REFS - Will they ever learn?

[Littlest Hobo]

Watching the O.F game the other night, i noticed the ref blew his whistle for half time just as Celtic were on the ball to break away.

This thing doesn't happen alot but when it does, it's really annoying not only for the players but the supporters too.

Will Referees or the powers that be ever learn that this game is about entertainment, there are few exciting moments in a modern football match as it is, so wouldn't it be better to let the play flow if there is a chance of a moments exitement? A corner,free kick, a fast flowing attack? Just saying like!

[greenlex]

I remember a world cup tie in the midst of time. It involved I know not who but I am sure the ref was an English gentleman. A guy had just fired a goal in and he chalked it off because he had blown for time (full or half- it matters not) before it hit the net.

[Twa Cairpets]

Watching the O.F game the other night, i noticed the ref blew his whistle for half time just as Celtic were on the ball to break away.

This thing doesn't happen alot but when it does, it's really annoying not only for the players but the supporters too.

Will Referees or the powers that be ever learn that this game is about entertainment, there are few exciting moments in a modern football match as it is, so wouldn't it be better to let the play flow if there is a chance of a moments exitement? A corner,free kick, a fast flowing attack? Just saying like!

Games last 45 mins a half. Would you have liked him to play on to see if Celtc scored? That wouldn't have fuelled conspiracy theories at all would it.

Late contender for stupidest post of the year.

[McD]

I remember a world cup tie in the midst of time. It involved I know not who but I am sure the ref was an English gentleman. A guy had just fired a goal in and he chalked it off because he had blown for time (full or half- it matters not) before it hit the net.

Wasn't that when a corner was taken, ref blew for full time between the corner being kicked, and the ball arriving in the box to be headed in for a goal, team that 'scored' went nuts when they realised the ref wasn't allowing the goal.

[matty_f]

Games last 45 mins a half. Would you have liked him to play on to see if Celtc scored? That wouldn't have fuelled conspiracy theories at all would it.

Late contender for stupidest post of the year.

That's right. I think refs often let an attack finish but the rule is after 45 minutes, time's up.

[Onceinawhile]

Think that game was Brazil versus Sweden and I'm sure pele was playing.. What annoys me is waiting on the ball to be in the air to blow for full time see the ict game.

[greenlex]

Wasn't that when a corner was taken, ref blew for full time between the corner being kicked, and the ball arriving in the box to be headed in for a goal, team that 'scored' went nuts when they realised the ref wasn't allowing the goal.
I think that's the one.:agree:

[--------]

Games last 45 mins a half. Would you have liked him to play on to see if Celtc scored? That wouldn't have fuelled conspiracy theories at all would it.

Late contender for stupidest post of the year.


They actually don't, TC.

Once all the stoppages are accounted for, most games last somewhere between 35 and 40 minutes of play. While Rugby and gridiron time the actual play, association football leaves the timing of the game to the referee, and he never allows fully 45 minutes play per half. Even the advent of the fourth official hasn't really helped - added time rarely equals time wasted in the match.

Play on to the next stoppage - frre kick, goal kick, corner?

[Twa Cairpets]

Wasn't that when a corner was taken, ref blew for full time between the corner being kicked, and the ball arriving in the box to be headed in for a goal, team that 'scored' went nuts when they realised the ref wasn't allowing the goal.

Clive Thomas, Welsh ref. it was Sweden v Brazil and a goal by Zico.

The review of the incident concluded was that it was impossible for referees to micromanage to the second the time a game lasted, and should, in essence, "use their heid" in such circumstances. Thomas vehemently denied he had done anything wrong.

[woody47]

Think that game was Brazil versus Sweden and I'm sure pele was playing.. What annoys me is waiting on the ball to be in the air to blow for full time see the ict game.

I believe the rule is (or was) that the ball had to be in play before whistle can be blown so therefore the corner would havhad to be taken. Same thing with a goal kick. Think refs make it up as they go now though :agree:

[Twa Cairpets]

They actually don't, TC.

Once all the stoppages are accounted for, most games last somewhere between 35 and 40 minutes of play. While Rugby and gridiron time the actual play, association football leaves the timing of the game to the referee, and he never allows fully 45 minutes play per half. Even the advent of the fourth official hasn't really helped - added time rarely equals time wasted in the match.

Play on to the next stoppage - frre kick, goal kick, corner?

If you're talking the amount of time the ball is in active play, then actually I think you're overestimating slightly - theres been studies done and I think that its between 50-70% that the ball is "live", although Im prepared to be shown Im wrong on this.

However, under the current laws, the ball being in play or out of play is irrelevant. If a player is unduly delaying the restart of play - i.e. timewasting - then that time is "added-on", although actually its not - the match time watch is stopped. (As an aside, referees reports never contain times of 93 minutes or 45+3 minutes. I reffed a game recently where there was an injury that meant the first half was held up for 12 minutes. a player was booked in the last minute of the half, and the report timed it at 45 minutes).

What I strongly object to is the OP's view that referees are to blame for for stifling entertainment by stopping the game when time is up. What does he want them to become - moral guardians of entertainment? The opportunity for accusations of bias are big enough anyway without adding this in.

[Hibs Class]

Clive Thomas, Welsh ref. it was Sweden v Brazil and a goal by Zico.

The review of the incident concluded was that it was impossible for referees to micromanage to the second the time a game lasted, and should, in essence, "use their heid" in such circumstances. Thomas vehemently denied he had done anything wrong.
IIRC the ref was going to blow for full time before the corner was taken but after protests by the attacking team (possibly because full time should be called when the ball is in play) he allowed the corner to be taken and blew up as soon as it was kicked. Football should emulate rugby and end halves when the ball is out of play.

[Twa Cairpets]

I believe the rule is (or was) that the ball had to be in play before whistle can be blown so therefore the corner would havhad to be taken. Same thing with a goal kick. Think refs make it up as they go now though :agree:

No it isnt, no it didnt, no it isnt, no they dont. :wink:

[Littlest Hobo]

Games last 45 mins a half. Would you have liked him to play on to see if Celtc scored? That wouldn't have fuelled conspiracy theories at all would it.

Late contender for stupidest post of the year.


Aye ok then, no need for the slander. If that's your point of view then fine. Tell me this though,
you've never been frustrated when it's happened in a game you've been watching then? You've just shrugged your shoulders and said times up! lol

[Twa Cairpets]

IIRC the ref was going to blow for full time before the corner was taken but after protests by the attacking team (possibly because full time should be called when the ball is in play) he allowed the corner to be taken and blew up as soon as it was kicked. Football should emulate rugby and end halves when the ball is out of play.

I dont think there was a hoo-ha before - Clive Thomas was an officious wee tube and if he caved into demands for the corner to be taken he'd hardly be likely to bring the ire of the footballing world down on him as a result by making the call he did.

Here's a link. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0JFuWqwFg4)

[Littlest Hobo]

If you're talking the amount of time the ball is in active play, then actually I think you're overestimating slightly - theres been studies done and I think that its between 50-70% that the ball is "live", although Im prepared to be shown Im wrong on this.

However, under the current laws, the ball being in play or out of play is irrelevant. If a player is unduly delaying the restart of play - i.e. timewasting - then that time is "added-on", although actually its not - the match time watch is stopped. (As an aside, referees reports never contain times of 93 minutes or 45+3 minutes. I reffed a game recently where there was an injury that meant the first half was held up for 12 minutes. a player was booked in the last minute of the half, and the report timed it at 45 minutes).

What I strongly object to is the OP's view that referees are to blame for for stifling entertainment by stopping the game when time is up. What does he want them to become - moral guardians of entertainment? The opportunity for accusations of bias are big enough anyway without adding this in.

What a crock of **** you talk. Obviously part of the refereeing union i see. Fair play but the bottom line is that refs should use a wee bit more common sense before blowing their whistle to end a game. If their no capable of this simple task then they shouldn't nbe refs. Add this to your game mate and you'll get more respect and much less hassle, don't then you desreve all the stick you get.

[Twa Cairpets]

Aye ok then, no need for the slander. If that's your point of view then fine. Tell me this though,
you've never been frustrated when it's happened in a game you've been watching then? You've just shrugged your shoulders and said times up! lol

Nope. I can honestly say I've never been frustrated when a referee has blown for full time as a result of where the ball is at that moment. Times up when times up.

It would only be slander if I called you stupid. It's not slander when I'm calling your point stupid (and in any case it would be libel as it's written down).

[Littlest Hobo]

Nope. I can honestly say I've never been frustrated when a referee has blown for full time as a result of where the ball is at that moment. Times up when times up.

It would only be slander if I called you stupid. It's not slander when I'm calling your point stupid (and in any case it would be libel as it's written down).

Your first paragraph makes you a liar, the second just shows you up for the fud that you are.

[greenlex]

Your first paragraph makes you a liar, the second just shows you up for the fud that you are.
Your first sentence is slanderous:greengrin and the second part............ well.........stop digging.:wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

What a crock of **** you talk. Obviously part of the refereeing union i see. Fair play but the bottom line is that refs should use a wee bit more common sense before blowing their whistle to end a game. If their no capable of this simple task then they shouldn't nbe refs. Add this to your game mate and you'll get more respect and much less hassle, don't then you desreve all the stick you get.

I take it you've never refereed a game then?

I would hope every referee uses common sense about blowing the whistle. You wouldnt necessarily blow bang on 45 if two players were committed to a 50-50, or if the ball was in flight toward goal for a shot.

But answer me this then. Youre refereeing a game - lets say a cup final. times up but say the ball breaks to an attacker halfway inside his own half but with only one defender between him and the goal. Do you allow him the 10 seconds to run and shoot? What if he's held up, but keeps posession and a team mate breaks into space and is ready for a pass - do you allow that to progress? How long do you give it. 10 secs? 20 secs? a minute? What if the player is pulled down for a penalty. Allow for all the uproar, possible red card etc and (as you do have to allow for a pen to be taken even if time is up), you could be looking at, what 3 or 4 minutes of the game going on after it should have finished. As a referee, if the guy scores, I know I would be complicit in materially chnging the result as a result of a wrong decision.

Refs never get all calls right, but I belive that the vast, vast majority of them are made 100% honestly. Adding on time because "something exciting might happen" eats into that honesty.

There are lots of people out there (I suspect including yourself) who, regardless of any explanation given or evidence presented to the contrary believe all referees are inherently corrupt morons whose raison d'etre is to be as officious and unbending as possible. Your OP is, to me, clearly demonstrates your apparent cluelessness regarding the much, much bigger issues surrounding refereeing games at any level.


Your first paragraph makes you a liar, the second just shows you up for the fud that you are.

Now you're getting the hang of this libel thing. Well done!

You asked me a question. I answered. You didnt agree with my answer so I'm a liar? Interesting approach, and does kind of back up my point above.

[macca70]

We should follow Rugby and the half can't end until the ball is out of play.

That would be exciting.

[Twa Cairpets]

We should follow Rugby and the half can't end until the ball is out of play.

That would be exciting.

I thought about that, and it would make it easier to an extent.

However, in practice, what I think would happen is that the minute the clock ticked past the ninety all that would happen would be the ball being blootered out of the park at every opportunity rather than any pretence to play, and may actually stifle excitment. For levels below the senior game, all that would happen would be that the ref would be constantly asked how long there was to play and spend more time looking at his watch towards the end of the game than watching the game

[Hibbyradge]

Your first paragraph makes you a liar, the second just shows you up for the fud that you are.

And your post is hypocritical.

[Hibbyradge]

To add allow a game to carry on after the allotted time because a team is breaking away, would be unfair to the defending team.

[Littlest Hobo]

And your post is hypocritical.


Shoot me. lol A referee missing the point I was trying to make, entertainment killers the lot of thum. lol

[Littlest Hobo]

I take it you've never refereed a game then?

I would hope every referee uses common sense about blowing the whistle. You wouldnt necessarily blow bang on 45 if two players were committed to a 50-50, or if the ball was in flight toward goal for a shot.

But answer me this then. Youre refereeing a game - lets say a cup final. times up but say the ball breaks to an attacker halfway inside his own half but with only one defender between him and the goal. Do you allow him the 10 seconds to run and shoot? What if he's held up, but keeps posession and a team mate breaks into space and is ready for a pass - do you allow that to progress? How long do you give it. 10 secs? 20 secs? a minute? What if the player is pulled down for a penalty. Allow for all the uproar, possible red card etc and (as you do have to allow for a pen to be taken even if time is up), you could be looking at, what 3 or 4 minutes of the game going on after it should have finished. As a referee, if the guy scores, I know I would be complicit in materially chnging the result as a result of a wrong decision.

Refs never get all calls right, but I belive that the vast, vast majority of them are made 100% honestly. Adding on time because "something exciting might happen" eats into that honesty.

There are lots of people out there (I suspect including yourself) who, regardless of any explanation given or evidence presented to the contrary believe all referees are inherently corrupt morons whose raison d'etre is to be as officious and unbending as possible. Your OP is, to me, clearly demonstrates your apparent cluelessness regarding the much, much bigger issues surrounding refereeing games at any level.



Now you're getting the hang of this libel thing. Well done!

You asked me a question. I answered. You didnt agree with my answer so I'm a liar? Interesting approach, and does kind of back up my point above.


You like most Refs are over complicating a very simple thing. If your looking for 500 pages of rules as to when or when not to blow your wee whistle then you shouldn't be a ref. Fitba folk ken what a mean.
You and your ilk only spoil football for the rest of us.

[MrSmith]

I was thinking it was 82 or 86 when the ref turned his back to walk off at half time - Memory fails these days but think it was Sweden v Brazil and the free kick went in unseen by the ref? Cannae mind but rings a bell ...

[Twa Cairpets]

You like most Refs are over complicating a very simple thing. If your looking for 500 pages of rules as to when or when not to blow your wee whistle then you shouldn't be a ref. Fitba folk ken what a mean.
You and your ilk only spoil football for the rest of us.

Whereas you like most of your sort are displaying your complete ignorance of virtually everything to do with refereeing a match by apparently being both wilfully stupid and tediously insulting before posting anything on the subject.

I also notice you've cunningly gone down the "straw man" argument route of raging against things I haven't said whilst completely ignoring the question I asked. Where did I say anything about "500 pages of rules"? I said that when time is up the time is up, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the level of potential excitement going on in the game. I also said all referees, as far as I'm aware, use some discretion to avoid the likes of the Clive Thomas situation arising.

Fitba folk? You? Don't make me laugh. It's people like you who genuinely ruin football at every level. Stupidity is seldom an attractive trait.

[Hibs Class]

I dont think there was a hoo-ha before - Clive Thomas was an officious wee tube and if he caved into demands for the corner to be taken he'd hardly be likely to bring the ire of the footballing world down on him as a result by making the call he did.

Here's a link. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0JFuWqwFg4)


Could have sworn there had been but I must be mistaken. Interesting to see how many controversies Thomas was involved in when you google him.

[Hibbyradge]

Shoot me. lol A referee missing the point I was trying to make, entertainment killers the lot of thum. lol

You sanctimoniously and wrongly complained about Tc being slanderous then proceeded to call him a liar.

That's hypocrisy.

Lol. :rolleyes:

[Kaiser1962]

I thought about that, and it would make it easier to an extent.

However, in practice, what I think would happen is that the minute the clock ticked past the ninety all that would happen would be the ball being blootered out of the park at every opportunity rather than any pretence to play, and may actually stifle excitment. For levels below the senior game, all that would happen would be that the ref would be constantly asked how long there was to play and spend more time looking at his watch towards the end of the game than watching the game

As a defender of egg chasing on this board there are a lot of laws that could be transferred safely across. The game ending when the ball goes out of play just one of them. The captain being the only one that spoke to referee would eliminate him being asked how long to go every second, or you could have a seperate timekeeper, sat in the stand which would take a bit of pressure of the ref.

[greenlex]

As a defender of egg chasing on this board there are a lot of laws that could be transferred safely across. The game ending when the ball goes out of play just one of them. The captain being the only one that spoke to referee would eliminate him being asked how long to go every second, or you could have a seperate timekeeper, sat in the stand which would take a bit of pressure of the ref.
The single best thing we could ake from egg casing is to allow the physio onto the park to allow treatment whilst pay goes on. I bet there are thousands of less injured players a season.

[Kaiser1962]

The single best thing we could ake from egg casing is to allow the physio onto the park to allow treatment whilst pay goes on. I bet there are thousands of less injured players a season.

Agree.

And players could stop throwing themselves to the ground like a total jessie every time someone brushes against them. And pundits could stop pointing to the most minor of brushes as being "there was definitely contact" and making football players look like pussies.

[--------]

If you're talking the amount of time the ball is in active play, then actually I think you're overestimating slightly - theres been studies done and I think that its between 50-70% that the ball is "live", although Im prepared to be shown Im wrong on this.

However, under the current laws, the ball being in play or out of play is irrelevant. If a player is unduly delaying the restart of play - i.e. timewasting - then that time is "added-on", although actually its not - the match time watch is stopped. (As an aside, referees reports never contain times of 93 minutes or 45+3 minutes. I reffed a game recently where there was an injury that meant the first half was held up for 12 minutes. a player was booked in the last minute of the half, and the report timed it at 45 minutes).

What I strongly object to is the OP's view that referees are to blame for for stifling entertainment by stopping the game when time is up. What does he want them to become - moral guardians of entertainment? The opportunity for accusations of bias are big enough anyway without adding this in.


Aw jings! You're a referee as well as everything else!

I think there is a problem with timing football matches, which shouldn't be laid on the shoulders of the poor old long-suffering ref. I'm not even really happy with the present system of added-on time - I think it would be better if there was a time-keeper like in Rugby League whose sole responsibility was to time the match and blow the hooter or whatever when 45 minutes of play had taken place. That's in addition to the fourth official who could be better used than he is right now as a support and source of info for the man in the middle.

But you're right - it's not the ref's fault that football can be so boring these days. It's down to the clubs to provide teams that can play attractive football, and the players to deliver it without endless arguments and timewasting and all.

I actually think the football authorities could do worse than speak to the RL people about how they adjudicate in matches.