A&H

Added time

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Ben448844

RefChat Addict
Interesting match for me to watch today as City (my home town club) put 7 past Rotheram (where I work and whom loads of colleagues went along to support today, which is excellent for work tomorrow!).

There were several substitutes, goals and a break for an injury in the second half, yet the ref added on 0 minutes of added time and blew up right on 90 mins. Now I've no real issue with this as it's a cup game so no goal difference. However, a couple of pretty big fan accounts I follow on Twitter (not involving either club) seemed to use this against referees, saying that it's evidence of referees manipulating the added time to suit a game situation and accusing refs of doing it in other matches to benefit certain teams.

I disagree but the very fact that in adding on no time it gives people the oppurtunity to infer that referees at the professional level manipulate the laws to suit the situation is not ideal. I've always been an advocate of taking time keeping away from the ref (stop clock) and to me this incident is further evidence that the subjective nature of time wasting and added time could be removed.
 
The Referee Store
its already been posted

and its a clear case of folk knowing the LOTG but having zero skills in how to apply them.

fan accusations are best left as what they are, fan accusations.

I like to visit this site because it provides match officials insights on things. and if I read that a referee played 5/6 mins added on in a cup tie at 7-0 I would be going, eh, why?
If I read he blew on 90 then I be going, sounds ideal, everybody up the road.

Law 18. The one fans cant read in the book and the one (some ) refs never understand.

maybe it preferable for Citys star man to be decapitated in the 5th min of stoppage time and he never play again, you can be sure those same fan sites would be asking, wtf did we have 5 mins of stoppage time..

common sense....you cant practise it, you either have it, or, erm, you don't.

to make it more relevant to the majority of folk on here, if you are really going to play 5 mins added on in your u13 game at 10-0 with players on both sides turning blue, including yourself, then, you have bigger issues to deal with internally with yourself than any ability to read a football law book.
 
Last edited:
Ciley Myrus said:
its already been posted

and its a clear case of folk knowing the LOTG but having zero skills in how to apply them.

fan accusations are best left as what they are, fan accusations.

I like to visit this site because it provides match officials insights on things. and if I read that a referee played 5/6 mins added on in a cup tie at 7-0 I would be going, eh, why?
If I read he blew on 90 then I be going, sounds ideal, everybody up the road.

Law 18. The one fans cant read in the book and the one (some ) refs never understand.

maybe it preferable for Citys star man to be decapitated in the 5th min of stoppage time and he never play again, you can be sure those same fan sites would be asking, wtf did we have 5 mins of stoppage time..

common sense....you cant practise it, you either have it, or, erm, you don't.

to make it more relevant to the majority of folk on here, if you are really going to play 5 mins added on in your u13 game at 10-0 with players on both sides turning blue, including yourself, then, you have bigger issues to deal with internally with yourself than any ability to read a football law book.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. 0 added time in my game today too which was one sided. Fan sites are often full off bias nonsense, but the point made that altering added time at the professional level is wrong is at the very least worthy of debate
 
I guess it is evidence of referees manipulating a time situation... in this game and only in this game. Whoever the fans are saying this are just talking rubbish. At this stage of the game, the Rotherham players have had enough, as have the staff and probably even the fans. What would have happened if it was added on? An additional 3 minutes of Man City keep ball? Probably. It’s a non point really
 
So another law to be ignored?

I don't gamble but ... what if you had a bet on 8-0 or 7-1? What if you'd bet on 7-0 and cashed out in the last minute of normal time rather than risk another goal in added time, then the referee (ignoring law 7) adds on nothing....
 
bloovee said:
So another law to be ignored?

I don't gamble but ... what if you had a bet on 8-0 or 7-1? What if you'd bet on 7-0 and cashed out in the last minute of normal time rather than risk another goal in added time, then the referee (ignoring law 7) adds on nothing....
Click to expand...



the Laws are there to guide you through officiating a football match. At 7-0 in a cup tie with the most fabulous team in the world playing a team nobody has heard of, at home, your game is over at 90 mins, 91 mins, 92 mins, 93 mins, 94 mins, all those
those of us with common sense will stop 90/91.
those of us who know the lotg but don't know how to best apply them, will play 94/95 and so on

the concerns of the gambling world are nothing to do with the referee. What if the lino did not flag ball out of play in the 1st min for the 1st throw of the game when the ball did appear to go out? Think of all those poor punters who lost out.......
 
bloovee said:
So another law to be ignored?

I don't gamble but ... what if you had a bet on 8-0 or 7-1? What if you'd bet on 7-0 and cashed out in the last minute of normal time rather than risk another goal in added time, then the referee (ignoring law 7) adds on nothing....
Click to expand...
Why should this matter?
 
Shortly before the final whistle, a major sponsor of football (the gambling industry) was calculating odds on whether another team would score in added time. Punters made bets, or took winnings rather than risk another goal, on the supposition that there were at least 3 minutes to be added, based on what's in law 7. They weren't calculating on the referee making a "common sense" decision that might be appropriate on a park pitch. I'm not sure it's possible now to bet on something wholly within the referee's whim, but in the 2010 World Cup you could bet (before kick-off) on how much time would be added at the end of each half (i.e. what was shown on the board).

Just imagine that a friend of the referee had casually told him they'd got money on City scoring at least 8, or not keeping a clean sheet... In a match expected to be one-way traffic, 3-0 might be the "favourite" score (i.e. worst odds) but an 8-0 could pay out three times what a 7-0 would.

I've been on the line at several cup matches with one team well in the lead and I've been wishing the ref would call it a day, but none has ever called time on 90 minutes. Key question - would you do the same with or without an assessor present?
 
Last edited:
bloovee said:
Shortly before the final whistle, a major sponsor of football (the gambling industry) was calculating odds on whether another team would score in added time. Punters made bets, or took winnings rather than risk another goal, on the supposition that there were at least 3 minutes to be added, based on what's in law 7. They weren't calculating on the referee making a "common sense" decision that might be appropriate on a park pitch. I'm not sure it's possible now to bet on something wholly within the referee's whim, but in the 2010 World Cup you could bet (before kick-off) on how much time would be added at the end of each half (i.e. what was shown on the board).

Just imagine that a friend of the referee had casually told him they'd got money on City scoring at least 8, or not keeping a clean sheet... In a match expected to be one-way traffic, 3-0 might be the "favourite" score (i.e. worst odds) but an 8-0 could pay out three times what a 7-0 would.

I've been on the line at several cup matches with one team well in the lead wishing the ref would call it a day, but none has ever called time on 90 minutes. Key question - would you do the same with or without an assessor present?
Click to expand...

Hahaha, what on Earth are you talking about? Since when were we responsible for people betting?
 
Am I reading this correctly ? The experience refs on here are saying they'd rather end the game with 0 added minutes, rather than do what the players and fans expect ? Surely, you add whatever minutes are deemed appropriate, as that is your job ! and in this instance, I very much doubt it was 0 mins !
 
Ciley Myrus said:
its already been posted

and its a clear case of folk knowing the LOTG but having zero skills in how to apply them.

fan accusations are best left as what they are, fan accusations.

I like to visit this site because it provides match officials insights on things. and if I read that a referee played 5/6 mins added on in a cup tie at 7-0 I would be going, eh, why?
If I read he blew on 90 then I be going, sounds ideal, everybody up the road.

Law 18. The one fans cant read in the book and the one (some ) refs never understand.

maybe it preferable for Citys star man to be decapitated in the 5th min of stoppage time and he never play again, you can be sure those same fan sites would be asking, wtf did we have 5 mins of stoppage time..

common sense....you cant practise it, you either have it, or, erm, you don't.

to make it more relevant to the majority of folk on here, if you are really going to play 5 mins added on in your u13 game at 10-0 with players on both sides turning blue, including yourself, then, you have bigger issues to deal with internally with yourself than any ability to read a football law book.
Click to expand...
to be fair, that just completely agrees with the fan complaint of referees manipulating stoppage time to suit a game situation.
And we do manipulate stoppage time to suit ourselves. The whole idea of 'neutral territory' is just that.
My preference would typically be to apply something when you know there should be some...unless, say, it's completely miserable weather.

I think the response here suggests why that might be a reasonable idea. 'Bit conservative on the stoppage time' is more easily defensible than 'couldn't be bothered playing any'.
And honestly, at the top level, I'd expect stoppage time to be played properly, even in a drubbing. At any reasonable level, honestly.
At top tier I actually find 'couldn't be bothered playing stoppage time' to be completely unacceptable.

QuaverRef said:
Hahaha, what on Earth are you talking about? Since when were we responsible for people betting?
Click to expand...

Actually, while I think he was going down the wrong path, he does raise the interesting point that ignoring the law like this can have real world consequences, for the teams and other stakeholders.

And in games where goal difference becomes a consideration, that's a potential issue as well.
 
Last edited:
Well its either play whats due or dont, using any variable, for example the weather, is either ok or its not
Nowhere have I read so far anything to say anybody cba to play more time yesterday
More like, (given we are not privvy to esp the away players and bench input), ref puts us out of our misery. Which he did
Football expects the fantastic City at 7-0 in the 90th min to a team nobody has heard of, in a cup tie, at home, to be game over
Playing an extra three mins serves no purpose.
As ever, if you in your game wish to play the 3 or 5, crack on. Its great to show off authority even when its only you who cares
 
I am not on the no added time camp in this case but I am also not with playing a full 5 minutes of added time.

Just throwing a flip side on this, the referee decides to play the 'correct' 5 minutes of added time. And in the 5th minute of added time there is a leg braking tackle on a 50 million pound player (or a lesser known one for that matter) putting him out for the season. What sort of debate would we be having here then? How do the FA or the sponsors react to the referee's abilities in managing a game.
 
one said:
I am not on the no added time camp in this case but I am also not with playing a full 5 minutes of added time.

Just throwing a flip side on this, the referee decides to play the 'correct' 5 minutes of added time. And in the 5th minute of added time there is a leg braking tackle on a 50 million pound player (or a lesser known one for that matter) putting him out for the season. What sort of debate would we be having here then? How do the FA or the sponsors react to the referee's abilities in managing a game.
Click to expand...



it wont be relevant as the super officious referee has correctly added the correct time and despite nobody else being interested in continuing the ref can drive home happy that he has exerted his authority and done the right thing.

:(
 
one said:
I am not on the no added time camp in this case but I am also not with playing a full 5 minutes of added time.

Just throwing a flip side on this, the referee decides to play the 'correct' 5 minutes of added time. And in the 5th minute of added time there is a leg braking tackle on a 50 million pound player (or a lesser known one for that matter) putting him out for the season. What sort of debate would we be having here then? How do the FA or the sponsors react to the referee's abilities in managing a game.
Click to expand...

I honestly dont think there would be any debate had that happened, a leg breaking tackle can happen at any time not the ref's fault is it? Personally in a game of this magnitude i think you have to add time on. Besides who's to say Rotherham couldn't have pulled 7 back in added time?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top