Used to be many years ago. Look at the programme for Charlton's first game back at The Valley in Dec 92(?) or was in 93 (?). I was the fourth official on the day.
So he should add time on to allow a team to score goals? Right so you clearly understand the rules and the absolute dodginess of adding time just in case. When the alloted time is up the ref has to blow the whistle. This isn't local rec cheat as much as you can football. Anyone criticising him from that small clip is wholy wrong.
There are rules and there is common sense. A striker turning on the 6 yard box to get a shot off, let him do it. People come to see goals, that is what money is paid for, so an extra 5 seconds goes past, so what.
Turn your statement around. How would Charlton players, officials and supporters feel if a referee allowed an extra 5 secs and a goal was against us? How would you feel?
But if you're in stoppage time then the rules are not that cut and dry are they? The referee indicates a minimum amount of time, not a maximum. So to blow on that exact moment his watch must've said exactly 4 minutes (the amount of added time he indicate) which is almost unheard of , most refs wait until the ball is in a safe position to blow up.
But if you're in stoppage time then the rules are not that cut and dry are they? The referee indicates a minimum amount of time, not a maximum. So to blow on that exact moment his watch must've said exactly 4 minutes (the amount of added time he indicate) which is almost unheard of , most refs wait until the ball is in a safe position to blow up.
The referee does indicate a minimum of additional time. The Law (Law one as I recall) states that the referee is the sole judge of time to be played beyond the 45/90 minutes.
But if you're in stoppage time then the rules are not that cut and dry are they? The referee indicates a minimum amount of time, not a maximum. So to blow on that exact moment his watch must've said exactly 4 minutes (the amount of added time he indicate) which is almost unheard of , most refs wait until the ball is in a safe position to blow up.
Why do they not blow before a goal keeper has kicked the ball and not when it is in the air? I am sure Kettle would happily book a goal keeper for time wasting and then blow up.
My issue with it is that it's a total "look at me" exercise by Kettle. The guy clearly loves the controversy and the limelight. Completely the wrong attitude to have if you want to be a ref.
My issue with it is that it's a total "look at me" exercise by Kettle. The guy clearly loves the controversy and the limelight. Completely the wrong attitude to have if you want to be a ref.
So he should add time on to allow a team to score goals? Right so you clearly understand the rules and the absolute dodginess of adding time just in case. When the alloted time is up the ref has to blow the whistle. This isn't local rec cheat as much as you can football. Anyone criticising him from that small clip is wholy wrong.
There are rules and there is common sense. A striker turning on the 6 yard box to get a shot off, let him do it. People come to see goals, that is what money is paid for, so an extra 5 seconds goes past, so what.
Turn your statement around. How would Charlton players, officials and supporters feel if a referee allowed an extra 5 secs and a goal was against us? How would you feel?
I'd be gutted but I would not expect the ref to base their time on how I feel. The best part of the game is goals a ref should not be so officious that they feel 5 seconds of additional time is more harmful than a goal. The most memorable wins are always those ones secured in the last minute.
He can't have been looking at the play and at his watch at the same time. Makes himself look like a proper idiot.
Same as any other referee!
May I respectively point out the all referees are marked by clubs and assessors on every game officiated. The referees with the least favourable marks at the end of the season are downgraded accordingly.
But if you're in stoppage time then the rules are not that cut and dry are they? The referee indicates a minimum amount of time, not a maximum. So to blow on that exact moment his watch must've said exactly 4 minutes (the amount of added time he indicate) which is almost unheard of , most refs wait until the ball is in a safe position to blow up.
The referee does indicate a minimum of additional time. The Law (Law one as I recall) states that the referee is the sole judge of time to be played beyond the 45/90 minutes.
Exactly. So why not allow another 5 seconds?
And as someone said above, how can he be looking at his watch AND the game at the same time?
Let's face it, he did it to say "look at me". Who knows, maybe that team had been having a pop at him all game and they deserved it. But the attitude he displayed shows that he's never played football or paid to watch football. Oh, he may know the laws of the game - inside out - but he really has no idea what its all about really. Sad little man.
It's a twattish, attention seeking decision. If they're that close to time then blow the whistle before the shot is taken. Timekeeping is not bloody accurate as it is. Don't see how anyone can defend it.
But if you're in stoppage time then the rules are not that cut and dry are they? The referee indicates a minimum amount of time, not a maximum. So to blow on that exact moment his watch must've said exactly 4 minutes (the amount of added time he indicate) which is almost unheard of , most refs wait until the ball is in a safe position to blow up.
The referee does indicate a minimum of additional time. The Law (Law one as I recall) states that the referee is the sole judge of time to be played beyond the 45/90 minutes.
Exactly. So why not allow another 5 seconds?
And as someone said above, how can he be looking at his watch AND the game at the same time?
Let's face it, he did it to say "look at me". Who knows, maybe that team had been having a pop at him all game and they deserved it. But the attitude he displayed shows that he's never played football or paid to watch football. Oh, he may know the laws of the game - inside out - but he really has no idea what its all about really. Sad little man.
Why 5 secs, let's make it 10 or 15 or 20 mins (I am of course joking)! How would you feel if Charlton had a goal scored against them in time added on beyond the correct time. We have to have consistent timing and surely the only way to do that is to apply the relevant law which states "the referee is the sole judge of time added on".
Peter, youre a ref and a fan - so surely you "get" it?
Surely you end the game at around about the time you think it should end AT AN APPROPRIATE TIME. Not when the ball is in the box and someone is just about to shoot?
And to answer your question, if the other side have a free kick, corner, or mount an attack right at the death then I know that we need to defend that passage of play and the ref will likely blow up the next time the ball goes dead/is caught be the keeper/gets whacked clear. That's the way it is.
he can't have been doing his job properly, if the striker had been scythed down in the box before he got his shot away he wouldn't have known because he was too busy looking at his watch.
Which is I think why most referees blow up at a time when they can be sure that looking at their watch isn't going to cause them to miss a match changing incident, and not when a striker is just taking a shot.
The strike had left the players boot before he blew, about 2 secs overplayed if any.
I've said for a while, after time is up it should be like rugby, next time the ball goes out of play, everybody knows where they stand and can't be cheated out of a game.
Peter, youre a ref and a fan - so surely you "get" it?
Surely you end the game at around about the time you think it should end AT AN APPROPRIATE TIME. Not when the ball is in the box and someone is just about to shoot?
And to answer your question, if the other side have a free kick, corner, or mount an attack right at the death then I know that we need to defend that passage of play and the ref will likely blow up the next time the ball goes dead/is caught be the keeper/gets whacked clear. That's the way it is.
"An appropriate time" can mean different things to different people (or different referees). Surely we should be looking for consistency and this can only be achieved by standardisation, namely the standardisation of 45/90 plus stoppage time as defined by the referee.
I can understand people having different views than those I have expressed but how is consistency achieved if referees are not using common standards.
But if you're in stoppage time then the rules are not that cut and dry are they? The referee indicates a minimum amount of time, not a maximum. So to blow on that exact moment his watch must've said exactly 4 minutes (the amount of added time he indicate) which is almost unheard of , most refs wait until the ball is in a safe position to blow up.
The referee does indicate a minimum of additional time. The Law (Law one as I recall) states that the referee is the sole judge of time to be played beyond the 45/90 minutes.
Exactly. So why not allow another 5 seconds?
And as someone said above, how can he be looking at his watch AND the game at the same time?
Let's face it, he did it to say "look at me". Who knows, maybe that team had been having a pop at him all game and they deserved it. But the attitude he displayed shows that he's never played football or paid to watch football. Oh, he may know the laws of the game - inside out - but he really has no idea what its all about really. Sad little man.
Why 5 secs, let's make it 10 or 15 or 20 mins (I am of course joking)! How would you feel if Charlton had a goal scored against them in time added on beyond the correct time. We have to have consistent timing and surely the only way to do that is to apply the relevant law which states "the referee is the sole judge of time added on".
I'd be more pissed off if Charlton had a goal ruled out like Accrington than conceding a goal with 5 seconds added on. The fact is no one but kettle would have known how much time needed to get added and he's done it to be controversial. Step out your little union and see it like the majority of us do.
How often does the 2 or 3 minutes added time officially run out when a team is pushing forward? And how many of those occasions does the ref blow up before/as the shot is taken? The fact this is so controversial is because it's not normal.
Every ref waits for the current attack or "phase of play" to finish. First block or half clearance and the whistle goes. Common sense.
But if you're in stoppage time then the rules are not that cut and dry are they? The referee indicates a minimum amount of time, not a maximum. So to blow on that exact moment his watch must've said exactly 4 minutes (the amount of added time he indicate) which is almost unheard of , most refs wait until the ball is in a safe position to blow up.
The referee does indicate a minimum of additional time. The Law (Law one as I recall) states that the referee is the sole judge of time to be played beyond the 45/90 minutes.
Exactly. So why not allow another 5 seconds?
And as someone said above, how can he be looking at his watch AND the game at the same time?
Let's face it, he did it to say "look at me". Who knows, maybe that team had been having a pop at him all game and they deserved it. But the attitude he displayed shows that he's never played football or paid to watch football. Oh, he may know the laws of the game - inside out - but he really has no idea what its all about really. Sad little man.
Why 5 secs, let's make it 10 or 15 or 20 mins (I am of course joking)! How would you feel if Charlton had a goal scored against them in time added on beyond the correct time. We have to have consistent timing and surely the only way to do that is to apply the relevant law which states "the referee is the sole judge of time added on".
I'd be more pissed off if Charlton had a goal ruled out like Accrington than conceding a goal with 5 seconds added on. The fact is no one but kettle would have known how much time needed to get added and he's done it to be controversial. Step out your little union and see it like the majority of us do.
Surely if time's up then time's up? The position of the ball is technically irrelevant?
I agree. It's not up to the ref to decide when, or if, a goal is to be scored and add time on accordingly. If time is up then it's up irrespective where the play is.
Exactly "the (match) referees view", that's how it has to be. Not the view of the supporter in the stand, regardless of whether that supporter has or does not have an understanding of the laws of the game. We can't referee games by consensual views of supporters.
I used to work with a referee and that was exactly how he approached these things. He knew the laws alright, like the back of his hand, but he just didn't "get" it.
A mate of mine was a referee and was rising rapidly up through the ranks until he sadly passed away recently. Reason he was so highly thought of by players, managers etc who marked him was because whilst he was hard, fair and consistent with his decisions he had also played the game and was very communicative with players but also used common sense in situations that would have been like this. The best refs in the game use common sense and rules. The worst hide behind their rule book.
A mate of mine was a referee and was rising rapidly up through the ranks until he sadly passed away recently. Reason he was so highly thought of by players, managers etc who marked him was because whilst he was hard, fair and consistent with his decisions he had also played the game and was very communicative with players but also used common sense in situations that would have been like this. The best refs in the game use common sense and rules. The worst hide behind their rule book.
Your mate clearly had many of the qualities we all look for in a referee and I am sorry to learn that he has passed away.
However, a referee has to be even-handed and apply the Laws correctly. By delaying the blowing of the whistle in the "Accrington Incident", the referee is wilfully and knowingly influencing the result of the game. It is sacrosanct to the integrity of the game that this must not be allowed to happen.
A mate of mine was a referee and was rising rapidly up through the ranks until he sadly passed away recently. Reason he was so highly thought of by players, managers etc who marked him was because whilst he was hard, fair and consistent with his decisions he had also played the game and was very communicative with players but also used common sense in situations that would have been like this. The best refs in the game use common sense and rules. The worst hide behind their rule book.
Your mate clearly had many of the qualities we all look for in a referee and I am sorry to learn that he has passed away.
However, a referee has to be even-handed and apply the Laws correctly. By delaying the blowing of the whistle in the "Accrington Incident", the referee is wilfully and knowingly influencing the result of the game. It is sacrosanct to the integrity of the game that this must not be allowed to happen.
But on the other hand, by blowing the whistle when he did, he was willfully and knowingly influencing the game.
Comments
Common sense has to be applied.
May I respectively point out the all referees are marked by clubs and assessors on every game officiated. The referees with the least favourable marks at the end of the season are downgraded accordingly.
And as someone said above, how can he be looking at his watch AND the game at the same time?
Let's face it, he did it to say "look at me". Who knows, maybe that team had been having a pop at him all game and they deserved it. But the attitude he displayed shows that he's never played football or paid to watch football. Oh, he may know the laws of the game - inside out - but he really has no idea what its all about really. Sad little man.
Surely you end the game at around about the time you think it should end AT AN APPROPRIATE TIME. Not when the ball is in the box and someone is just about to shoot?
And to answer your question, if the other side have a free kick, corner, or mount an attack right at the death then I know that we need to defend that passage of play and the ref will likely blow up the next time the ball goes dead/is caught be the keeper/gets whacked clear. That's the way it is.
Which is I think why most referees blow up at a time when they can be sure that looking at their watch isn't going to cause them to miss a match changing incident, and not when a striker is just taking a shot.
The strike had left the players boot before he blew, about 2 secs overplayed if any.
I've said for a while, after time is up it should be like rugby, next time the ball goes out of play, everybody knows where they stand and can't be cheated out of a game.
I can understand people having different views than those I have expressed but how is consistency achieved if referees are not using common standards.
And how many of those occasions does the ref blow up before/as the shot is taken?
The fact this is so controversial is because it's not normal.
Every ref waits for the current attack or "phase of play" to finish. First block or half clearance and the whistle goes.
Common sense.
Gawd help us all.
I used to work with a referee and that was exactly how he approached these things. He knew the laws alright, like the back of his hand, but he just didn't "get" it.
End of
Your mate clearly had many of the qualities we all look for in a referee and I am sorry to learn that he has passed away.
However, a referee has to be even-handed and apply the Laws correctly. By delaying the blowing of the whistle in the "Accrington Incident", the referee is wilfully and knowingly influencing the result of the game. It is sacrosanct to the integrity of the game that this must not be allowed to happen.