Question Number: 21557

Law 7 - Match Duration 6/18/2009

RE: Premier High School

Mike Tew of Grand Rapids, MI USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 21445

I was the person that had raised the question originally. For the game in question my role was that of parent.

A bit of clarification on the question.

First, there was no question that the referee can call time at any point that he believes time has expired. He is in charge of the game, he has the watch, he has the whistle, and what any body else thinks is really just interesting trivia.

But since soccer is all about interesting trivia, here was the question ...

Why in a game where there has been stoppage time -- injured players and yellow cards for sure and potentially other areas where the referee has discretion on the amount of stoppage time to add -- do you stop play when a team is attacking in the box? And I'm not talking about an extended attack -- the ball had been played in off a corner kick and things had not sorted themselves out yet.

The question here is less about the specific rule and more about the nuances of time management for the referee and the discretion of the referee.

My view as a referee ... we are getting down to the final ticks in the game. There is a somewhat arbitrary amount of stoppage time to consider (noting that I do not physically stop my watch for small infractions only for extended ones). The attacking team earned a corner kick prior to time running out. I am going to allow the play to complete prior to blowing my whistle.

For what it's worth, I actually have seen goals disallowed by referees on the basis of time running out and I was intrigued by the thought the defending team has the right not to have a goal scored on them due to the ref not blowing the whistle.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

If the referee feels he has completely accounted for any lost time, then play should be stopped. There may be a difference of opinion between people on what 'completely accounted for' means - for some it's to the nearest minute; others try to measure it to the fraction of a second. But once that time has expired, it is done - the game should be over. So if the ref decided 2 1/2 minutes is appropriate, when his watch says 47:30 he should be blowing the whistle, regardless of whether there is an 'active attack' or not. As a coach once said about offside, 'If he's not seeking to gain an advantage, what's he doing out there?' A similar point could be made about an 'active attack' - if the players aren't actively trying to score, what are they trying to do? Now, if the ball is inside a crowd right in front of the net, I'll probably have more important things to do than watch the last few seconds tick off my watch. I will have a pretty good idea of how much time is left; I might be mentally counting it down. When I hit zero, if I have a chance I glance at my watch to confirm the time has expired. But it might just take me an extra couple of seconds to have that opportunity to look down.

(I don't care for the start/stop watch technique for a couple of reasons. First, I've forgotten to start the watch or had a button malfunction too many times as is; I don't have to tempt fate all through the game. But more importantly, many times I won't be able to tell if a stoppage is going to be prolonged, as opposed to normal, until some time has actually ticked away. I'd have to delay restarting my watch to make up for the late turn-off. So if I'm going to be estimating anyway, then why not just estimate how much time to add? And if it's a blowout or crappy weather conditions, and the teams just don't care about anything except getting off the field, I'm going to be ending it pretty close to the regulation time rather than adding in every last second.)

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

The approach in high school is very different. The referee stops the clock when certain events happen (or in the referee's discretion) during the match. When the clocks ticks down to zero, the match is over.

Because the laws of the game say both that the referee must add time and the referee is the sole judge of how much time to add, the referee is the only one who knows when the match is over.

As a practical matter, nothing requires the referee to decide that the match is over as the ball is heading toward the goal, and good sense suggests that the referee might want to hold the whistle a moment or two more. On the other hand, just because it is a close, exciting game, doesn't mean that the referee should keep adding time until the match turns boring.

The most famous example of a referee ending a match was in a World Cup qualifier. The decision to end the match as the corner kick was in the air belonged to referee Clive Thomas, alone. He was correct under the laws for disallowing the goal scored directly from the kick because the whistle had already blown. A goal which decided who advanced. But, Mr. Thomas was never again handed an international match. (He later wrote a book titled 'By the Book.')

IMO, its not a good idea to decide that I will add 60 seconds to the match and then focus on my watch to see those seconds tick down (on one watch) or tick up (on the other watch.) Watches never commit fouls or misconduct. Referees needs to keep their eyes on the players. My practice is to decide I will add 'not less than a minute' and then watch play. After about a minute, if either team has a chance to score, I'll keep watching what happens. I always prefer to whistle the end of the match when the ball is headed in a direction away from the goal. (Note: if I need to pick up the ball when the match ends and the ball is currently near the coach or substitute who has barely been on the edge of self-control during the match, I'll also continue to defer the final whistle until the ball has moved away from them. There is no reason to incite them to post-match troubles. )

Some referees believe that adding time for one team to score is a form of bias. I believe that so long as the referee treats either team in the same way without regard to which one is in possession of the ball, the referee is being fair to the players and to the game.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

The general feeling seems to be to allow play to continue if there's an obvious attack especially if there's a scoring opportunity even if ALL time has expired. If a goal is scored the referee usually lets the other team kick off and then blows the whistle to end the game. In fact, this is what I was taught many years ago. I find this attitude to be incredibly unfair to the defending team. How is it remotely in the interest of Fair Play to extend time just to let one team have a scoring opportunity? When I referee I usually stop my watch during wasted time like injury or obvious time wasting by either team. Then when the time limit is up, the game is over. I'm not going to disadvantage the defending team just to avoid being screamed at by the attacking players/coaches/parents.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

If a referee stops play and doesn't whistle lets say he dropped it and it got stepped on or the pea broke he could in law disallow the goal claiming the match was over but he could not signal it was so quickly enough. Certainly going to make one team VERY unhappy but if he holds up the broken whistle and claims time was up as a FACT of play it will stand as a decision.


As much as time is rarely to the micro second we do look for ways to end a match less controversially than a ball rolling into the goal! If we are looking at a blow out 7 to 0 and the team with 7 is pressing for another goal we likely do not care where that ball is to any great degree as it simply has no real impact on the game.

If we are 2-1 and the team with 1 is pressing, trying hard to win the ball, get off the shot or restart quickly! With time ticking down, the team with 2 is doing what to can to drag things out, so time really matters!

My colleagues and I all agree we should NOT be watching the watch but managing the game, thinking about the needs of the players and the reality of the match itself in all its intricacies. I vehemently disagree with the idea we add time to allow a scoring opportunity! We allow the teams to PLAY the available time; if they score or miss it is what it is! Teams that hustle and work hard get that miniscule time break those that whine, drag their feet will not!

Cheers

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 21576