Who's Crazy?

[JohnR]

The U12 boys played a game this weekend where they were awarded a late PK that gave them a chance to tie. (The score was 5-4, wow.)

The PK was struck, the keeper blocked it, the ball bounced free. A boy who struck the PK ran toward the ball, which was within the 6 yard box. The keeper crawled that way. I don't know who would have won the race ... because the referee blew his whistle, game over.

I had a discussion with a friend who was a longtime U.S. youth referee.

He said: "That might not be such a bad call. The game probably had run over time anyway, in setting up the PK."

I said: "I've watched the ending of maybe 200 professional & international games in the past few years, and I've never seen a game end in the midst of a dangerous attack -- especially with the ball loose in the 6 yard box and no defenders (except the keeper) in sight! If they did this in a professional game, there would be a riot. That was a ridiculous call."

He said: "I still say you're being too hard on the referee."

Who's crazy?

[jc508]

If the foul that prompted the PK was committed just before time expired, the referee is obligated to extend time for the taking of the PK. When the PK was taken in extended time, there would be no follow-up by anyone of the attacking team.

If this were the case in your situation, perhaps it would have been better for the referee to explain to the players that time had expired but the kick would still be taken. Players could stand and watch on the field, but they had to remain on the field of play and not follow-up on the PK attempt. By the referee doing so, he/she could also have given info to the coaches and spectators about what was happening and thereby avoided any misconceptions about stopping play after the kick was taken.

If the PK were awarded and there was time left in the match to take the kick, then I would agree that it would be an unfortunate time to stop the match when players were competing for the ball in the immediate follow-up to the PK attempt.

Just my opinion.

[Red Star]

I agree with your friend, hence I think that you are crazy. Is it fair to the defense to play more than 90 minutes? (of course including any added time) I don't think that it is fair. I don't think that the LOTG provide that the game will be 90 minutes unless one of the teams might score, then it should be longer.

I have this discussion frequently.

[JohnR]

OK, I'm crazy. Glad I didn't yell at the referee.

However, I the argument that it is unfair to make the defense play more than the allotted time to be peculiar, since in game after game after game in EPL a 2-minute stoppage time is extended to 2:15 or even 2:30 if a team has a ball in an attacking position. I do not recall a single instance, ever, of a referee looking at his watch and blowing the whistle at 2:00 if an attacking team had possession of the ball in the vicinity of the opposing team's penalty area.

Perhaps this situation is somehow different.

At any rate, talk about no gratitude -- despite this call and despite being awarded an indirect kick inside our penalty area that led to a goal (the call being dangerous play on a defender who cleared a ball), the opposing coach filed a protest about this referees' incompetence. Hmmm, biting the hand that fed him. We just slunk away, tails between our legs. :)

[Ref Flunkie]

Filed a protest for incompetence? What a moron. I am really starting to hate coaches.

As for your question, I would probably side with the referee/your friend. It sounds like the game was extended to take the PK, and if it doesn't go in, that's it. I love hearing coaches/player complain if we blow the whistle during an attack. I can understand if the player is about to shoot on net, but just because an attacker is moving foward on the attacking half of the field does not mean we have any obligation to let them finish the attack.

Can you tell as the season goes on I get more grumpy? ;)

[JohnR]

Filed a protest for incompetence? What a moron. I am really starting to hate coaches.

He was angry because his star forward eventually collected two yellow cards, due to his habit of barging defenders into the ground while approaching at high speed from behind. After about the 6th such incident, he was gone.

As for your question, I would probably side with the referee/your friend.

Yep, I officially concede after my Italian friend says that such a call is "weird" but possibly OK.

However, he does say that the "dangerous play" that cost our boys a goal via an indirect kick was bogus. :)

[Ref Flunkie]

He was angry because his star forward eventually collected two yellow cards, due to his habit of barging defenders into the ground while approaching at high speed from behind. After about the 6th such incident, he was gone.


I was chatting with a guy at work who's kids are in U-10 or 11 or so, and he said the opposing coach was tossed out in his game (after 15 min of play) because he was upset that his overly physical team was getting called for so many fouls. You know, if you teach kids to play rough and physical, you need to teach them how to adjust when referees call it all or if you are playing with a caution. Thats why at U-10-12, I don't see the need to teach them how to play overly physically (nor do offside traps, etc) unless the team is of very high skill.

[GKbenji]

A related clock-management story from this weekend. I was AR on a U13G game. Tied 1-1, and we've reached full time plus about 55 seconds of the 1 minute of stoppage the CR signaled to me. Blue team wins a corner kick.

We've all heard stories about the "horrible" refs who blew time "unfairly" just as a corner kick was about to be taken. Well, the CR is generous and waits for the kick to be taken. And waits, as the girl at the corner just stands there. And waits, as the parents are all screaming, "Hurry up!" Everyone knows there are just seconds left. After a full 30 seconds of the ball sitting in the corner arc, the CR decides they had their chance and the game is over.

Blue coach immediately goes ballistic. "You can't do that!" he screams in various ways. "You can't call it when we've got a corner kick!"

Of course we can. And perhaps he can teach his players to move a little more quickly when there's not much time left.

John, there are "traditions" about when to blow the final whistle, but none of them are in the Laws. Time is up when the ref says time is up.

[whitehound]

OK, I'm crazy. Glad I didn't yell at the referee.

However, I the argument that it is unfair to make the defense play more than the allotted time to be peculiar, since in game after game after game in EPL a 2-minute stoppage time is extended to 2:15 or even 2:30 if a team has a ball in an attacking position. I do not recall a single instance, ever, of a referee looking at his watch and blowing the whistle at 2:00 if an attacking team had possession of the ball in the vicinity of the opposing team's penalty area.

Perhaps this situation is somehow different.

At any rate, talk about no gratitude -- despite this call and despite being awarded an indirect kick inside our penalty area that led to a goal (the call being dangerous play on a defender who cleared a ball), the opposing coach filed a protest about this referees' incompetence. Hmmm, biting the hand that fed him. We just slunk away, tails between our legs. :)Dont give up so easily.........You are telling me that there wasnt some added time to be given for the extra 2 frickin seconds that it would have taken to finish the play? If the foul happened at the EXACT SECOND that time expired AND the referee was certain ZERO time had been lost for the myriad of things we are REQUIRED to add time for then sure stop the game but otherwise, I think most experienced officials would allow the PK to be taken and then add at minute or two after the kick off depending on how much time was justified. As a player I would understand that decision as both a defender and attacker. How can you say the time is gone otherwise? I would have yelled.....and I quit yelling years ago.

[whitehound]

A related clock-management story from this weekend. I was AR on a U13G game. Tied 1-1, and we've reached full time plus about 55 seconds of the 1 minute of stoppage the CR signaled to me. Blue team wins a corner kick.

We've all heard stories about the "horrible" refs who blew time "unfairly" just as a corner kick was about to be taken. Well, the CR is generous and waits for the kick to be taken. And waits, as the girl at the corner just stands there. And waits, as the parents are all screaming, "Hurry up!" Everyone knows there are just seconds left. After a full 30 seconds of the ball sitting in the corner arc, the CR decides they had their chance and the game is over.

Blue coach immediately goes ballistic. "You can't do that!" he screams in various ways. "You can't call it when we've got a corner kick!"

Of course we can. And perhaps he can teach his players to move a little more quickly when there's not much time left.

John, there are "traditions" about when to blow the final whistle, but none of them are in the Laws. Time is up when the ref says time is up.
Enjoy your time at the U13 level....that is where you will stay as long as you think this way........do you think that little girl was TRYING to waste time to screw her team out of a corner so you could end the game? What lesson did you teach?

[whitehound]

OK, I'm crazy. Glad I didn't yell at the referee.

However, I the argument that it is unfair to make the defense play more than the allotted time to be peculiar, since in game after game after game in EPL a 2-minute stoppage time is extended to 2:15 or even 2:30 if a team has a ball in an attacking position. I do not recall a single instance, ever, of a referee looking at his watch and blowing the whistle at 2:00 if an attacking team had possession of the ball in the vicinity of the opposing team's penalty area.

Perhaps this situation is somehow different.

At any rate, talk about no gratitude -- despite this call and despite being awarded an indirect kick inside our penalty area that led to a goal (the call being dangerous play on a defender who cleared a ball), the opposing coach filed a protest about this referees' incompetence. Hmmm, biting the hand that fed him. We just slunk away, tails between our legs. :)and finaly, how do you get a dangerous play call when clearing the ball? 90% of the time when a reff calls an indirect in the penalty area for a contact foul it is because he doesnt have the guts to award a PK.......Sounds like you had a real winner for a reff. sorry to hear it.

[BentwoodBlue]

Enjoy your time at the U13 level....that is where you will stay as long as you think this way........do you think that little girl was TRYING to waste time to screw her team out of a corner so you could end the game? What lesson did you teach?
So at what point exactly would you blow your whistle oh benevolent one?? 3 minutes? 5 minutes?
Your post seems incredibly useless and just a shot at another ref.

[MassachusettsRef]

This whole argument comes down to a few points.

First, as I'm sure everyone agrees, time is at the referee's discretion.

Second, we should be searching for the "correct" amount of stoppage time (ie., time lost through substitutions, injuries, excessive celebrations, etc.). As FIFA has made time keeping more fan accessible by requiring 4ths to show the time added on, it has also made it imperative that a referee's timekeeping is more accurate than it has been in the past.

Third, and there is where some people may disagree (and I've changed my own opinion here over the past few years), the 'traditions" of timekeeping shouldn't be strictly adhered to. Every scenario is a hypothetical or a "had-to-be-there", but I do agree with whitehound's argument that it is very likely (if not probable) that there was some time to be added after the PK to allow for the 2 seconds it took to convert the rebound in the above situation. That may or may not have been appropriate, but it's up to the referee's discretion as to what the correct amount of added time is. That's where I differ from whitehound: there is a correct amount and we should not be seeking justifications to add time in order to allow for attacking opportunities. If adding time is justified on its own merits, then so be it. But to add simply because there is a corner kick or attacking situation is wrong. Take the example of the corner kick above--is it fair for the defending team to lose on a corner kick taken after time? Is it fair for a team to be able to use incorrectly allotted added time to get defenders up and in position (maybe not what happened in this case, but probably at higher levels).

I had two great instances of strict timekeeping being appreciate/accepted by two teams this past summer. In the first, at a regional U18 game, I blew the whistle around 47:15 of a the first half when I had told myself to put on 2 minutes (and signaled my ARs). It was 1-1 and around 46:50 the Maryland team got a corner kick. The corner got off a little after 47 minutes and was punched out by the Virginia goalkeeper but landed at the feet of an attacker inside the area but at a tough shooting angle. I immediately blew for full time; almost as a gut instinct said to me "it wouldn't be fair to let a goal go in here". I took huge protests from the team but was able to isolate the captain, pull him aside (said something like, "look, send your team back to your bench and I'll listen to you") and asked him "how much time do you think I should have added that half?". He responded with "about a minute or so, maybe". I then showed him my watch, which read 47:15 and asked "now do you see why I blew it dead?". It worked perfectly, he talked to his team, and everyone accepted it.

In the second instance, at a showcase tournament on Long Island (U18 again), I had a Toronto and a San Diego team, tied 2-2 in the 37th minute of a 35 minute half. After an attack the ball was cleared out at the point where I decided time had expired but headed towards the foot of a midfielder who was about to volley on goal from 25 yards. It was a difficult shot and probably wouldn't have gone in, but why risk it? I blew before he could kick it, he caught the ball and turned to me to protest (I was about 5 yards away from him) but as he did I said "look, you're already 2 minutes over, I just let you guys have that attack, and I would have done the same thing for you at the other end". He laughed a little and I added "besides, you know you were going to put it over the bar anyway".

Anyway, these two situations are ideal, because there was already (obviously) a good rapport with the two players (captain in example A, midfielder in example B) in question. But, they illustrate the fact that if you are firm in your decision (remember, ending the match is a decision just like a foul call or a PK, don't do it timidly) and you can explain and justify your time allotment based on "fairness", your decision will typically be accepted.

[GKbenji]

do you think that little girl was TRYING to waste time to screw her team out of a corner so you could end the game? What lesson did you teach?

Of course not. The CR at least tried to follow convention and allow an imminent attack to proceed. The fact that the players did not make the attack promptly isn't his fault.

So, do you feel the CR would have been more justified in blowing the whistle just 5 seconds after the ball went out? After all, that was when full time plus the referee's discretionary time was done. I doubt it would have gotten any better reaction from the coach.

The "lesson" is that when the game is over, the game is over, and that any "requirement" for an attack to be allowed to finish is a myth.

[HoldenMan]

Well whitehound.......you've managed to make your point very clear AND completey diss one of the other users, which was completely unjustified.

Ok, in regards to the 2 seconds of stoppage time you mentioned - we're not supposed to get that precise. The clock doesn't get stopped for every free kick and throw in (unless it's taking too long). Besides, we'll never get stoppage time correct to the exact second, there are traditions on how and when stoppage is applied. Therefore your argument about the 2 seconds left before full time should be added on to allow for a follow-up kick is unconvincing.

Additionally, the laws make specific reference to extending the half solely to allow a PK be taken, and that once the result of the kick is known, the full time whistle is to be blown. If the laws were that concerned about the final 2 seconds of the match then this passage wouldn't be inserted in the laws. The fact that it is implies that they're not concerned with adding on the final few seconds of play. If we were supposed to add the final 2 seconds of play then why would this reference be in the laws?

No, if penalty kick that's taken at or after the expiration of time then once the ball has lost it's original momentum the full/half time whistle is to be blown - there is no allowance for a follow-up kick.


Additionally, you don't know the specifics of the incident - no need to get carried away because a call (dangerous play upon clearing the ball) was made that you don't understand because you know nothing about. Not that it's relevant, but I can think of a number of ways this can happen. You have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to come on here dissing a ref for a call you know absolutely nothing about. Heck, you've dissed this ref completely based on a couple of instances - disgraceful whitehound!!!!.

Your statement about the usual reason for an IFK is that the ref doesn't have the guts to award a PK is the biggest load of baloney I've ever heard as well - but again, you've gone and completely judged this ref on calls you know nothing about and put him down because of it.

Furthermore, if putting down one referee didn't make you feel tough enough you've also gone and put down a referee on here for an incident that occurred in an U/13 game. For one, the referee is perfectly entitled to stop play when a corner is about to be taken. Heck, the ball's out of play, there's no shot on goal - personally I've got no problems with a ref stopping the game before the corner kick is being taken. ESPECIALLY when the player is standing there for 30 seconds trying to decide where to kick! It was either stop the game or caution her for timewasting (of course, a 'hurry up!' would usually do the trick, but maybe he tried that?). If a player's taking that long, then I see no reason to stretch your tolerance, and everybody else's tolerance, to give her that much leeway. There's no need to take that long - and at U/13 they should know how to play the game. Nothing was done wrong here.

No, the only thing wrong that's been posted here is the attitude of your posting whitehound. Coming on here dissing other refs, and having a go at anybody who dares oppose your opinion? Bloody disgraceful - I really hope that you have a better attitude on the field than you've shown here.

[nylaw5]

I think it was a poor call.

First, calling a PK at the end of a game is a pretty gutsy call, I would hope it wasn't a case of a ref trying to be a hero....(Please don't pretend it doesn't happen.)

But second, ending a game while a team has an obvious chance to score contradicts the very idea of common sense. I think this is when you must "bend the book". Besides in our country's highest level they are now adding stoppage time for stoppage time. I am sure there was at least an extra four seconds that could have been added.

[HoldenMan]

well, I disagree with you, but at least you're arguing properly and not just firing up :-)

I understand where you're coming from - but in that case, what's your explanation as to the laws making allowances for a PK after time has expired?

Obviously it's not making reference to what you're saying because if you're adding stoppage time then time has not expired - but what's your explanation for this reference in the laws if, as you and whitehound seem to think, there will always be a couple more seconds we can add on?

[whitehound]

So at what point exactly would you blow your whistle oh benevolent one?? 3 minutes? 5 minutes?
Your post seems incredibly useless and just a shot at another ref.I am reacting as I would if I was a player or coach who had a chance to score taken away by a reff who felt the unreasonable need to teach me a lesson(still dont know what the lesson is) at the expense of basic fairness which is one of the most important things a referee is there for. I am frustrated by overly officious people who forget that the game belongs to the players not to them.

[whitehound]

This whole argument comes down to a few points.

First, as I'm sure everyone agrees, time is at the referee's discretion.

Second, we should be searching for the "correct" amount of stoppage time (ie., time lost through substitutions, injuries, excessive celebrations, etc.). As FIFA has made time keeping more fan accessible by requiring 4ths to show the time added on, it has also made it imperative that a referee's timekeeping is more accurate than it has been in the past.

Third, and there is where some people may disagree (and I've changed my own opinion here over the past few years), the 'traditions" of timekeeping shouldn't be strictly adhered to. Every scenario is a hypothetical or a "had-to-be-there", but I do agree with whitehound's argument that it is very likely (if not probable) that there was some time to be added after the PK to allow for the 2 seconds it took to convert the rebound in the above situation. That may or may not have been appropriate, but it's up to the referee's discretion as to what the correct amount of added time is. That's where I differ from whitehound: there is a correct amount and we should not be seeking justifications to add time in order to allow for attacking opportunities. If adding time is justified on its own merits, then so be it. But to add simply because there is a corner kick or attacking situation is wrong. Take the example of the corner kick above--is it fair for the defending team to lose on a corner kick taken after time? Is it fair for a team to be able to use incorrectly allotted added time to get defenders up and in position (maybe not what happened in this case, but probably at higher levels).

I had two great instances of strict timekeeping being appreciate/accepted by two teams this past summer. In the first, at a regional U18 game, I blew the whistle around 47:15 of a the first half when I had told myself to put on 2 minutes (and signaled my ARs). It was 1-1 and around 46:50 the Maryland team got a corner kick. The corner got off a little after 47 minutes and was punched out by the Virginia goalkeeper but landed at the feet of an attacker inside the area but at a tough shooting angle. I immediately blew for full time; almost as a gut instinct said to me "it wouldn't be fair to let a goal go in here". I took huge protests from the team but was able to isolate the captain, pull him aside (said something like, "look, send your team back to your bench and I'll listen to you") and asked him "how much time do you think I should have added that half?". He responded with "about a minute or so, maybe". I then showed him my watch, which read 47:15 and asked "now do you see why I blew it dead?". It worked perfectly, he talked to his team, and everyone accepted it.

In the second instance, at a showcase tournament on Long Island (U18 again), I had a Toronto and a San Diego team, tied 2-2 in the 37th minute of a 35 minute half. After an attack the ball was cleared out at the point where I decided time had expired but headed towards the foot of a midfielder who was about to volley on goal from 25 yards. It was a difficult shot and probably wouldn't have gone in, but why risk it? I blew before he could kick it, he caught the ball and turned to me to protest (I was about 5 yards away from him) but as he did I said "look, you're already 2 minutes over, I just let you guys have that attack, and I would have done the same thing for you at the other end". He laughed a little and I added "besides, you know you were going to put it over the bar anyway".

Anyway, these two situations are ideal, because there was already (obviously) a good rapport with the two players (captain in example A, midfielder in example B) in question. But, they illustrate the fact that if you are firm in your decision (remember, ending the match is a decision just like a foul call or a PK, don't do it timidly) and you can explain and justify your time allotment based on "fairness", your decision will typically be accepted.I appreciate your thinking and it is obvious we agree to some extent. I would point out that you didnt justify your decision on the time beyond making a catagorical "time is up because I added 2 minutes" statement. I am not saying that in your situation it was wrong.....just that it was arbitrary and arbitrary decisions are sometimes unfair. We are not robots at the higher levels of play and discretion is what seperates the good from the great reffs.

[whitehound]

Of course not. The CR at least tried to follow convention and allow an imminent attack to proceed. The fact that the players did not make the attack promptly isn't his fault.

So, do you feel the CR would have been more justified in blowing the whistle just 5 seconds after the ball went out? After all, that was when full time plus the referee's discretionary time was done. I doubt it would have gotten any better reaction from the coach.

The "lesson" is that when the game is over, the game is over, and that any "requirement" for an attack to be allowed to finish is a myth.I dont know what discretionary time is.
I would like to simplify this all down to two sentences like this post did but it is much more complicated. We are paid to use our heads otherwise anyone could read the laws and be a referee.