I'm sorry but I think this is naive. I can get 40/1 against there being no added time, one minute or two minutes (total for both halves) for City's game v Burton Albion on Wednesday. People are betting on the assumption that the referee will stick to the rules - and that's betting with a branch of the firm that is paying to televise the game. Should I now research if the match referee is in the camp of follow the law, or likely not to follow the law if the score is very much in one team's favour?
Added time
- Thread starter Ben448844
- Start date
- Status
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
I'm with you. And in fact, I did just this in a cup game that was being won comfortably to nil earlier this season. My best estimate of the amount of time that should be added was 4 minutes. However, as this is not an exact science, you could credibly make a case for anything between 2 and 6 mins. As such, I played the 'bare minimum' of 2 mins. This felt more acceptable and justifiable (to me) than blowing bang on 90 mins. Couple of whinges but still a full round of handshakes
Can I ask, are you a referee? If so, can you point me to the part of the course which said we had to care about betting?
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
If people have enough money to waste that they can gamble on when a referee is going to blow the full time whistle in a football match then they deserve to lose it.
Cheshire Ref
RefChat Addict
Grassroots then id agree, FA Cup 3rd round, not a chance.
You need to rise a little higher in your career.
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/policies/betting-rules
Well done on providing further verification on why referees shouldn’t take an interest in betting
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
I could bore folk with a true story from few years back, even going onto a site to discover such things as how much time the ref will play can cause you problems..
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I’m in the anti-zero camp.
As beginner/learner referees, what can we learn?
If it’s a league game where there is any chance goal difference is a factor... be very careful if a losing player asks you to stop the game. Even if a winning player asks, it might not be her coach’s/teammates’ thoughts. Whichever way you can come unstuck.
I had two games last season where I had to smile and tell the guys we have to play some added time.
(The idea of the 95th minute injury is bizarre for me, it could be 89th or 46th. You can’t be thinking you are “saving” players by cutting the game).
As beginner/learner referees, what can we learn?
If it’s a league game where there is any chance goal difference is a factor... be very careful if a losing player asks you to stop the game. Even if a winning player asks, it might not be her coach’s/teammates’ thoughts. Whichever way you can come unstuck.
I had two games last season where I had to smile and tell the guys we have to play some added time.
(The idea of the 95th minute injury is bizarre for me, it could be 89th or 46th. You can’t be thinking you are “saving” players by cutting the game).
The only time i've seen the whistle blown bang on 90 was in a cup final in which I was AR
The game was over score wise and there was a fairly large confrontation with a few minutes left. When the ref blew up it caught me by surprise, but i later saw it as a wise move because the game had become a tinder box and we avoided the imminent spark
The spot betting talk is completely irrelevant
The game was over score wise and there was a fairly large confrontation with a few minutes left. When the ref blew up it caught me by surprise, but i later saw it as a wise move because the game had become a tinder box and we avoided the imminent spark
The spot betting talk is completely irrelevant
Last edited:
I agree in principle, but the players won't know you're in added time unless you tell them, no?
Same for probably 99% of managers I've met even when I was up the leagues on the line. To them there is no 'added time', it's just time left, because they don't know when regulation time ends and when you've started adding on - unless you explicitly tell them, and that's something I've never done. I run two watches, one for added time so one watch will always end on 45.
I understand it's probably a bit different when you're getting to TV etc, but at that point I think the law of common sense comes into it a bit and it will be up to the competition etc if they want to kick up a fuss about time added on, which I'm guessing they may do behind closed doors, I'll never know!
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
How about this. Its safe to assume the referee will not be getting a phone call from Mike Reilly
Had (insert big star man) had his career ended in the 95th min yesterday, its safe to assume, actually more than that, its guaranteed the referee would have got a call to ask wtf he was playing at, he would still be barricaded in the Emptyhad dressing room for his own safety, reporters would be looking to end his career (only fair afterall as the ref (in their eyes) ended star mans)...
All for what? Continuing to play a game which was over in all but discretionary time?
Indeed a player can be injured at any time, that is without doubt.
the referee exists to ensure fair play. There is nothing unfair in stopping a 7-0 cup tie on 90 mins. No winners or losers by the referee doing this.
And looking back, I was involved in a history making top flight game. A league game. The only people wanting to keep playing were the fans, even the home team wanted to stop as they were getting nothing from steam rolling their opponents. We stopped bang on 90. Maybe we should go back out now and play the 4/5 mins that NOBODY CARES ABOUT.
Last edited:
That just says that officials operating at step 4 and above cannot bet on any football game worldwide. It doesn't say they have to take what might have been bet on into account when making decisions ...
I observed a referee a couple of years ago. It was a premier team against a division 2 team, and the score was 11-1, he'd had a very good game to that point. I was stood with one of the assistants, a vastly experienced Football League official, and we were both surprised that he was adding time, partly because of the score but also this league is on a 3G pitch with back to back games and the normal practice is to not add much or even any time unless there is a major stoppage.
A player from the losing team, bizarrely, tried to hold the ball in the corner after 5 minutes of stoppage time had passed. Myself and the assistant both found ourselves saying "find a foul, find a foul", he didn't and a notorious hothead from the winning team came straight through the back of him resulting in a major fight. It was all so avoidable, and unfortunately he didn't get the guilty parties so his decision to play unnecessary stoppage time cost him several marks.
I don't buy that you have to play added time. Yes, law says you should but it also says you should penalise a keeper who holds the ball for more than 6 seconds, penalise even the slightest penalty encroachment, both things that hardly any referee does. Law doesn't support finding a foul in the scenario I gave above but many of us do. I would also say that the referee in the Man City game will be fully supported for PGMOL, as will Andre Marriner who did the same in putting Tranmere out of their misery. Sometimes to be a good referee you need to know more than the laws.
A player from the losing team, bizarrely, tried to hold the ball in the corner after 5 minutes of stoppage time had passed. Myself and the assistant both found ourselves saying "find a foul, find a foul", he didn't and a notorious hothead from the winning team came straight through the back of him resulting in a major fight. It was all so avoidable, and unfortunately he didn't get the guilty parties so his decision to play unnecessary stoppage time cost him several marks.
I don't buy that you have to play added time. Yes, law says you should but it also says you should penalise a keeper who holds the ball for more than 6 seconds, penalise even the slightest penalty encroachment, both things that hardly any referee does. Law doesn't support finding a foul in the scenario I gave above but many of us do. I would also say that the referee in the Man City game will be fully supported for PGMOL, as will Andre Marriner who did the same in putting Tranmere out of their misery. Sometimes to be a good referee you need to know more than the laws.
...and what about the Rotherham subs that came on in the 89th and 90th minute ? I bet they were looking forward to a few mins of action against Prem league players ? But no, the ref wants to pander to the Premier League and make sure those little darlings don't break a nail or something !
I'm 100% sure that if you asked Paul Warne he would have been perfectly happy.
Not necessarily, that isn't how referees are coached these days and you need to know a lot more than the laws. Yes, there are some things that are totally black and white and can't be deviated from, but there are other (like this) that really don't matter all that much in the grand scheme of things.
I was talking about asking the subs, not Warne. Anyway, Warne might have wanted to keep the subs happy by giving them a few mins against the Prem boys
- Status