The clock only stops if the referee decides to stop the clock. The ref will not normally do so if the ball leaves the field of play unless he decides that, in his opinion, the player deliberately kicked the ball out of play for the purpose of wasting time.
Referees may well sometimes hold off blowing for time until whatever is happening is resolved, but the rules do not require them to do so. (It does permit them to, though.)
As for the penalty bit, here’s another extract from Law VII on the duration of the game.
From FIFA’s Laws of the Game (follow the link to a PDF document.)
Mark Hughes is one of the most graceless arseholes in the Premiership - even if his team is thumped 5-0 he’ll still complain that a yellow card wasn’t awarded in the 93rd minute (as if it’d change the outcome of the game).
Steve Bruce and Paul Ince are similar, and David Moyes.
Even as Man U fan who thinks the Fergie-hating is way out of proportion, I can’t help noticing that three of your four examples (Hughes, Bruce, Ince) were all absolutely key players in Fergie’s Man U team from c1990-1995! Coincidence?
This statement is patently untrue. If you believe it to be true, you do not watch much soccer on TV. :dubious:
Now, in a perfect world it would be true.
The extra long injury time for Man U thing is probably mostly nonsense, but there are some very sketchy cases, similarly with Real Madrid and Barca.
Doesn’t compare to the free penalties/free kicks they get though. Stevie Me diving vs Atletico, Ronaldo diving vs Bolton, Real Madrid with far too many examples to name.
Given what happened in Italy it all makes you wonder.
Oh and Fergie is a gigantic wanker, as are most of the managers. They should all be muzzled.
Yes, the arguments with the referee do seem to happen constantly.It’s not as if the ref. is going to change his mind, except in the rare case of the linesman spotting something the ref.didn’t. Now that in most professional games the ref is wired up to his linesmen and the 4th official, it hardly seems to happen Occasionally a club will appeal a card which is rarely successful.
The arguing with the ref. was meant to be one of the issues of the Respect campaign, and personally I don’t see it working. The biggest culprits are the managers who are given air time after the game(and to the 4th official, during the game). Joe Kinnear recently likened one ref to Mickey Mouse, not much respect there.
And in spite of all the prejudice earlier in the thread virtually the managers are as bad as one another in complaining. At least referees are human and admit mistakes now and again whereas managers suffer a curious ailment where they never see something happening which puts their team in a bad light but they can see all the perceived fouls the opposition make.
If referees are waiting until there is no chance of the players arguing about the results of a play, then they are exercising their discretion to add extra time. But if they blow time, and immediately afterwards the ball enters the goal, the goal does not stand.
The rules are quite clear (read them; I posted a link). A penalty must be taken, but the referee is not obliged to wait until the ball goes dead or uncontested before blowing time in any other circumstance.
No, with very rare exceptions, he blows for time when his watch indicates the end of the match and no attack is in progress.
Or the ref is allowing an attack to finish.
Or he’s waiting for the team that bribed him to score
What the rules say isn’t really relevant to how things actually work. You’re right about what the laws say, but in numerous areas the laws simply aren’t followed.
Yeah, but the point is no referee in his right mind would ever place himself in this situation. Obviously, this is not to argue that all referees are in their right minds.
Witness Clive Thomas officiating in Brazil v Sweden (1978 World Cup). It’s 1-1 and we are into the dying stages of the game. Thomas awards a corner to Brazil. The kick goes straight to the head of Zico, who nods the ball into the net. Cue great celebrations. Brazil are happy.
Except Brazil are not happy, because Thomas blows the whistle for time before the header hits the back of the net. The video footage of this (I can’t find a version with an English commentary) is probably shown to all budding referees on training courses everywhere as a prime example of when not to blow the whistle.
I believe the statement about clocks stopping in certain situations was describing Rugby, not soccer. As mentioned, in soccer the clock stops whenever the referee wants it to.
Agreeing that in theory, as the rules are written, the referee blows a whistle to end the game when he reaches 90:00 on his clock, regardless of the situation on the field (and if the ball is six inches from crossing the goal line at that point, no goal. Tough).
In practice, though, referees almost universally wait until there’s at least a momentary lull in the action, and you’ll only very very very rarely see a game end with the ball heading towards the goal.
It’s worth repeating why the timekeeping is so low-tech, because this is key to appreciating soccer: except for substitutions, the rules are the same at every level, from five-year-olds to the World Cup (the field may be smaller/fewer people for very young children). There’s no other major sport I know of that seven year olds can play, interestingly and competetively, with the same rules as top-level professional athletes (and the same rules as non-professional adults).
Compare American football: the only way to play tackle football after college is to be pro. Heck, there aren’t that many options for playing baseball outside of pro and semi-pro leagues.
So remember when you’re watching pro soccer, those are the exact same rules that the grammar schools and local recreational beer leagues are using (in fact, in most countries, a local rec league team could theoretically end up the top pro leagues, if they kept winning). Hopefully that perspective will help the enjoyment a little.
You quoted the rule (with which I am WELL familiar; if you missed it above, I officiate soccer). The rule is universally ignored, to the extent in most professional games (or national games) that the whistle is almost never blown unless the ball is in flight away from goal, or is being batted around at midfield with no clear possession. And this has nothing to do with “added time” and everything to do with avoiding the appearance of favoritism by ending someone’s attack mid-attempt.
For what it is worth, most referees do not use count down timing on their watches; rather, they use count-up timing. They simply keep in their head a running tally of approximate added time. There are some recommendations from FIFA and various other governing bodies as to what to add; currently, each substitution is assumed to add 30 seconds of time to a game, for example.
It didn’t use to be this way; even when I was learning how to officiate in '89, the referees were still blowing full time while the ball was involved in an attack, though preferably not while the ball was in flight towards the goal.
Me? I’m a bit different: I keep my watch on count DOWN and will blow the whistle at full time, as indicated by the sound of the alarm. But I’m among a very small minority in doing this. :eek:
I hate this. If time runs out during an attack then the match should be called. Even if the ball is just about to cross the goal line and enter the goal. And to not call time when time has run out just to avoid the appearance of favoritism is bullshit. It actually is favoritism towards the attacking team. This is one of the problems with only letting the ref know the official time. This is one change the MLS (in its early years) got right. Adding transparency to the officiating is a good thing.
If you read carefully what you excerpted as a quote, you will not see the word “proof” in there. Nor will you see any indication that he’s offering it as “proof” of anything, except that, as with any “rule” there are exceptions. In this case, the exception is so glarlingly obvious as validation of the general rule, it’s used to warn budding referees of just why they should follow the “rule.”
Keep in mind: since time may be added for “any other cause” the referee deems necessary, timekeeping in a soccer match is not a thing of precision. When you watch a match, there are always little things going on that could be deemed to require added time, such as the ball being put into touch by being connonaded fifty rows up, idiots rolling around on the pitch in an attempt to draw yellow out of the referee’s pocket, stern talking tos administered by the referee, etc. So establishing a little bit of leeway at the end of a half is not a bad thing. The trouble is that the concept has gotten totally out of hand. And yes, Yookeroo, as I pointed out in my first contribution to this thread, transparency on the part of timekeeping is a GOOD thing, the Americans got it right, and sadly, the referees here, and the football people elsewhere (who simply cannot conceive of us clueless Americans contributing something of value to the game we barely understand), combined to snuff it out. :smack:
In Australian rugby league, public criticism of officials by players or coaching staff (and presumably any of the club’s personnel) draws a fine. Which leads to some “read between lines” post-match musings.
And on field, there is no* arguing with the referee. Doing so quickly draws a penalty, further remonstrating will usually then result in a sin-binning. There have been cases where transgressors have been sent off completely. Touching the ref, even in a non-threatening manner, has resulted in suspensions. In short, the penalties are real and swift in coming, as such it’s relatively rare.
*And when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount. A good referee will allow some amount of banter, so long as it’s not personal or overbearing.
