Aydın Tiryaki (2026)
Football is fundamentally a game of 90 minutes, yet in the digital age, we are witnessing a strange “time-warping” effect between the scoreboard on our screens and the voices in our ears. This is not merely a slip of the tongue by commentators; it is a fundamental flaw in logic, broadcasting standards, and user experience.
The Commentator’s Paradox: Why 32:35 is Not “Minute 33”
The most persistent annoyance for the analytical viewer occurs when the clock shows 32:35 and the commentator announces, “Minute 33.” While mathematically we are indeed in the 33rd minute, the label “Minute 33” belongs to the moment the clock hits 33:00.
- Process vs. Label: We are in the process of the 33rd minute, but the label on the screen is 32.
- Visual-Auditory Conflict: When the viewer sees a large 32 but hears 33, it creates a cognitive dissonance.
In a sport where seconds are secondary (outside of stoppage time), the most honest approach is to stick to the visual reality. Commentators should either respect the primary digit on the screen or phrased it as “into the 33rd minute,” rather than slapping a premature label on time that hasn’t yet arrived.
The Stoppage Time Chaos: The Case for the “+”
Broadcast standards vary wildly during added time. Some broadcasters let the clock run to 46, 47, or 91, 92. Others freeze it at 45:00 and 90:00, adding a separate counter.
The logic of the “+” is superior and should be mandated by FIFA.
- Chronological Integrity: Labeling a goal as “47th minute” in the first half creates an archival nightmare when compared to a “47th minute” goal in the second half.
- The 121-Minute Absurdity: Seeing 121:00 on a screen suggests the match has transcended the laws of the game. Using 120 + 1 clearly signals that the regulated match time is over and we are in “bonus time.”
The Digital Revolution: From Fixed Pixels to Customizable Metadata
The ultimate solution lies in how we treat broadcast data. Currently, scoreboards are “hardcoded” pixels baked into the video. In the age of smart TVs, this data should be sent as metadata.
- Vector Quality (TrueType): Score and time data should be sent as raw data layers. By using vector-based graphics (like TrueType fonts), the scoreboard can be rendered perfectly on any screen size—from a smartphone to a stadium jumbotron—without losing a single pixel of clarity.
- User-Defined UI (The “Customize” Button): If broadcasting standards were modernized, viewers could adjust the scoreboard just like they adjust subtitles.
- Scale and Position: You should be able to move the scoreboard to any corner or resize it to suit your comfort.
- Psychological Customization: If your team is winning, why not enlarge the score to celebrate? If they are losing, you should be able to shrink it or make it transparent to focus on the game.
- Logical Preference: A simple toggle in the settings could allow viewers to choose between “Continuous Time (92)” or “Segmented Time (90+2).”
Conclusion: A Standard for the Digital Era
Football broadcasting must evolve from a static video stream into a user-centric interface. The technology to allow viewers to control their own screen—using raw metadata and vector rendering—exists today and could be implemented by a ten-year-old with basic coding skills. It is time for FIFA and global broadcasters to stop forcing a “one-size-fits-all” graphic on us and give the control of time and score back to the viewer.
A Note on Methods and Tools: All observations, ideas, and solution proposals in this study are the author’s own. AI was utilized as an information source for researching and compiling relevant topics strictly based on the author’s inquiries, requests, and directions; additionally, it provided writing assistance during the drafting process. (The research-based compilation and English writing process of this text were supported by AI as a specialized assistant.)
Aydın Tiryaki 