In reality, there was probably more than 1 minute and 6 seconds of additional required anyway. This whole argument of 'it was past additional time' falls apart when it is literally called 'minimum additional time'. Referee said minimum 1 minute, goal goes in at 1.06, so what?
Clive Thomas approves
- Thread starter Ciley Myrus
- Start date
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
I firmly believe this (and the Clive Thomas incident) are why the LOTG needs to change around the end of the half/match. If FIFA want referees to wait for the final attack, then the LOTG needs to reflect this - otherwise this referee has done nothing wrong by law. Though Clive Thomas was even less wrong IMO!
And really, the only defence for the 'last attack' thing is that stoppage time is best guess only.
It gets fun when refereeing games with an instruction not to have stoppage time - where I spent most of my time refereeing, all matches except local first grade had that instruction written into the referee's handbook (which outlined the details of all the different grades). In those cases, I would have no problem blowing the whistle as the ball was about to fly into an open goal - and have done so (with far fewer problems than you may think). Because there, allowing that extra 1-2 seconds to change the result of the match is just unethical and unfair, IMO. But that's because time in those games is accurate down to the second.
With stoppage time? Well, it's so vague that it's justifiable.
Incidentally, I've noticed that at the top tiers there seems to be a firm idea of 'don't blow for time when the ball is out' - always play the GK. Why? What's the point? Just a nuisance of mine.
Although at grassroots sometimes you want to - hot tip is to blow for time when the GK is taken rather than just after the shot was taken that sends the ball into the creek, if you're responsible for the match ball (or it's half time)!
I agree with others that the ref should have blown it at the time of the GK rather than wait here. I wonder if the ref didn't realise that time had expired, looked down and realised she was clearly over time? It's a bit unusual to end it in this fashion
And really, the only defence for the 'last attack' thing is that stoppage time is best guess only.
It gets fun when refereeing games with an instruction not to have stoppage time - where I spent most of my time refereeing, all matches except local first grade had that instruction written into the referee's handbook (which outlined the details of all the different grades). In those cases, I would have no problem blowing the whistle as the ball was about to fly into an open goal - and have done so (with far fewer problems than you may think). Because there, allowing that extra 1-2 seconds to change the result of the match is just unethical and unfair, IMO. But that's because time in those games is accurate down to the second.
With stoppage time? Well, it's so vague that it's justifiable.
Incidentally, I've noticed that at the top tiers there seems to be a firm idea of 'don't blow for time when the ball is out' - always play the GK. Why? What's the point? Just a nuisance of mine.
Although at grassroots sometimes you want to - hot tip is to blow for time when the GK is taken rather than just after the shot was taken that sends the ball into the creek, if you're responsible for the match ball (or it's half time)!
I agree with others that the ref should have blown it at the time of the GK rather than wait here. I wonder if the ref didn't realise that time had expired, looked down and realised she was clearly over time? It's a bit unusual to end it in this fashion
Neither. When the ref decides to blow. Eg if the ref decided to blow but dropped the whistle, then the ball went in the goal, it's no goal!
soccerwatch18
New Member
With a stop clock, you'd be on your watch constantly! I'm not sure we're that broken where a stop clock is needed.
Plus, football works fine with the ball going in/out of play. Stopclocking the ball going out would essentially change the whole dynamic. It works for rugby but I don't think it will work for football at all.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
I used to ref Futsal, which would have a stop clock. A 20 min half can go from anywhere between low-mid 30s, to over 50 minutes - and that's normal. Most commonly it's around 37-45min, I found. Seem some halves go up to an hour (we're talking massive scores though).
I don't know what the solution is, but the law as it stands doesn't work.
I don't know what the solution is, but the law as it stands doesn't work.
External timekeeping
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Stopping the clock is easy at higher levels - it's a matter of having the right rules in place. Not possible at lower levels though. So I don't think this is the solution.
(incidentally low grade/social futsal is usually played without a stopped clock)
Wasn't talking grassroots, this was a professional game.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
In many ways these issues were easier in the old days before stoppage time was reported. (And before digital watches were the norm and everyone had a stopwatch on their phone.) No one except the ref knew when time was up.
The advice I got from a retired FIFA ref at the first referee clinic I went to (early 70s) was that if you have a goal in stoppage time, you always continue on to the kick off so it doesn't look like the goal might have been too late.
I'm firmly in the camp of not stopping if there is an immediate prospect of a goal being scored. I describe it as I'm not going to blow for full time until I look down at my watch to be sure, and I'm not looking down if there is something I have to pay attention to. I just don't see the way we time the beautiful game as so precise that we should do that. (I mean, really, did we add 37 seconds for that injury or 42? The reality is we did rough justice.)
I was AR for a colleague who whistled for full time in a 19U game with the attacker 1-1 with the GK in the PA. Twas not fun.
The advice I got from a retired FIFA ref at the first referee clinic I went to (early 70s) was that if you have a goal in stoppage time, you always continue on to the kick off so it doesn't look like the goal might have been too late.
I'm firmly in the camp of not stopping if there is an immediate prospect of a goal being scored. I describe it as I'm not going to blow for full time until I look down at my watch to be sure, and I'm not looking down if there is something I have to pay attention to. I just don't see the way we time the beautiful game as so precise that we should do that. (I mean, really, did we add 37 seconds for that injury or 42? The reality is we did rough justice.)
I was AR for a colleague who whistled for full time in a 19U game with the attacker 1-1 with the GK in the PA. Twas not fun.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Yeah this is a good tip.
Incidentally, this question as just come up on Ask The Ref. Because there was no kickoff people weren't even sure if the goal was awarded - so I guess the kickoff helps ensure the goal is clear (although I come from an area where it's convention to signal a goal with a whistle, so i'd do that first). Another benefit to waiting for the KO is that if you have AR's, then you've had plenty of opportunity for them to get your attention and intervene on the match decision before full-time.
On the other hand, if you're in a tournament or some situation with no stoppage time, then you just want to get it going. Similarly, the reserve grade games I sometimes refereed would unofficially have no stoppage time - there just wasn't enough time between games - so given it can take a minute or two to get a kick-off going sometimes, well, I need to get the game finished not muck around wasting time.
Similarly, I once had a situation where I was waiting for the last attack to resolve before blowing full time. However, the attacking team committed a foul. Now, in my mind 'attacking foul, thus defensive free kick, thus attack is over - full time!' so I just blew the full time whistle.
Would have been far easier to have the FK then blow after that was taken. Would have resulted in fewer complaints. Same decision, different presentation.
Last edited:
This is a good point, what if you blow for full time as the ball enters the goal, then your assistant puts their flag up? Can you disallow the goal when it is technically post-match?
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Anyone actually care about women’s football?? Never seen any game liveand wouldn’t watch it on TV if it was on! Just saying, good luck to all that take part but I’ve zero interest in it or who does what to whom! FA banned it for 50 years so they didn’t care either back in the day!
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
They banned it so the girls could make the dinner, this is true
That aside, I maintain a top(ish) womens game is superior to a average male game
The women have tactics, they know where the ball should go, and why
Its more planned out, better to referee, as you also pick up the intentions
Granted (few) give you the aggresion, but is that not a positive?
They are trying to play the sport in the correct manner
Away from that, the only one game I ever had a team walking off was women...
I reffed a ladies tournament years ago, most teams were girlie girls, pathetic standard, awful, one team were ‘cough, birdie blokes, muscular, probably rugby backgrounds, better standard but it was girls against not girls!
Last edited:
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Birdie blokes
I be struggling to wordsmith that this week, I doth cap to ye
I be struggling to wordsmith that this week, I doth cap to ye