Good posts, agreed (although I'm not contesting your general points about good and bad refs). In particular thanks for the link to the BBC explainer. But I'm amazed to read it. The ref doesn't stop his watch! So he has to carry in his head the whole half all the incidents he wants to add time for? Well sorry, that goes against all the well established techniques for efficient use of the brain. The more you have to use it to memorise things, the less you can use it effectively for other things. Sorry, I agree with Fergie. Take that part away from them and they might actually run the game better. They might better remember that defender who already did two bad tackles and hasnt yet been booked.
Thanks especially for reminding me of the name of Clive Thomas. It was he who blew time in an international as the ball came over from a corner, and just as he blew, somebody headed in the cross. Goal disallowed. Now then. We are one up at home to Palace. They have a corner with one second left. Which type of ref do you want, regarding attitude to timekeeping. A stickler, or one who wants to see what happens, because hey, its entertainment. (Actually I want neither. I want it taken away from them entirely, and replaced by an ice hockey style hooter)
Yes, and it is easy, if you watch a lot of games, to guess correctly the number of minutes the ref is going to add. And it is a good reason to time waste too! The game needs to introduce time keepers and I'd go one further and introduce a system like Rugby Union - where the clock stops for every stoppage - but cut the game length to 80 minutes. Fans would still be getting around 20 minutes more action and teams wouldn't time waste (as there would be no point) so games wouldn't finish much later.
Too big a step for a very conservatively administered sport I know - but it would be an improvement.
Having said that, I do think the foreign refs adding no time is ridiculous!!!! I rememebr Arsenal in Europe last season to Dortmund I think. The Dortmund dfeender took nearly a minute to take a free kick during 4 mins stoppage time and the ref blew up on exactly 4 mins. I don't like Arsenal but it made me angry!
Good posts, agreed (although I'm not contesting your general points about good and bad refs). In particular thanks for the link to the BBC explainer. But I'm amazed to read it. The ref doesn't stop his watch! So he has to carry in his head the whole half all the incidents he wants to add time for? Well sorry, that goes against all the well established techniques for efficient use of the brain. The more you have to use it to memorise things, the less you can use it effectively for other things. Sorry, I agree with Fergie. Take that part away from them and they might actually run the game better. They might better remember that defender who already did two bad tackles and hasnt yet been booked.
Thanks especially for reminding me of the name of Clive Thomas. It was he who blew time in an international as the ball came over from a corner, and just as he blew, somebody headed in the cross. Goal disallowed. Now then. We are one up at home to Palace. They have a corner with one second left. Which type of ref do you want, regarding attitude to timekeeping. A stickler, or one who wants to see what happens, because hey, its entertainment. (Actually I want neither. I want it taken away from them entirely, and replaced by an ice hockey style hooter)
Take away the partisan bit, and I think anyone would want the referee to wait for the immediate attack to finish before blowing up. Throw Palace into the picture and I'd be quite happy for the ref to pick up the ball, run to the other end and score for us.
The ref doesn't stop his watch! So he has to carry in his head the whole half all the incidents he wants to add time for?
Can't speak for professional refs, but when I used to ref, I would have 2 watches, one of which I would stop, the other I wouldn't. Makes it easier to work out how long to add on. I just always assumed this is what all referees did, maybe not though...............
EDIT: Just to add that I think Gurnham Singh was the best referee I ever saw, and it was criminal he never got the chance at the top level - but then perhaps he was all the better for it.
You obviously were not at Selhurst on September 8th 1990 then. He may have gone on to improve, but the hack on Robert Lee in the penalty area he ignored that day (he was feet away with a clear view) bordered on the criminal. As did the Tommy Caton free kick that only he thought hadn't crossed the line, even the Wednesday keeper looked despairing as he turned away. Clouded my judgement on Mr Singh ever after...
EDIT: Just to add that I think Gurnham Singh was the best referee I ever saw, and it was criminal he never got the chance at the top level - but then perhaps he was all the better for it.
You obviously were not at Selhurst on September 8th 1990 then. He may have gone on to improve, but the hack on Robert Lee in the penalty area he ignored that day (he was feet away with a clear view) bordered on the criminal. As did the Tommy Caton free kick that only he thought hadn't crossed the line, even the Wednesday keeper looked despairing as he turned away. Clouded my judgement on Mr Singh ever after...
My apologies, I meant Jarnail Singh not Gurnham. Oops.
I can't think of any reason why I wasn't at that game, was home and away every week back in those days, but my memory doesn't permit recollection of such detail. Sounds like you've been holding a grudge for Mr Singh for a long time. :-)
The current system is not an exact science. Which is ludicrous.
The game is 90 minutes long to allow for the time the ball spends dead. The ball is live for about 50 minutes, right? If you stop the clock each time the ball goes out, the game will go on all afternoon!
Way I see it, the ref/ timekeeper simply needs to have a stop watch that gets switched on every time the ref thinks there's reason to add time. At 90 minutes, he'll know precisely what needs to be added.
The current system is not an exact science. Which is ludicrous.
The game is 90 minutes long to allow for the time the ball spends dead. The ball is live for about 50 minutes, right? If you stop the clock each time the ball goes out, the game will go on all afternoon!
Way I see it, the ref/ timekeeper simply needs to have a stop watch that gets switched on every time the ref thinks there's reason to add time. At 90 minutes, he'll know precisely what needs to be added.
Exactly. And wire his watch up to the stadium clock so we can all see the decision he has made. It's called transparency, and heaven knows we pay enough, its the least we should expect it.
The current system is not an exact science. Which is ludicrous.
The game is 90 minutes long to allow for the time the ball spends dead. The ball is live for about 50 minutes, right? If you stop the clock each time the ball goes out, the game will go on all afternoon!
Way I see it, the ref/ timekeeper simply needs to have a stop watch that gets switched on every time the ref thinks there's reason to add time. At 90 minutes, he'll know precisely what needs to be added.
Exactly. And wire his watch up to the stadium clock so we can all see the decision he has made. It's called transparency, and heaven knows we pay enough, its the least we should expect it.
why stop there. Why not have the micced conversations between officials played over the tannoy like in American football when there's a flag down.
I'll tell you why. 99% of football supporters will only see what they want to see. Have a look at operationpigs view of the semedo red card. We are a weird bunch where rationale goes out of the window at 3:00 on Saturday afternoons Whenever we play.
As a nation of football supporters, we don't seem to recognise that football referees are human beings and as such, will make mistakes, as in all other walks of life. Couple that fact with other factors such as positioning, sometimes the lack of clear vision of some challenges, players diving etc, makes refereeing extremely difficult. I have never seem a referee lose his "cool" on the pitch in the way that players do every game, yet referees are under the same scrutiny and pressure as players. As a nation, we seem to accept that rugby referees and cricket umpires are human have difficult jobs and thus make mistakes; we don't seem to accept that with football referees. A little more tolerance, recognition of the difficulty of the job and understanding towards referees would be helpful; as would a better understanding of the Laws of the Game by supporters and media alike. Rant over!
Stop the watch when there is an injury, a goal or a sub. The ball going out for throw ins/goal kicks is part of the game.
I think this is a fair suggestion - but I'm sure once you decide to introduce a better systen, there are a number of alternatives you can look at.
The biggest issue for me is that under the current system, it pays to time waste/feign injury. It is an even bigger issue abroad than here unbelievably! But a lot of foreigners see this as professionalsim, where we are very righteous when it comes to football and it bothers us more. That is why I doubt it is far up on the list of FIFAs priorities - in fact it most likely isn't there at all!
And that's what annoys me - they add on random amounts that invariably add up to a precise, exact figure! I could wast 16 seconds but they add on an entire minute? It's nuts.
You see it in spanish and italian games all the time only 2 minutes added on even if there has been injuries, red cards etc, I think a lot of the time if a team is losing by more then 1 goal they will only ever put 2 up if it's only by 1 goal they tend to play the true amount of time which is normally 3 or 4.
Cardiff at home last Nov springs to mind, no real stoppages of note yet the ref slaps on 7 minutes of injury time. We were 5-2 up going into he 90th minute and Cardiff pulled 2 more back in the added time to make for a very nervy last minute or so. It made what would of been a leisurely last couple of minutes at 5-2 far more dramatic then it should of been.
The current system is not an exact science. Which is ludicrous.
The game is 90 minutes long to allow for the time the ball spends dead. The ball is live for about 50 minutes, right? If you stop the clock each time the ball goes out, the game will go on all afternoon!
Way I see it, the ref/ timekeeper simply needs to have a stop watch that gets switched on every time the ref thinks there's reason to add time. At 90 minutes, he'll know precisely what needs to be added.
Exactly. And wire his watch up to the stadium clock so we can all see the decision he has made. It's called transparency, and heaven knows we pay enough, its the least we should expect it.
I'm struggling with this one Prague. We're told how long he's going to add already. Are our lives going to be significantly enhanced by knowing every detail of why?
I saw Mike Riley at Kings Cross yesterday. Another day I might have asked him why he thinks achieving the right stats make a better referee than one who has an empathy for the game. And this, I fear, would fall into the same category .
And that's what annoys me - they add on random amounts that invariably add up to a precise, exact figure! I could wast 16 seconds but they add on an entire minute? It's nuts.
They add on what they think the stoppage was. It's not unreasonable to use a rule of thumb, such as rounding to the nearest 30 seconds for a goal, sub, booking, plus any additions. They're hardly going to add on more time than there were stoppages after all, so why worry if the game lasts an extra few seconds than an individual event took??
Honestly, I don't know what all this fuss is about.
EDIT: Just to add that I think Gurnham Singh was the best referee I ever saw, and it was criminal he never got the chance at the top level - but then perhaps he was all the better for it.
You obviously were not at Selhurst on September 8th 1990 then. He may have gone on to improve, but the hack on Robert Lee in the penalty area he ignored that day (he was feet away with a clear view) bordered on the criminal. As did the Tommy Caton free kick that only he thought hadn't crossed the line, even the Wednesday keeper looked despairing as he turned away. Clouded my judgement on Mr Singh ever after...
My apologies, I meant Jarnail Singh not Gurnham. Oops.
I can't think of any reason why I wasn't at that game, was home and away every week back in those days, but my memory doesn't permit recollection of such detail. Sounds like you've been holding a grudge for Mr Singh for a long time. :-)
I have got to the stage where I would not now actually knee Mr S in the nuts were I to encounter him in the street, but I would still give him the stink eye... ;-)
And that's what annoys me - they add on random amounts that invariably add up to a precise, exact figure! I could wast 16 seconds but they add on an entire minute? It's nuts.
They add on what they think the stoppage was. It's not unreasonable to use a rule of thumb, such as rounding to the nearest 30 seconds for a goal, sub, booking, plus any additions. They're hardly going to add on more time than there were stoppages after all, so why worry if the game lasts an extra few seconds than an individual event took??
Honestly, I don't know what all this fuss is about.
Well... I think it IS unreasonable. A rule of thumb? Why? Why not have an exact time? Can you give any reason why a guess is better than an exact time? If we were beating Palace and conceded a goal because the ref guessed the injury time should be 90 seconds more than it actually should have been, you'd be cool with that??
Are you unaware of the technical improvements made in the timepiece realm over the last 100 years?
And this is not about us having unreasonable expectations of referees. I fully accept that they can get things wrong, in good faith, on the field, and we should be tolerant or even embrace that. But timekeeping is different. It is a matter of fact. And it does not even have to be managed by the ref. Take that away from him and leave him to remember just how many times that no-mark defender has fouled Yann, so that the yellow card comes out in a timely fashion.
Comments
Thanks.
Good posts, agreed (although I'm not contesting your general points about good and bad refs). In particular thanks for the link to the BBC explainer. But I'm amazed to read it. The ref doesn't stop his watch! So he has to carry in his head the whole half all the incidents he wants to add time for? Well sorry, that goes against all the well established techniques for efficient use of the brain. The more you have to use it to memorise things, the less you can use it effectively for other things. Sorry, I agree with Fergie. Take that part away from them and they might actually run the game better. They might better remember that defender who already did two bad tackles and hasnt yet been booked.
Thanks especially for reminding me of the name of Clive Thomas. It was he who blew time in an international as the ball came over from a corner, and just as he blew, somebody headed in the cross. Goal disallowed. Now then. We are one up at home to Palace. They have a corner with one second left. Which type of ref do you want, regarding attitude to timekeeping. A stickler, or one who wants to see what happens, because hey, its entertainment. (Actually I want neither. I want it taken away from them entirely, and replaced by an ice hockey style hooter)
Too big a step for a very conservatively administered sport I know - but it would be an improvement.
Having said that, I do think the foreign refs adding no time is ridiculous!!!! I rememebr Arsenal in Europe last season to Dortmund I think. The Dortmund dfeender took nearly a minute to take a free kick during 4 mins stoppage time and the ref blew up on exactly 4 mins. I don't like Arsenal but it made me angry!
My apologies, I meant Jarnail Singh not Gurnham. Oops.
I can't think of any reason why I wasn't at that game, was home and away every week back in those days, but my memory doesn't permit recollection of such detail. Sounds like you've been holding a grudge for Mr Singh for a long time. :-)
The game is 90 minutes long to allow for the time the ball spends dead. The ball is live for about 50 minutes, right? If you stop the clock each time the ball goes out, the game will go on all afternoon!
Way I see it, the ref/ timekeeper simply needs to have a stop watch that gets switched on every time the ref thinks there's reason to add time. At 90 minutes, he'll know precisely what needs to be added.
Why not have the micced conversations between officials played over the tannoy like in American football when there's a flag down.
I'll tell you why.
99% of football supporters will only see what they want to see. Have a look at operationpigs view of the semedo red card. We are a weird bunch where rationale goes out of the window at
3:00 on Saturday afternoonsWhenever we play.The biggest issue for me is that under the current system, it pays to time waste/feign injury. It is an even bigger issue abroad than here unbelievably! But a lot of foreigners see this as professionalsim, where we are very righteous when it comes to football and it bothers us more. That is why I doubt it is far up on the list of FIFAs priorities - in fact it most likely isn't there at all!
Suppose you could start waving cards around...
In these occasions I think it is fair to add extra time on but not to the length that they do.
I saw Mike Riley at Kings Cross yesterday. Another day I might have asked him why he thinks achieving the right stats make a better referee than one who has an empathy for the game. And this, I fear, would fall into the same category .
Honestly, I don't know what all this fuss is about.
I can't think of any reason why I wasn't at that game, was home and away every week back in those days, but my memory doesn't permit recollection of such detail. Sounds like you've been holding a grudge for Mr Singh for a long time. :-)
I have got to the stage where I would not now actually knee Mr S in the nuts were I to encounter him in the street, but I would still give him the stink eye... ;-)
Are you unaware of the technical improvements made in the timepiece realm over the last 100 years?
And this is not about us having unreasonable expectations of referees. I fully accept that they can get things wrong, in good faith, on the field, and we should be tolerant or even embrace that. But timekeeping is different. It is a matter of fact. And it does not even have to be managed by the ref. Take that away from him and leave him to remember just how many times that no-mark defender has fouled Yann, so that the yellow card comes out in a timely fashion.