Worst Refereeing Decision In History

[MadAmster]

I think our resident official MA will confirm that that is the CORRECT way to do things, blow the whistle when you think time's up, not when a passage of play has finished. It happened during a Derby match back in the seventies, I think at home v. Man City, the ref blew for full time as the ball was travelling into the Derby net for a 2-2 equalising city goal. The result stayed 2-1 and unusually for the time the referee provided a clarification that he hadn't 'disallowed' a goal because the game was over when the ball crossed the line so there was no goal to disallow

I've also seen a penalty 'goal' disallowed because the kick was taken after the expiry of time, the rule (at the time) was that a penalty could only be scored if it crossed the goal line WITHOUT touching anything else such as the goalkeeper or the woodwork, and the penalty went in of a post. No goal.

Yes indeedy. Time is time is time and when, in each half, 45 minutes plus however much injury time is added on has expired, it is OVER. Blow the whistle. Once it has blown there is no going back.

Whay most refs do in reality is, at the appointed second, when a team is attacking, let them "finish" the attack and then blow for time. The second a defender gets the ball, the attack has broken down...... it avoids argument, especially at the lower levels where they have no idea that they are even in injury time......

I fell foul of a parent at U9 level many years ago. His lad's team were losing a hell of a lot to only 1 or 2. They attacked from their own goal and had reached halfway, time was up, I blew. Dad was livid. They might have scored..... you're ruining their enjoyment, another goal would have been good for morale.....

I told him that I merely applied the rules but with some bending. Doing that rather than make allowances for "their age" etc prevented them from misconceptions and clashes with refs in later life. I pointed out what I did at throw ins. At their age, many throws are foul throws. I stopped play (the Dad would rather that I had let play carry on), told the offender what he had done wrong, showed him the right way and then let him retake the throw (as opposed to giving the throw directly to tthe opposition) with the warning that the next one, and as I had also given the coaching to the rest of the players on both sides, would be penalised.

A lot of the problems refs have with amateur players at the lower levels is that the players, most of them anyway, do not know the Laws........ no wonder they think you are crap. I have even had Captains win the toss and say "we will kick off", get most uppity when told "no you won't, you will choose which goal you wish to defend in the 1st half".

[Geoff Parkstone]

It always struck me as peculiar that the team that won the toss does not get to kick off, merely to chose ends - although I suppose in reality taking the initial kick off isnt much of a plus point.

[Romanis]

It always struck me as peculiar that the team that won the toss does not get to kick off, merely to chose ends - although I suppose in reality taking the initial kick off isnt much of a plus point.

You must remember that football rules are deeply influenced by the British game. We form 4 of the 9 components of the IFAB the body that makes the rules.
As such we prefer to choose which side to attack or defend in the halves. Normally to attack the standing section of the home fans in the 2nd half (as was the case back then)
Therefore kick off is kinda irrelevant.

However these days there's actually a bet available on who starts the ball rolling. And I know of a few isolated incidents where things are manufactured thus

[MadAmster]

However these days there's actually a bet available on who starts the ball rolling. And I know of a few isolated incidents where things are manufactured thus

Toss fixing? That's a new one on me. Whoever wins the toss chooses an end so the visiting skipper would have to ensure he won the toss. To do that the ref would have to be part of the conspiracy IMO. The home skipper would also have to be in on it or he might not accept seeing that he won the toss but the other skipper was deemed to have won it.........

Just how does this toss fixing work Rom?

[Andy_Faber]

Toss fixing? That's a new one on me. Whoever wins the toss chooses an end so the visiting skipper would have to ensure he won the toss. To do that the ref would have to be part of the conspiracy IMO. The home skipper would also have to be in on it or he might not accept seeing that he won the toss but the other skipper was deemed to have won it.........

Just how does this toss fixing work Rom?

I do remember a Derby player, I'm sure it was Paul Kitson, taking the ball from kick off and lamping it way into the stands for a throw-in to the opposition. My suspicion was that that was something to do with some sort of bet. Maybe he was at West Ham when it happened

[Romanis]

Yes toss fixing is usually the referee. Because it's quite common for the ref to declare the sides. I would almost always tell the captains who got head or rails. No I didn't do toss fixing. But if you got the referee you solved it. Most captains don't even bother to look. They just take your word.
And yes first throw in is also another area.

But these days betting firms are quite wise to both these tactics and you can no longer bet thousands in it. But I gather corners are still open, but it's quite hard unless you got the team with you because no one likes to concede a corner in normal circumstances.
The kick off or throw in is not as important.