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.
Not at all. He blew the whistle at the end of 90 mins plus stoppage time, according to his time keeping. As I said, law 5 states that the referee is responsible for time-keeping.
I will finish off my defence of this referees course of action by stating that no doubt the referee will be either sanctioned, suspended for a short period (as has happened, rightly, with other referees that have made serious misjudgements), or downgraded to lower division games if the FA decide he has made an error.
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.
Majority does not necessarily make it right!
In that case I'd say the majority of referees get it wrong. I've listened to Howard Webb one of the most respected and best referees this country has ever had and he has said "refereeing isn't all black and white and enforcing the rules but also about managing the situation and using common sense," so who am I meant to believe?
I will finish off my defence of this referees course of action by stating that no doubt the referee will be either sanctioned, suspended for a short period (as has happened, rightly, with other referees that have made serious misjudgements), or downgraded to lower division games if the FA decide he has made an error.
Well surely if that happens it would mean your (refs) bosses believe you've made an in correct decision. Meaning everything you've said is wrong in the eye's of the refs bosses. Surely you can't suspend someone if they've done their job correctly?
I don't agree with either the @Off_it or the @PeterGage view, and the solution is so bleedin' obvious I am surprised more people aren't already mentioning it. .Basically, the ice hockey solution.
Time-keeping should be the responsibility of the 4th official, and furthermore, his time keeping "watch" should be synched to the stadium clock on a screen. he stops the clock every time there is a break in play, so we can all see exactly what's going on. The game therefore stops when the clock says 90.00 and a big automatic whistle sounds. No more "where did he get six minutes from".
The likes of Trevor Kettle will bitterly oppose it. That is exactly why its the right thing to do.
I don't agree with either the @Off_it or the @PeterGage view, and the solution is so bleedin' obvious I am surprised more people aren't already mentioning it. .Basically, the ice hockey solution.
Time-keeping should be the responsibility of the 4th official, and furthermore, his time keeping "watch" should be synched to the stadium clock on a screen. he stops the clock every time there is a break in play, so we can all see exactly what's going on. The game therefore stops when the clock says 90.00 and a big automatic whistle sounds. No more "where did he get six minutes from".
The likes of Trevor Kettle will bitterly oppose it. That is exactly why its the right thing to do.
I agree with this subject of course to the taking of a penalty being allowed. This will give the 4th official something useful to do along along with the video reviews which are about to be trialled instead of being a sounding board for irate managers / coaches all game.
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.
Majority does not necessarily make it right!
In that case I'd say the majority of referees get it wrong. I've listened to Howard Webb one of the most respected and best referees this country has ever had and he has said "refereeing isn't all black and white and enforcing the rules but also about managing the situation and using common sense," so who am I meant to believe?
Morning Dan
Agreed that Howard Webb has been the finest British referee of the current generation and agree with the general sentiments about refereeing games. Would you please provide the link where Howard has specifically mentioned adding on time beyond that allowed under the laws of the game; I cannot find it.
I will finish off my defence of this referees course of action by stating that no doubt the referee will be either sanctioned, suspended for a short period (as has happened, rightly, with other referees that have made serious misjudgements), or downgraded to lower division games if the FA decide he has made an error.
Well surely if that happens it would mean your (refs) bosses believe you've made an in correct decision. Meaning everything you've said is wrong in the eye's of the refs bosses. Surely you can't suspend someone if they've done their job correctly?
Correct. That is why I say let's wait to see whether the FA take action against Trevor. If he has applied the laws correctly (which I believe he has), then no action will be taken.
I don't agree with either the @Off_it or the @PeterGage view, and the solution is so bleedin' obvious I am surprised more people aren't already mentioning it. .Basically, the ice hockey solution.
Time-keeping should be the responsibility of the 4th official, and furthermore, his time keeping "watch" should be synched to the stadium clock on a screen. he stops the clock every time there is a break in play, so we can all see exactly what's going on. The game therefore stops when the clock says 90.00 and a big automatic whistle sounds. No more "where did he get six minutes from".
The likes of Trevor Kettle will bitterly oppose it. That is exactly why its the right thing to do.
Wouldn't disagree with that idea. Anything to make the game easier for a referee, cut out controversies such as this and engage greater with fans. It doesn't currently happen of course, hence this current thread.
Why not take the Rugby approach once again...? The Half-Time / Full-Time whistle can only be blown only once the allocated injury time has been played and then only when the ball is no longer in play.
The Football League system of Referees does baffle me though, i.e. @PeterGage rightly says that each Referee is assessed per game and a poor performance can see them getting demoted, yet take our Referee for example yesterday... Brendan Malone, in the last six matches has been in charge of two League Two matches, two Championship matches, then back to another League Two match and finally our game.
How on earth can a Referee go from Fourth Division Football in a week to the Second Division, the level of play is so much more different...
In a way its no different seeing Callum Harriott scoring a Hat-Trick for Accrington Stanley (on loan) then being instantly recalled and expected to do the same sort of job for Charlton
Why not take the Rugby approach once again...? The Half-Time / Full-Time whistle can only be blown only once the allocated injury time has been played and then only when the ball is no longer in play.
The Football League system of Referees does baffle me though, i.e. @PeterGage rightly says that each Referee is assessed per game and a poor performance can see them getting demoted, yet take our Referee for example yesterday... Brendan Malone, in the last six matches has been in charge of two League Two matches, two Championship matches, then back to another League Two match and finally our game.
How on earth can a Referee go from Fourth Division Football in a week to the Second Division, the level of play is so much more different...
In a way its no different seeing Callum Harriott scoring a Hat-Trick for Accrington Stanley (on loan) then being instantly recalled and expected to do the same sort of job for Charlton
I said this half way through the thread, simple, logical and takes poor decisions like yesterday's ones out the game.
How many time are corners allowed to be taken after 'full time', I'd guess at least 90% yet a shot on target 2 secs after 'full time' is punished.
Funny how it's always seems to be the likes of Kettle involved in these incidents.....Poor ref with a huge ego to boot that has to be the centre of attention. The best refs are ones you don't notice
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.
Just talking about it on Sky Goals on Sunday now. As mentioned here earlier, 'Kammy' reckons Kettle must have been looking at his watch rather than the play at that precise time.
I don't agree with either the @Off_it or the @PeterGage view, and the solution is so bleedin' obvious I am surprised more people aren't already mentioning it. .Basically, the ice hockey solution.
Time-keeping should be the responsibility of the 4th official, and furthermore, his time keeping "watch" should be synched to the stadium clock on a screen. he stops the clock every time there is a break in play, so we can all see exactly what's going on. The game therefore stops when the clock says 90.00 and a big automatic whistle sounds. No more "where did he get six minutes from".
The likes of Trevor Kettle will bitterly oppose it. That is exactly why its the right thing to do.
Wouldn't disagree with that idea. Anything to make the game easier for a referee, cut out controversies such as this and engage greater with fans. It doesn't currently happen of course, hence this current thread.
Thank you Peter, you sound like the kind of ref. we all want. Rational, willing to listen to sensible ideas, wanting the best for the game as well as the referees who are an important part of it.
Trevor Kettle doesn't strike me as such a ref, unfortunately.
Just talking about it on Sky Goals on Sunday now. As mentioned here earlier, 'Kammy' reckons Kettle must have been looking at his watch rather than the play at that precise time.
Just talking about it on Sky Goals on Sunday now. As mentioned here earlier, 'Kammy' reckons Kettle must have been looking at his watch rather than the play at that precise time.
Then why not come out after the match and say that?
Everyone says that Referees should speak to the Media yet why not meet in the middle... there must be a referee website so after each game the ref could just upload a Statement on their decisions from that match
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.
Majority does not necessarily make it right!
In that case I'd say the majority of referees get it wrong. I've listened to Howard Webb one of the most respected and best referees this country has ever had and he has said "refereeing isn't all black and white and enforcing the rules but also about managing the situation and using common sense," so who am I meant to believe?
Morning Dan
Agreed that Howard Webb has been the finest British referee of the current generation and agree with the general sentiments about refereeing games. Would you please provide the link where Howard has specifically mentioned adding on time beyond that allowed under the laws of the game; I cannot find it.
Who's Dan? I'm so confused.
I never stated that Howard Webb said it in reference to adding on time but just in football laws in general and surely time played is within the laws and blowing up when I goal is about to be scored is using much common sense. If all referees are blowing up exactly on time how come we haven't had this controversy before in year's in football league? Surely law of averages mean something similar would have happened? My guess is the majority of referees use common sense and wait for a faze of play to end.
I will finish off my defence of this referees course of action by stating that no doubt the referee will be either sanctioned, suspended for a short period (as has happened, rightly, with other referees that have made serious misjudgements), or downgraded to lower division games if the FA decide he has made an error.
Well surely if that happens it would mean your (refs) bosses believe you've made an in correct decision. Meaning everything you've said is wrong in the eye's of the refs bosses. Surely you can't suspend someone if they've done their job correctly?
Correct. That is why I say let's wait to see whether the FA take action against Trevor. If he has applied the laws correctly (which I believe he has), then no action will be taken.
You said you have no doubt he'll be sanctioned etc which is why I wrote that.
Disgraceful. Football League must sanction him for that. I hope I never see Kettle or Stroud at the Valley again.
And Mick Russell
Well, Mick Russel won't be seen refereeing at any football game as he has retired. We need Keith Stroud hung, drawn and quartered for crimes against football.
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.
Majority does not necessarily make it right!
In that case I'd say the majority of referees get it wrong. I've listened to Howard Webb one of the most respected and best referees this country has ever had and he has said "refereeing isn't all black and white and enforcing the rules but also about managing the situation and using common sense," so who am I meant to believe?
Morning Dan
Agreed that Howard Webb has been the finest British referee of the current generation and agree with the general sentiments about refereeing games. Would you please provide the link where Howard has specifically mentioned adding on time beyond that allowed under the laws of the game; I cannot find it.
Who's Dan? I'm so confused.
I never stated that Howard Webb said it in reference to adding on time but just in football laws in general and surely time played is within the laws and blowing up when I goal is about to be scored is using much common sense. If all referees are blowing up exactly on time how come we haven't had this controversy before in year's in football league? Surely law of averages mean something similar would have happened? My guess is the majority of referees use common sense and wait for a faze of play to end.
We are specifically discussing the "Kettle decision" yesterday, and you make some general remark about how good Howard Webb was, which none of us disagree with. A strange analogy !!
Hands up if anyone will be surprised if Kettle is our Ref on Tuesday?
Upon checking its Breakspear who was referee for the Huddersfield match at the Valley... Kettle on the other hand gets a promotion to officiate a League One game
I don't agree with either the @Off_it or the @PeterGage view, and the solution is so bleedin' obvious I am surprised more people aren't already mentioning it. .Basically, the ice hockey solution.
Time-keeping should be the responsibility of the 4th official, and furthermore, his time keeping "watch" should be synched to the stadium clock on a screen. he stops the clock every time there is a break in play, so we can all see exactly what's going on. The game therefore stops when the clock says 90.00 and a big automatic whistle sounds. No more "where did he get six minutes from".
The likes of Trevor Kettle will bitterly oppose it. That is exactly why its the right thing to do.
I started writing this to say the referee had to be the one deciding the timing, as he had to judge time wasting etc, but the I had a change of heart.
One of the reason we run for 90 minutes is that, unlike hockey, the clock doesn't stop on every infraction. So one option would be to stop the clock on every infraction, and cut the game time to reflect real playing time.
That might be too much of a shock to the system, so an alternative would be that any delay on a stoppage of play is deemed excessive after 20-30 seconds, and the clock is stopped until the ball is put back in play. That way there is no judgement required, although the referee can still book players for excessive time wasting.
Comments
End of.
(I will continue to repeat this for slow learners/"referees")
Time-keeping should be the responsibility of the 4th official, and furthermore, his time keeping "watch" should be synched to the stadium clock on a screen. he stops the clock every time there is a break in play, so we can all see exactly what's going on. The game therefore stops when the clock says 90.00 and a big automatic whistle sounds. No more "where did he get six minutes from".
The likes of Trevor Kettle will bitterly oppose it. That is exactly why its the right thing to do.
Agreed that Howard Webb has been the finest British referee of the current generation and agree with the general sentiments about refereeing games. Would you please provide the link where Howard has specifically mentioned adding on time beyond that allowed under the laws of the game; I cannot find it.
Correct. That is why I say let's wait to see whether the FA take action against Trevor. If he has applied the laws correctly (which I believe he has), then no action will be taken.
The Football League system of Referees does baffle me though, i.e. @PeterGage rightly says that each Referee is assessed per game and a poor performance can see them getting demoted, yet take our Referee for example yesterday... Brendan Malone, in the last six matches has been in charge of two League Two matches, two Championship matches, then back to another League Two match and finally our game.
How on earth can a Referee go from Fourth Division Football in a week to the Second Division, the level of play is so much more different...
In a way its no different seeing Callum Harriott scoring a Hat-Trick for Accrington Stanley (on loan) then being instantly recalled and expected to do the same sort of job for Charlton
How many time are corners allowed to be taken after 'full time', I'd guess at least 90% yet a shot on target 2 secs after 'full time' is punished.
Trevor Kettle doesn't strike me as such a ref, unfortunately.
Everyone says that Referees should speak to the Media yet why not meet in the middle... there must be a referee website so after each game the ref could just upload a Statement on their decisions from that match
I never stated that Howard Webb said it in reference to adding on time but just in football laws in general and surely time played is within the laws and blowing up when I goal is about to be scored is using much common sense. If all referees are blowing up exactly on time how come we haven't had this controversy before in year's in football league? Surely law of averages mean something similar would have happened? My guess is the majority of referees use common sense and wait for a faze of play to end.
Upon checking its Breakspear who was referee for the Huddersfield match at the Valley... Kettle on the other hand gets a promotion to officiate a League One game
One of the reason we run for 90 minutes is that, unlike hockey, the clock doesn't stop on every infraction. So one option would be to stop the clock on every infraction, and cut the game time to reflect real playing time.
That might be too much of a shock to the system, so an alternative would be that any delay on a stoppage of play is deemed excessive after 20-30 seconds, and the clock is stopped until the ball is put back in play. That way there is no judgement required, although the referee can still book players for excessive time wasting.