I was amused by the 'postscript' at the end of the
Evening Post's report on the Royals game with Leicester City.
'Biggest surprise of the afternoon', it said, 'was that only two minutes of stoppage time was played in the second half, which contained five substitutions, three booking and considerable Leicester time-wasting. But like the rest of us, referee Rennie had probably had enough of the game.'
The other surprise to me, was that the report was by Reading FC historian David Downs, rather than regular football reporter Nick Ive who was ill. Afterwards David asked me what advice do referees get in allowing time at the end of a match. Shouldn't they, for example, add thirty seconds for each
substitution?
There is no advice given to referees except in the Laws of the Game which says, 'Allowance is made in either period, for all time lost' and goes on to give a number of instances that qualify as time lost. What the referee does of course, is to stop his watch when there is such a stoppage. This means that he plays to the forty five minutes, that his watch eventually shows. He doesn't 'add' on time at the end. Imagine having to work out, well there were five substitutions I've got to allow for, then there were three injuries, plus the ball was out of play for a long time. It would be a nightmare calculating it, especially if you're trying to control a game that is coming to a climax.
So how does a referee at the professional level, tell his fourth official how much allowance he will be making? Simple, he has two watches, one which he stops and one which he allows to run on. As he gets nears the end of the half he merely deducts one from the other and indicates the difference to the fourth official who is waiting for his signal.
David was interested in what that signal was but each referee has his own method of
signaling, there is nothing laid down. Don't forget, that this is just the minimum to be played. If the difference is two and a half minutes, the referee will signal two minutes. Also of course there may be further stoppages after the referee has
signaled and even during the 'allowed' time.
he first instance for which the law says time should be allowed is substitutions. Sometimes substitutions take no time at all. Other times players being substituted make a meal of it. Coaches often make a substitution almost at the end of the game. Commentators regularly suggest this is to waste valuable time but if the referee has stopped his watch, no benefit is gained.
The next thing the law calls lost time, is the assessment and treatment of injuries. Again the only way of allowing for this is to stop the watch. The next one is one that David picked up, wasting time. The first thing to understand about time- wasting, is that it can only be done when the ball is out of play. So we are talking about taking an inappropriate amount of time to take a throw-in or any type of free kick.
Whilst the ball is in play it can't be said to be wasting time. An example is when the goalkeeper has the ball at his feet and just stands waiting for an opponent to challenge for it. That's known as
'consuming time'. No offence and no stopped watch.
The final allowance for time lost is the all-embracing 'any other cause'. This can be anything else that delays play.
Of course I can't speak for Uriah Rennie's time-keeping, but it's one of those things when the referee can't be wrong. Law 7 says, 'the allowance for time lost is at the discretion of the referee'. Perhaps he
had had enough.
Dick
Sawdon Smith