In a recent U-12 game, the referee added nearly 10 minutes to the second half. This made a significant difference in the game. At "full time" the team that was ahead had already played a full game with no subs (11 on 16) and was "bunkered in". In the extra 10 minutes the fresher team scored two goals to win. When questioned after the game, the referee said he added time because the ball was being intentionally played out of bounds and that the warned the players that he "didn't like that kind of play". Is slowing the game down not just good tactics and is it the referee's place to dictate "style of play". Is it appropriate to add time for delays other than injuries, goal celebrations or substitutions? In any event, has anyone ever added 10 minutes to a 35 minute half?
Time added on is at the discretion of the referee. Generally time will be added for any stoppage of excessive length. The referee was well within his rights.
The referee may have been within his rights, but I have a hard time believing that 10 minutes in a 35 minute half is appropriate. There is nothing illegal about intentionally playing the into touch to use time, whether the referee likes it or not. I can see adding time for an injury, for excessive substitutions, or for kicking the ball into touch and into the poison ivy patch deep in the nearby woods, but I have trouble imagining that adding almost a third more to a half is appropriate. I guess I would have had to have been there, and sometimes a few minutes can seem like forever to a coach or spectator, but 10 minutes is a whole lot. I have added 2-3 minutes to a U-12 match, and felt like that was a lot. And I always tell the benches how much time I am adding, before regulation time is over, so both teams understand what I have done. Only fair.
I don't see what there is to discuss. The referee was making allowance for time lost. His discretion determined this to be whatever length of time he played. There really isn't anything else to mention. Perhaps you or I would have done it differently - however it would be unfair to question the 'appropriateness' of a colleague's actions merely on those grounds. He was doing nothing but applying the law accurately.
10 minutes does sound a bit high, but as Caesar said, added time is totally up to the referee. However, if a winning team was kicking the ball out of play, as far as they could, with every touch, and if I had warned them numerous times, then I'd probably start tacking on some major time too. Also, were there any injuries during the 2nd half?
Ten minutes sounds like an exaggeration. Are you sure it just didn't feel like ten minutes because your team's victory was hanging by a tread? Unless there were a few injuries, I can't imagine adding that much time. I guess your team learned a lesson about "bunkering down".
From the description provided it sounds like the team bunkered due to exhaustion rather than as a result of deliberate strategy. My son's U-13 team has lost 2 players to non-contact broken bones, and a couple of other players to other problems/issues. Thus they frequently play with no subs this season and late second half they spend a lot of time in front of their own goal simply because they aren't getting to 50-50 balls anymore. It's inevitable (however regrettable) that during those times the safest play is only too often to kick the ball out of bounds. (I will say that they've never been in this situation with a lead, which might be an important difference.) 10 minutes to me sounds like the ref deliberately decided to change the outcome of the game based on an ad hoc moral assessment of the team's style of play. While I defer to those of you more knowledeable about the LOTG in your conclusion that he was within the letter of the law in adding that much time, I question whether this accords with the intent.
Kicking the ball into touch does not constitute good tactics or an acceptable style of play. It is actually poor sportsmanship. You seek to gain an advantage by expecting the referee to not add stoppage for your intentional time wasting. Many coaches do this in youth leagues or tournaments where there may be only one or two match balls and where there might be another game scheduled immediatley thereafter in the hopes the referee will be pressured into ending the match within a prescribed time frame. In the case of tournaments where no stoppage time can be added you would see cautions issued for delaying the restart of play.
We won't know given the obvious bias of the thread starter. There are always several sides to an issue. 10 minutes is unusual, but I've added 8-10 minutes to a half due for stoppages due to injury.
Is there a specific amount of time allotted for throw-ins, along the lines of 30 seconds for a substitution or the empirically verifiable amount taken from the game by an injury? Alternatively, did the ref have the option of issuing warnings and then cards for unsportsmanlike conduct?
Don't see how the referee can hand out a caution for simply kicking the ball out of bounds. Putting the ball back into play is just part of the game, and time should not be added if it is done in a timely manner. The same for can be said for substitutions.
Typically 30 seconds is allowed for each substitution stoppage. Injury stoppage is the actual amount of time play was stopped. Throw-ins, no stoppage unless the players are deliberatley delaying restart of play.
Here's the thing, there is nothing wrong with consuming time, but when a team decides it is going to hoof the ball a country mile to kill the clock, it isn't fair to not add the time back. There isn't a prescribed time in which a restart needs to be completed. What we have, however, is common sense. Sure, we can issue cautions, and I have done so when it is obvious a team is trying to delay or slow down the game, but I also ADD THE TIME BACK. We have to. Otherwise, the caution is toothless. I think 10 minutes is probably an exaggeration, but it is perfectly within the referee's duty to add back this amount of time when a team wastes so much time. Does it decide the game? Yes, but so would ignoring such tactics and cheating the team behind out of its chance to get back into the match.
Correct, for the most part. If it's obvious that putting the ball 70 yards off the field is designed to slow down the game, then a caution is an option. We're not talking about playing the ball out of trouble in a pinch, we're talking about delibrately blasting the ball out of the park under minimal pressure or when a simple touch into touch would do.
He can if in a tournament there is a strict time limit and the next game needs to start at a specific time. Otherwise you just add the time.
I suppose there are circumstances where adding ten minutes to a 35-minute half would be appropriate: if there was a major injury that took quite a bit of time; if someone had a heart attack on the sidelines; if an escaped elephant from the nearby zoo decided to camp out in front of one of the goals...etc etc. I don't keep records of "added time," but the most I can recall adding for a non-major injury is four minutes...which came about due to a minor injury, and various "fetching-the-ball-from-the-woods" patrols. However...this would be the equivalent to adding about 15 minutes to an adult game. And according to the intial posting, the referee added time for "playing the ball out of bounds" (not, I note, for kicking it two cornfields over), because he "didn't like that kind of play." That is, in my humble opinion, inappropriate: the referee should not interject his own personal preferences into the game; and the affected team had a very good reason for "hunkering down": ie, exhaustion. Adding ten minutes of stoppage time because the defending team keeps playing the ball into touch sounds like an abuse of his authority...and I can't defend it, simply because the rules give the referee the discretion to add whatever time he deems appropriate: the rules also permit the referee to award a PK and a send-off for striking...but the referee who did so merely because a defender attempting a panicked clearance happened to bounce the ball off of an attacker's head would also be misusing his authority.
In all my years of playing, coaching, and refereeing, I've never seen a player cautioned for kicking the ball out of play no matter how far they kick it, although I would agree that it is very unsporting. Adding time is definitely appropriate, as is having a few extra balls around the field so that time isn't wasted chasing them. The losing team will most assuredly have some fans that are willing to retrieve the extra balls. I agree that a referee should not punish a team just because he doesn't like the way they play.
I think there's a large degree of "you had to be there" in the situation described, but from the way the story was related the referee did indeed use discretion allowed him by the letter of the law. I presume to think that I would have managed it differently, and not have resorted to extending the half by almost a third. Even if the ball was being cleared 70 yards (well, for U12 that's a bit far) over the touchline, only one or two instances of that should have occurred without the referee verbally correcting the players. Usually one warning with a description of the penalty to come with further offense is enough at this age. I still can't envision adding 10 minutes to a 35 minute half unless there was a significant injury, field equipment problem, etc....certainly not for putting the ball into touch.
This might help: http://www.ussoccer.com/templates/i.../pdfs/position_papers/Managing_Match_Time.pdf Then again, it might not, as I'm sure people will debate the meanings of the words and phrases. Ultimately though, no matter how you contsrue this position paper, it's difficult to imagine--as someone else said--that 10 minutes of added time in such a match was: A) consistent with the spirit of the game and B) truly necessary
For what it's worth, I'm going to agree with Jeff. I have issues with how the scenario was described and the alleged comments by the referee. Playing the ball repetitively into touch is not an infringement. But, if the players were deliberately blasting the ball well away from the field then the referee needs to intervene. I can imagine how frustrating the game might be at that point -- any time the opponent gets the ball they just slam it into nowhere. There are better ways to deal with that particular situation than adding 10 minutes of time, though. Youth are certainly more impressionable than adults, and usually a loud verbal warning will get the point across. If nobody heeds the warning, then the referee has opened the door for cautioning the players for unsporting behavior. It would be sad to resort to cautioning every player for USB who kicks it out if they continue, but if that is what is required then there really isn't much else the referee can do. If it reaches this extreme then time should be added for each unsporting play into touch. However, if the players are simply kicking the ball into touch without unnecessary force there is no reason to add time or punish them.
Good point. I'm thinking of players booming the ball way into touch to gain a tactical advantage. However, if a player clears it over the touchline to make a play there clearly is no need to add time or caution.
Sorry I've been on the road and unable to check "the boards". Thanks for carrying on the discussion. As I can see from the responses, there seems to be a disparity of opinion on this topic. Here are a few details that may clarify the situation. The "10 minutes" of extra time was a quote from the referee. He said he added 2 minutes for stoppage during a PK and 8 minutes for delay of the game. As for the distance of the clears, these were very tired U-12s. The ball rarely traveled more than 5 or 10 yards out of bounds. Finally, the reponses to my original question seem to indicate that 10 minutes may have been excessive, but what about the appropriateness of adding time for playing the ball out of touch. Is that any different than dribbling to the flag and shielding in the corner, which is a tactic used at the end of nearly every professional game. The only intent of that tactic is to waste time. At least by playing the ball out of touch you are relinquishing possession.
The ball going into touch is considered a normal part of play, and thus extra time is generally not awarded. Remember, the Laws apply to the entire course of the game -- if the referee were to add time for the ball into touch towards the end of the game, he would also have to add time for the ball into touch throughout the entire game. If you are concerned about 10 minutes of stoppage time, I would love to see your reaction to over 30 minutes of stoppage time... The only reason why time is added in the case of a ball "boomed" well into touch is to recoup due to an excessive delay. Simply playing the ball a few yards into touch is by no means excessive.
If the ball is in play, there is absolutely nothing that any player can do to earn a caution for delaying the restart. This caution requires that the ball already be out of play (and the culprit reasonably know it) and that the culprit delay the restart by doing something he must omit or by omitting something he must do. Kicking the ball 100 yards out of play does not meet this criterion because the ball is in play. Refusing to retrieve a ball out of play for his team's restart does not meet this criterion either because there is nothing in LOTG that says who should retrieve the ball -- in fact either team can. There is nothing in LOTG that says which player should perform a restart -- any player on the team can. Part of the remedy for this last case is found in the referee directing a particular player to restart after the ball is properly placed for the restart. See USSF Advice 12.28.4. USB cannot be applied in any of these cases either. It is a defect of the tournament to not allow sufficent time between matches to be able to deal with this time wasting, but $$$ seems to take precedence over SOTG/LOTG.
Why? Any event that the referee considers unsporting behavior can get a caution, correct? If the referee considers kicking the ball 100 yds out of play "unsporting", he/she is within his/her right to give a caution. Where is my thinking wrong here?