After all the years I've been refereeing, I've just realised that I have been suffering under a misapprehension, I've always believed that most of the troubles we experience as
referees arise because players don't know the laws of the game. However, an incident at a recent match led me to change my views.
Let me set the scene. It had been a cracking match. The home team went two goals up early in the first half but the away team pulled them back to all square at half time. After the break the away side took the lead only for the home team to equalise and then, with 10 minutes to go, take the lead again - 4-3.
As you can imagine the last 10 minutes were pretty fraught as the away side attempted to salvage a point. The ball went out of play for a throw-in to the away team well inside their opponent's half, I stopped my watch as the ball had gone over the road, which ran alongside the pitch.
'How long to go ref.', they all wanted to know. '14 seconds' I told them. The ball was thrown into the penalty area where it bounced and bobbled about in the goal mouth, finally coming out to an attacker, who's shot was deflected by a defender over the goal line. With the frantic play in the area I hadn't had the opportunity to check my watch but I did so now. 12 seconds past the 45 minutes.
I blew my whistle and then the commotion started. 'You can't do that,' said the away players. 'Do what?' I asked, 'I've blown for time'. 'You have to allow extra time for a corner to be taken.' That's an old schoolboy myth but these were men. 'I don't have to do anything of the sort,' I replied, 'time is up.'
Of course what they were claiming is complete nonsense. There is only one reason in the Laws of the Game why a game may be extended past its 90 minutes. I'm not talking about allowances for stoppages such as injuries, substitutions, ball going over the road etc. Referees simply stop the watch when they happen and don't actually add on time. Nor am I talking about extra time for cup matches. The only reason a referee can extend time, is to allow a penalty kick to be taken when it occurs at the end of half or full time.
The reasons I think are fairly obvious. By the time all the preliminaries for the penalty are completed, time may have run out and it would be unfair to prevent it being taken. If that were the case, the offending team would probably do everything in its power to stall the taking of the kick.
The other reason is that there is then a finite end to the game in these circumstances. The penalty is either scored or missed and the game is over. There is no second chance - if the ball bounces back off the goalkeeper, goal post or cross bar, it's too late.
If the game could be extended for a corner kick, when would it end? If the kick goes direct into goal? Or would the other attackers be allowed one shot or header on goal? Or do we wait until the ball has been kicked upfield?
And what would happen if there's another corner?
I think it is fairly clear why the law doesn't extend a game for a corner. But the aggrieved team just couldn't accept it and as we walked off the pitch accusations of a biased decision were aired, so much so that I had to remind them that they were still under my jurisdiction.
That's when I realised I was wrong in thinking our problems come from players not knowing the laws. They come, because they think they do.
Dick Sawdon Smith
Back
To Contents
© R Sawdon Smith 2006