In injury time, right before halftime, Daniel Hernandez was fouled about 25-30 yards from goal. He slammed the ball down, probably because he had been fouled about 3 times in 3 minutes by Fire players trying to break up our attacks. While the Revs were setting up for the free kick, the ref whistled end of half. I haven't seen time called during a free kick/corner kick or during a promising offensive thrust since the ref on the field began keeping time. Does this situation seem as unusual to you as it does to a non-ref?
No. When time is up, it's up. If the defense has delayed the restart or fouled to delay the game, then I would stop the clock. However, if the attacking team is taking its time or the fouled occurred just seconds before time expired, I'd whistle the half.
It was my understanding the ball must be in play in order to end the half or call the game. Usually the referee extends the courtesy of not killing an attack if it is promising just because the game hits the end of stoppage time. It's not an exact science and the defense shouldn't rely on the referee to save them after the offense has set up a scoring opportunity. If the team earns the shot on goal, give it to them! At the professional level if the winner has already been determined, there is no reason to allow the potential scoring opportunity to unfold. The longer the players are out on the field, the higher the chances for injury. If the situation is already hostile then there's no sense in prolonging the game, especially when you're looking at a shot on goal opportunity. Remember, when a team is that close to scoring their opponent puts up whatever last-ditch defense they can. The skirmishes over a corner kick can become very violent under the right circumstances, so it's better to avoid the situation altogether if it has no impact on the game outcome.
Even as a Revolution fan, I agree with the referee's decision to end the half. The ball does not have to be in play for time to end. Many/most refs manage the game that way but it is not necessary. The amount of added time had already expired. It seemed that he held off his whistle for a moment and when it was clear that the Revolution were not hurrying to get the ball in play, he ended the half. Well done, very professional! Scott
Scott, not to nitpick but you quoted the first half of my reply and then stated an opposing opinion as it applied to the Revs match. I wanted to clarify that in the Revs situation I agree stopping the game was fine despite the ball not being in play, as I described in the second half of my reply that you didn't quote. Better to end the game than expose the players to a potentially violent situation, despite the probably scoring opportunity.
My bad, I originally was just going to comment that the ball did not have to be in play to end a half/ the game. Doing too many things at once today without enough coffee. Scoot
Perfectly fine decision by the ref. When he gave the free-kick he clearly was allowing NE the chance to take it (he may have blown anyway right after it). But when Daniel Hernandez chose to use the remaining time to get up and slam te ball into the ground rather than get the game restarted, he made it an easy decision for the ref to end the half.
The play in question happened at halftime of a 1-0 game, not at the conclusion of the game. As I stated earlier, I'm not a ref, I just thought that the ending of the half was unusual. If it's really a typical happening, then I'll accept that as the answer. However, I have looked over a few threads in this forum, and there seems to be a theme that the reason for the free kick is to restore equity to the team that was fouled. If a team commits a foul to stop an attack right before the half (or game) ends, aren't you rewarding them for committing the foul by calling time before the other team is allowed to take the free kick (their "remedy' to being deprived of an attack)? I know that there's probably no language in the laws of the game about this, the way there is in the NFL (no game can end on a defensive penalty) but it seems to make sense that there would be a similar "accepted practice".
Ah sorry, I didn't watch this game so the situation was unfamiliar to me. For some reason I was confusing what you said with a corner kick situation at the end of the game. Maybe I shouldn't read two threads at the same time in the future In the LOTG the only instance clarified is the taking of a penalty kick. If a PK is awarded and time expires then extra time is added for the kick to be taken. Otherwise the referee can stop the match at any time. However, traditionally (as it would appear) most referees will allow the restart to take place to see the outcome before calling half or the game (including myself). The only time I stop play before a direct kick is when there is a very slim chance of a goal actually being scored directly from the play of the restart, and it would seem more beneficial than allowing the players a chance to get into a scuffle. In the Revs match case I'm sure the referee was fearing possible retaliation if the game continued further. If the player had already been fouled over and over, visibly displaying his disgust, and the mood of the team is one not anxious to get play started for a scoring opportunity, might as well just stop it before anything can happen. Was there really a good chance of the tying goal being scored from the kick? Probably not. If there was then the players most definitely would not be wasting time. In a way, through their body language and expressions the players of the Revs were informing the referee that they were ready for the half to end despite having a free kick restart in their favor.
SoccerTim you are essentially correct it is called situational awarness and though technically correct in Law leaves most of us with a slightly uncomfortable feeling. As others have stated, time is up when it is up but time is relative and rarely to the micro second. It is as unfair to add time if a team has successfully defended the full 45 as it is to not extend it if the unfair situations arise, where they are in fact denied a legitamate opportunity. Perhaps the referee had all ready extended the time to a point where he felt it could not continue and the opportunity to score was never an issue. Not to belabour the point but a referee should not make a rod for his back if there is an acceptable way to prevent it. A referee can instigate an urgency in a match in such a situation by signalling the foul and getting to the spot and encouraging the players "Lets get this going, we are almost at the break fellows lets move it!" The players should be aware of the time issue as it is generally known once additional time has been signaled the game or half is near the end. I think Statesman's point about the game being in difficulty with the attacking team doing the delaying the referee did not feel as compelled to allow the free kick to take place. Was it a wise choice? Who is to say? His opinion! His call! Did the players unravel or did they fall into line? A referee makes these calls not to be appreciated or make friends he does because in his opinion he must.
Perhaps the referee in question just used poor judgement. Maybe it was the same judgement that he displayed throughout the first half. No wait, it's too easy to apologize for him, as that is the code for Referees. We all know that being the referee at this level is not an easy job. Especially when the game has more meaning (elimination). But when the players have to raise their level of play (and emotions) for a big game, we should expect the referees to raise their own level of performance, and remain calm during the storm. Maybe he realized that he had already lost control of the game, and that he had an AR who was too preoccupied with yelling at the Revolution bench and therefore missed quite a few plays right in front of him. At the half, the referees got quite a send off. It's a good thing they didn't have to walk through the fans. Then again maybe he is the world's best referee (Terry=Collina), and just had a really bad night. ;-)
If you felt that the referee crew on that game did a poor job, then I have several bridges I could sell you. An excellent job all around by the crew, and a perfectly correct call to end the half when he did.
If the allotted time (full time plus any extra) has expired, then it has expired. Period. Even if the ball is in mid-flight. The game may only be extended for a penalty kick, and that means the actual kicking of the ball, not playing any rebounds. I'm sure that will raise a storm indignation and condemnation, even from many refs. The typical thinking being that ending the game that abruptly isn't "fair" to the attacking team, to which I ask: Is it thus fair to the defending team to have a goal scored against it *after* time is up? No, it isn't. And since no one has died and made me (or any other ref) God, I will not make a moral judgment on who ought to have more chances to win. Time is up, game is over. Period.
Time is at the discretion of the referee, and the referee alone. Law 7 says the following: You as the referee do not decide who has more chances to win. The players do through their actions within the game. If one team has earned a potential scoring opportunity, who are you to deny them from that effort? Not allowing a goal to happen simply because you don't want to add on another 5-10 seconds is more a statement about deciding the game than letting the attack go through. Suppose you are the referee of the World Cup final. The score is tied up and we're into the final seconds of stoppage time of the 2nd half. One team fires a shot directly at the open goal mouth of their opponent. However, as the ball is 3 inches away from scoring, your clock states that precisely 45 minutes have passed and the half is over. Are you going to blow your whistle and deny the goal? If so, I guarantee that YOU will be the one dying and visiting God.
Penalty Kicks at the end of time It was mentioned that a penalty can extend a half. What determines the end of a penalty kick? For example, if the keeper touches the ball and it then squirms in, is the half over when the keeper touches the ball? How about if he pushes it off the post, it rebounds off the post, hits his back, and goes in? Or pushes the rebound out off a defending player and in? Basically, at what point is a penalty considered to have been taken?
On Saturday, in memory of this thread , I called a half just before a corner kick. Time ended shortly after the ball crossed the goalline. Yes, several players asked if it was legal to stop during a corner kick.
Re: Penalty Kicks at the end of time For example, if the keeper touches the ball and it then squirms in, is the half over when the keeper touches the ball? How about if he pushes it off the post, it rebounds off the post, hits his back, and goes in? GOAL Or pushes the rebound out off a defending player and in? NO Goal Basically, at what point is a penalty considered to have been taken? When the consequences of the initial kick of the ball is over. See above. If time expires between when the penalty is called and the kick is taken, I would clear everyone back off the line so only the keeper and the kicker are involved. If time is almost up, but not quite, then you have a normal end of game situation.