A&H

Allowing added time

Cheshire Ref

Cheshire Ref

RefChat Addict
Just thought i would throw this one out to you all, some "advice" i was given by an observer on Saturday's game and i am not sure i agree. I will set the scene:

Cup match, white v green and the score is 2-1 to green. Green are doing their best to kill the time as you would expect. From around 85 minutes the temperature of the game rises as white's try to get back into it and it gets a little more feisty but nothing major. As my watch ticks onto 89 i decide i am going to add 3 minutes. In those 3 minutes added on i cautioned two players for reckless challenges, one from each side and after one said challenge there is a little bit of handbags which only required a talking. I blow for full time and it finishes 2-1.

Now the observer asked me after the game why did i add any time on? I told him i allowed 3 added minutes to allow for substitutions, time wasting etc. He said that if the two teams wanted to start kicking each other then i should have blown my whistle bang on 90 minutes and get out of there and avoid the 2 additional cautions'.

My reply was that if the score was 3 or 4-1 then maybe i would have done. But i didn't feel i should have done.

I still think i am right but just wanted another opinion really. If they want to start kicking each other then surely as a referee you deal with it you dont just say sod this im going home. Had i blown on 90 minutes then i can't imagine the losing team would have been too pleased.
 
A&H International
I think you're absolutely right. In a tight game, you owe it to the losing team to give them a fair chance to equalise . Failing to do so is just as unfair as making a deliberately wrong decision at any other time in the match.

And it's never your job to try and "minimise" cautions anyway. I can't stand the reoccurring suggestion that it's the referee's responsibility to avoid bookings or keep 11 players on the pitch, or that they've ruined the game by sending someone off. It's the referee's job to apply the laws and it's the players job to play within them. If they fail to do so and get sent off as a result, it's them that have "ruined" the game.
 
Last edited:
Well the team would likely not know unless the coach had a stop watch himself, but I completely agree, why stop the game just for your convenience when it doesn't suit (pretty one sided) one whole team. It seems weird you'd get this advice.
 
I agree with GraemeS, you are completely correct in my opinion. What your observer has suggested is more or less abandonment of the game and your description doesn't suggest that this would have been warranted. It seems to me you've done your job properly.
 
Stick to your 3 mins. The observer won't put anything in his report, if he does, he's incorrect in law.

What the observer has tried to do is give you coaching advice, which is partly incorrect. Sometimes it may be beneficial for the referee to stop the game at 90 mins - for example, one team is winning 5-0, and the losing team are losing their cool and are putting some tasty challenges in. Sometimes it isn't - in this scenario, your 3 mins could lead to an equalising goal etc... If you had stopped at 90 mins, and the manager comes up saying that was a short half, you've opened yourself up massively.
 
If the game was over, i.e. one team leading by more than 2 goals, then I would agree blowing up on the 90 minute mark is the most sensible thing to do, assuming there haven't been any massive injury delays. Absolutely not at 2-1 though.
 
Outside of law/ethics: If I was a team manager, I'd be running a stopwatch on the sideline - if only so I knew how to space out my subs. I'm genunely surprised more managers don't seem to do this at grassroots level.

If a match is close, you (as a referee) have to work on the assumption that either team manager could come up to you post-match with an exact knowledge of how many minutes you played. Although you are of course the sole judge of time in a match, that won't stop a manger who's team lost by a goal enquiring exactly how 6 subs, an injury and that time the ball went over the fence somehow only added up to 15 seconds of stoppage time. I've got no problem stopping on 90 in the right situation, but if either side is likely to want to play stoppage time, I think it's both an obligation and a benefit to your "post-match control" to play an appropriate amount of time.
 
Cheshire Ref said:
Now the observer asked me after the game why did i add any time on? I told him i allowed 3 added minutes to allow for substitutions, time wasting etc. He said that if the two teams wanted to start kicking each other then i should have blown my whistle bang on 90 minutes and get out of there and avoid the 2 additional cautions'.
QUOTE]
Click to expand...
 
Some Assessors/Observers simply like to hear the sound of their own voice and just can't resist telling you what they might have done. Doesn't mean you were wrong. I make you right for what it's worth. I generally end up adding at least 3 mins to the end of any tight match in order to compensate for playing time lost for: retrieving the ball, subs, general time-wasting, stoppages in play for injuries, disciplinary etc.

Why on earth wouldn't you? It's not about getting home as quickly as you can, it's about refereeing according to the LOTG. Time added on at the end of each half where applicable is completely right and proper. :)
 
Added time is determined by the referee, not the Observer.....

While you may have avoided the two cautions, you would have cheated as much as Costa, when he throws himself to the ground.

The few minutes can be the tastist of the game, use experience to control - take time for free kicks, talk to the players, become more high profile. Controlling this is the test of a good referee; avoiding the problem is the sign of a poor referee.

Ignore his advice (unless it was me).
 
Added time is something that can divide opinion as normally one team wants the game to be over and the other wants to keep going. Sounds like you were right. As long as you are confident in what you say and in your knowledge of what you have done you can leave what the observer said. I agree with what the others have said, don't stop play at 90 mins just to get yourself out of there. If temperature is rising and some nasty challenges or a mass confrontation could occur then do so. However in what you said, you were right to play the added time. Also you are in charge of time, not the managers, players or supporters so if you are challenged, they can try but can't argue against what you have done (unless you added a ridiculous amount of time on for no real reason!!!)
 
Yesterday's game was quite eventful; 2 red cards for VC on the half hour mark, one for each team then away 9 was sent off for SFP in 50th minute. Then it all calmed down until 85 when the away manager and assistant both lost the plot and were both asked/told to leave the dugout. The score was 7-2 to the home team so when my watch hit 90 I just blew. There was absolutely no point in adding any more time on.
 
I personally would have done exactly what you did mate. Especially in a cup game.

It seems to me more and more 'observers' are favourable to 'managing' situations instead of issuing cautions, which for me is a bad practice to encourage.

If there's nothing in the game (like a 5-0 game for example) I don't see the point of delaying the inevitable unnecessarily.
 
RegalRef said:
I personally would have done exactly what you did mate. Especially in a cup game.

It seems to me more and more 'observers' are favourable to 'managing' situations instead of issuing cautions, which for me is a bad practice to encourage.

If there's nothing in the game (like a 5-0 game for example) I don't see the point of delaying the inevitable unnecessarily.
Click to expand...
That's because the observers are working to the latest guidance issued by The FA. So if it's bad practice, it's The FA, who run football in England, who are encouraging it.

Page 11 of the latest copy of the Supply League Assessors Handbook issued in November last year
• Display a credible level of tolerance that is based on an acceptable application of Law; does not undermine the Referee’s authority; and is not used as an excuse for shirking mandatory responsibilities.
• Manage stoppages effectively avoiding the use of an official caution, and whenever required resorting to the issuing of an official caution.
 
On my referee course back in 1856 (not really lol (date that is)) we were all told that every game is 90 minutes and apart from a penalty waiting to be taken there is no such thing as "added time" It was then said it would be good practice to stop the watch on injuries/substitutions/time wasting. By doing this it eliminates the problem of players/managers whinging about "added time". When a player says to me is there any added time i reply " No, i start/stop the watch".... When i do start/stop i raise my hand to let everyone see that i am doing it. I will blow the whistle on 90 minutes i don't care what the score is, i don't care if the player is bearing down on goal, i will not "add" seconds on just to see if he would score..... been doing it for 11 years and never had a problem.....
 
mikedn said:
On my referee course back in 1856 (not really lol (date that is)) we were all told that every game is 90 minutes and apart from a penalty waiting to be taken there is no such thing as "added time" It was then said it would be good practice to stop the watch on injuries/substitutions/time wasting. By doing this it eliminates the problem of players/managers whinging about "added time". When a player says to me is there any added time i reply " No, i start/stop the watch".... When i do start/stop i raise my hand to let everyone see that i am doing it. I will blow the whistle on 90 minutes i don't care what the score is, i don't care if the player is bearing down on goal, i will not "add" seconds on just to see if he would score..... been doing it for 11 years and never had a problem.....
Click to expand...
Hmmmm :confused:
 
mikedn said:
On my referee course back in 1856 (not really lol (date that is)) we were all told that every game is 90 minutes and apart from a penalty waiting to be taken there is no such thing as "added time" It was then said it would be good practice to stop the watch on injuries/substitutions/time wasting. By doing this it eliminates the problem of players/managers whinging about "added time". When a player says to me is there any added time i reply " No, i start/stop the watch".... When i do start/stop i raise my hand to let everyone see that i am doing it. I will blow the whistle on 90 minutes i don't care what the score is, i don't care if the player is bearing down on goal, i will not "add" seconds on just to see if he would score..... been doing it for 11 years and never had a problem.....
Click to expand...
I was under the impression we are absolutely encouraged to ensure play is in a "neutral" state before blowing for time?

Aside from that, my approach is pretty similar to yours - one watch counting down 45 minutes continuously, other wrist counting up stop/start. I'll never blow for time until the count-down watch vibrates. And assuming a close-ish match, I'll pick a point around when the stop/start watch is hitting 45 and then blow the next time the ball is neutral. Easy.
 
GraemeS said:
I was under the impression we are absolutely encouraged to ensure play is in a "neutral" state before blowing for time?

Aside from that, my approach is pretty similar to yours - one watch counting down 45 minutes continuously, other wrist counting up stop/start. I'll never blow for time until the count-down watch vibrates. And assuming a close-ish match, I'll pick a point around when the stop/start watch is hitting 45 and then blow the next time the ball is neutral. Easy.
Click to expand...
Me too, one watch counting up on left hand, watch on righthand counting down which is the main one i use if player says how long ref quick look at it tells me how long......
 
mikedn said:
On my referee course back in 1856 (not really lol (date that is)) we were all told that every game is 90 minutes and apart from a penalty waiting to be taken there is no such thing as "added time" It was then said it would be good practice to stop the watch on injuries/substitutions/time wasting. By doing this it eliminates the problem of players/managers whinging about "added time". When a player says to me is there any added time i reply " No, i start/stop the watch".... When i do start/stop i raise my hand to let everyone see that i am doing it. I will blow the whistle on 90 minutes i don't care what the score is, i don't care if the player is bearing down on goal, i will not "add" seconds on just to see if he would score..... been doing it for 11 years and never had a problem.....
Click to expand...

But when you stop the watch you are "adding" time onto the match.

I work the same way as you, but if I stop my watch for 1 minute during the match my timer that I don'the stop will read 91 minutes at full time.

Of course this 1 minute still makes it 90 minutes playing time, which is the whole point. It's just the term "added time" isn't really correct, but is widely used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top