	291.159	287.172	284.780	222.285
R2	0	0.045	0.071	0.091	0.461
F-statistic	-	8.717[***]	14.129[***]	9.242[***]	21.892[***]
Df	-	12	12	24	84

Note:

***p<0.001;

**p<0.01;

*p<0.05; two-sided tests.

Fig 3

Average effective playing time by average points at home and away.

Our model estimates can give some indication of how stopping the clock when the ball is out of play might affect teams and audiences. We estimated the time taken to restart the game when teams had a positive and negative value of minute and compared it with the estimated time they would have taken if the value of a minute was zero. The calculations show that for the audience the rule change would have speeded the game for every outcome except corner kicks, in which the time saving by teams rushing the play was 48 percent higher as compared to the teams slowing down the play and this time saving would be lost when there is no incentive to rush or slow down the play, and throw-ins, which only had 1 percent more time spent for teams wasting time. Goalie restart was 24 percent slower, goalie kick was 80 percent slower, freekick was 36 percent slower and substitutions seven times slower for teams seeking to waste time. For the audience, we would thus expect the effect of a rule change to be faster restart in some situations and slower in others, but overall more effective playing time. Indeed, if scoring rates were unchanged, the total time saving would equal one more goal per 11 games.

For teams, a fast restart is not necessarily good either. Restart of play is best done when players have found good positions on the field, which can take some time. It is possible that the every restart of the game by teams with a negative value of a minute is done at exactly the right time tactically, but it is also possible that some of these restarts are done too soon and hence place the team at a disadvantage. From the viewpoint of the soccer governing bodies, fair play and entertainment of fans are central goals. This means that time wasting is problematic, and even time saved by teams at a disadvantage is problematic because it violates the norm of fair play.

Conclusion

The findings showed remarkable consistency and clarity. Time-wasting is illegal, subject to referee penalty, and countered by opposing team attempts to hurry up the restart of play. Nevertheless, the models showed that strategic time-wasting is widespread. The findings were consistent across many time-wasting opportunities. The empirical results and simulations offer clear advice to the soccer governing bodies. The goal of having a fair game with limited strategic rule-breaking requires a different set of rules, for example by stopping the game clock when the ball is out of play. What set of rules will be best needs to be determined through a combination of further modeling and actual game-play. Changing the time-keeping rules of soccer is a major change of rules in a sport that has very broad fan base and great respect for traditions, and should be tested before taking final action.

The main theoretical result is that a value-based model describes the behaviors less well than a model that takes into account the benefits of time delay, but does so through anchoring and adjustment rather than as an optimal response to the benefit of each minute of delay. This is true even though the team benefits from the rule-breaking, but the enforcement of the rules are directed towards punishing the individual player. The findings show the limitations of creating rules, because individuals can employ strategies that go against the rules and benefit from rules not being perfectly enforced, as in the time-wasting strategies studied here. Given sufficient encouragement and rewards from their team and its fans, they are willing to do so, and they execute the rule-breaking with significant skill.

Indeed, a second major result is the high predictive power of the value-based model and the semi value-based derived from similar variables. This does not mean that soccer players estimate the difference of two Poisson distributions in their heads, as these models assume. Rather, they know the scores and times that most reward time-wasting and can make fine-tuned adjustments in response to this knowledge. After all, their experience playing the game is substantial, and the adjustments they make based on this experience fit the predictions of these models very well, even though the models involve calculations that go beyond what one would expect a soccer player (or professor) to be able to do on the fly.

Our investigation suggests future lines of research. Increasingly, finer grained data on decision making in many contexts are becoming available, especially for decision making in sports. They can reveal the tension between rules and rule-breaking incentives, and the tension between organizational goals and individual rewards. The data can reveal how an individual performs for the organization, including (as in this study) rule-breaking to benefit the organization. Further analysis can show what situations strengthen or weaken the optimality of decision making. There are good opportunities to further explore such data for strengthening the evidence on the decision-making strategies and the resulting quality of individual decision making for organizations and to analyze how rules affect behavior and hence inform entities responsible for making rules that control individuals and organizations.

18 Aug 2019

PONE-D-19-19053

Rational rule breaking: Time wasting to win soccer games

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Greve,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please find below the reviewers' comments, as well as mine.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 02 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Valerio Capraro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

I have now collected two reviews from two experts in the field. Both reviewers like the paper but their overall judgments are somewhat split: one recommends acceptance and one recommends major revision. Therefore, I would like to invite you to revise your paper following the comments suggested by one of the reviewers.

Looking forward for the revision.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Soccer is going through its own “Moneyball” moment, as teams make use of extraordinarily detailed data on player movements and game play to optimize their strategies, see e.g., “The Numbers Game” by Chris Anderson and David Sally. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first paper in the management-science literature to use that same data.

The authors consider stoppages (due to throw-in, free kick, goalie restart, etc) and show convincingly that teams that are leading the game tend to take more time to restart while teams that are losing take less time to restart, compared to when the score is tied. Moreover, the magnitude of these effects is substantial. For instance, when throwing in the ball, teams that are leading take about 15% more time than teams that are tied, who in turn take about 15% more time than those that are losing. This is interesting.

Unfortunately, I have three major concerns with the paper that make it unsuitable for publication in its current form.

FIRST, the authors’ key conclusions do not follow from their findings. “We predict that a change to rules with stopped game clock when the play is stopped would make game play more time efficient” (abstract). This would be true if “strategic time-wasting” was the only effect at play but, as noted above, teams that are losing ALSO respond to their incentives, speeding up play in their urgency to score before time runs out. So, any time savings that one would get by speeding up the leading team will be counteracted by slowing down the trailing team. Indeed, to the extent that the trailing team benefits more from resting its players—to be capable of a few last bursts of athleticism to score—we might expect the losing team to delay even MORE than what the analysis here suggests. Overall, then, it is unclear whether stopping the clock would reduce or increase the amount of time wasted overall. Certainly, it is NOT true that “The empirical results and simulations offer clear advice to the soccer governing bodies” (conclusion).

To resolve this first concern, the authors should provide a balanced analysis that emphasizes how the current rules incentivize both time-wasting and time-saving. They could then discuss how switching to a stopped clock would have mixed effects (speeding return to play in some cases, slowing it in others) that need to be carefully weighed.

SECOND, the authors’ discussion of causation of patterns found in the data is questionable and likely to confuse readers who are unfamiliar with causal reasoning. For example: “Teams that are ahead get fewer opportunities to throw the ball in, consistent with the opposing team seeking to deny them this time-wasting opportunity.” The authors here are suggesting a fascinating possibility, that trailing teams might be intentionally keeping the ball in bounds, to stop leading teams from wasting time. But the paper provides no causal analysis to support this possibility. This could leave readers with the wrong impression that the conjectured causal explanation has been shown to be true. (Experts understand that the phrase “consistent with” is code for “we have no idea if this is true”, but this paper could reach a broader audience of soccer enthusiasts who are not as familiar with the terminology.)

This second concern can be resolved by dropping all causal speculation or, if the authors want to discuss potential explanations, to be sure to include at least two alternative explanations for each pattern discussed.

THIRD, the “rational model” is not really a “rational model”. The **value** of delay is introduced in line 185 and corresponds to the extra likelihood of winning or tying when there is less time remaining (which, of course, depends on the current state of the game, team characteristics, etc). However, there is no **cost** of delay! (In the case of slowing down by a leading team, the benefit is that having less time remaining improves odds of winning, while the cost is that being penalized decreases odds of winning. In the case of speeding up by a trailing team, the benefit is that having more time improves odds of tying, while the cost is that rushing may lead to a poorer re-start to play.) Moreover, the extent of these costs are undoubtedly non-linear in the amount of delay, e.g., referees may be more likely to give a yellow card as more time passes without a restart of play. (The authors appear to obliquely reference cost in lines 195-196 “The split variable will capture whether teams have different **ease** of speeding up and slowing down the game.” However, I find this very confusing since the “split variable” is referring to different “parts” of the value of a minute, meant to capture “the different effects for delaying or speeding up the game.” What does that mean??)

The term “rational” refers to a choice being made optimally in pursuit of some objective. To study a “rational” actor, one must therefore fully specify the objective that is being maximized. For instance, to capture the objective of the leading team and hence have a truly rational model of delay here, one must not only estimate the “value of a minute” (as done, capturing the benefit of delay) but also the “cost of a yellow card” and “likelihood of a yellow card” (capturing the cost of delay).

This critique may seem like semantics, but there is important substance to it as well. With a rational model, one can explore and make predictions about what would have happened if the game had been changed. For instance, what if soccer’s governing bodies decided to encourage referees to increase the frequency with which they give yellow cards for delay. Armed with a rational model, one could conduct the relevant counterfactual analysis and produce quantitative estimates about the likely impact of such an intervention. By contrast, based on this paper’s analysis, you could say that there will be less delay—but have no way of quantifying how much less.

This concern could be addressed by motivating the writeup and framing the analysis more accurately, namely, as a calibration exercise, e.g. asking: “How much does delay increase or decrease winning chances [i.e. what is impact of delay]?”, “How much do teams respond per extra-% of winning by delaying the return to play [i.e., how sensitive are teams to the impact of delay]?”, and “Is each team’s sensitivity consistent across contexts, i.e., it is similar for throw-ins as for free kicks?”

Switching now from concerns to suggestions, here is an idea for a different sort of policy intervention: Introduce a new penalty “PURPLE CARD” that is issued specifically for delay in the latter part of the game (when strategic delay is most likely) and, when issued, gives the coach of the other team the option to extend game-play for one extra minute per purple card issued. A player on the leading team who drags his feet a few extra seconds making a throw-in now risks giving the other team one whole minute of additional time. Such a policy would keep the excitement of the trailing team’s urgency to get the ball back into play as soon as possible, while also reducing the leading team’s incentive to delay the game. (Another advantage of such a rule change is that it could be easily scaled, by adjusting the stringency with which referees enforce the rule. By contrast, eliminating clock stoppages is a dramatic and irreversible change—or, if it is reversed, highly embarrassing for the governing body!!)

Smaller comments

1. Line 69-70: Please check the sentence after “Corners show the same pattern”. Does “less” need to be switched to “more”? The pattern described appears to be the opposite of the pattern for free kicks.

Reviewer #2: The paper is done responsibly, though I have a couple comments.

1) I'm not sure rational vs. non-rational is the right terminology. I know the spirit of rational expectations is that rational means forward looking, but this applies in specific contexts like asset pricing. Rational behavior could mean using past or current information in this context.

2) Your model with Poisson arrival suggests non-linear behavior. You might consider using more sophisticated estimation techniques in future work.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: David McAdams, Professor of Economics, Duke University

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

1 Oct 2019

Reviewer 1: Thank you for your comments. We have revised our manuscript accordingly, and describe the changes in detail in our attached response to reviewers.

Reviewer 2: Thank you for your comments. We have revised our manuscript accordingly, and describe the changes in detail in our attached response to reviewers.

Submitted filename: PLOSreplyFinal.docx

Click here for additional data file.

8 Oct 2019

Rational rule breaking: Time wasting to win soccer games

PONE-D-19-19053R1

Dear Dr. Greve,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Valerio Capraro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I am satisfied with the revision. Small detail: typo on pg 10, line 32, "every restart" should be "early restart"

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: David McAdams

22 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-19053R1

Rational rule breaking: Time wasting to win soccer games

Dear Dr. Greve:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Valerio Capraro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE