URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       RateTheRef
  HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: General Discussion
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 31667--------------------------------------------------
       Re: 16th May 2021 - Mike Dean - WBALIV
   DIR By: yfc54
       Date: May 17, 2021, 5:10 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       It's a minimum time so it's the referees decision and this won't
       change unless we have independent timekeepers. The point you
       have raised is a valid one but is the reason why stadium
       scoreboards stop the clock at 90 mins.
       #Post#: 31669--------------------------------------------------
       Re: 16th May 2021 - Mike Dean - WBALIV
   DIR By: Failed Ref
       Date: May 17, 2021, 6:00 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Are referees allowed to drop the ball during Covid? Ball may
       have not been cleaned  hand goes to whistle which goes to mouth.
       Risky at grass roots level.
       #Post#: 31670--------------------------------------------------
       Re: 16th May 2021 - Mike Dean - WBALIV
   DIR By: Leggy
       Date: May 17, 2021, 6:54 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: yfc54 link ---
       >
       > It's a minimum time so it's the referees decision and this
       won't change unless we have independent timekeepers. The point
       you have raised is a valid one but is the reason why stadium
       scoreboards stop the clock at 90 mins.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Exactly - the correct added time could be anything from 4
       minutes 00 seconds to 4 minutes 59 seconds and the Fourth
       Official would hold up "4".
       Also, whilst there was no obvious further stoppage, WBA (like
       all teams hanging on for a win / draw) did take as long as they
       could over goal-kicks, free-kicks, throw-ins and when the keeper
       had the ball in hand.  Certainly enough to justify allowing the
       corner to proceed.
       #Post#: 31671--------------------------------------------------
       Re: 16th May 2021 - Mike Dean - WBALIV
   DIR By: LateTackle
       Date: May 17, 2021, 7:43 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Leggy link ---
       >
       > [quote author=yfc54 link=topic=2479.msg31667#msg31667
       date=1621246200]
       > It's a minimum time so it's the referees decision and this
       won't change unless we have independent timekeepers. The point
       you have raised is a valid one but is the reason why stadium
       scoreboards stop the clock at 90 mins.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Exactly - the correct added time could be anything from 4
       minutes 00 seconds to 4 minutes 59 seconds and the Fourth
       Official would hold up "4".
       Also, whilst there was no obvious further stoppage, WBA (like
       all teams hanging on for a win / draw) did take as long as they
       could over goal-kicks, free-kicks, throw-ins and when the keeper
       had the ball in hand.  Certainly enough to justify allowing the
       corner to proceed.
       [/quote]
       I know all that, and am aware that the referee is 'sole arbiter
       of time'.  But it doesn't change the fact that, no matter how
       much extra stoppage time has elapsed, they ALWAYS allow a corner
       or ceremonial free kick to be taken.  Then they blow for time
       immediately afterwards.  The 'minimum time' is simply a get-out.
       I defy anyone to find a referee who ends a game without a corner
       being allowed to be taken, even less for a free kick.
       It is time that the responsibility for timekeeping at top level
       was taken over by a separate timekeeper who would stop and start
       the clock, from a direction of the referee.  It would be similar
       to rugby in that the game should end next time the ball goes out
       of play, but not allowing extra phases as happened yesterday and
       on many other occasions.
       #Post#: 31675--------------------------------------------------
       Re: 16th May 2021 - Mike Dean - WBALIV
   DIR By: Leggy
       Date: May 17, 2021, 8:15 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: LateTackle link ---
       >
       > [quote author=Leggy link=topic=2479.msg31670#msg31670
       date=1621252473]
       > [quote author=yfc54 link=topic=2479.msg31667#msg31667
       date=1621246200]
       > It's a minimum time so it's the referees decision and this
       won't change unless we have independent timekeepers. The point
       you have raised is a valid one but is the reason why stadium
       scoreboards stop the clock at 90 mins.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Exactly - the correct added time could be anything from 4
       minutes 00 seconds to 4 minutes 59 seconds and the Fourth
       Official would hold up "4".
       Also, whilst there was no obvious further stoppage, WBA (like
       all teams hanging on for a win / draw) did take as long as they
       could over goal-kicks, free-kicks, throw-ins and when the keeper
       had the ball in hand.  Certainly enough to justify allowing the
       corner to proceed.
       [/quote]
       I know all that, and am aware that the referee is 'sole arbiter
       of time'.  But it doesn't change the fact that, no matter how
       much extra stoppage time has elapsed, they ALWAYS allow a corner
       or ceremonial free kick to be taken.  Then they blow for time
       immediately afterwards.  The 'minimum time' is simply a get-out.
       I defy anyone to find a referee who ends a game without a corner
       being allowed to be taken, even less for a free kick.
       It is time that the responsibility for timekeeping at top level
       was taken over by a separate timekeeper who would stop and start
       the clock, from a direction of the referee.  It would be similar
       to rugby in that the game should end next time the ball goes out
       of play, but not allowing extra phases as happened yesterday and
       on many other occasions.
       [/quote]
       1978 World Cup, Brazil .v. Sweden, Clive Thomas.  International
       career ending move.
       But you are right that a time-keeper might be the next member of
       the "playing control team" (**) to be added.  In an earlier
       thread we almost got up to eleven match officials in various
       guises!
       ** - This is how the ICC describes the on-field umpires (x2),
       the TV umpire, the Fourth Umpire and the Match Referee.
       #Post#: 31685--------------------------------------------------
       Re: 16th May 2021 - Mike Dean - WBALIV
   DIR By: robbie_scouse
       Date: May 17, 2021, 10:02 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: LateTackle link ---
       >
       > There is another issue at stake here, something which crops up
       on quite a regular basis but usually makes no difference to the
       result.  There were 4 minutes added on, and I cannot recall
       anything in those 4 minutes to extend it.  However, with the 4
       minutes expired Liverpool get a corner.  So the game was
       extended to take the corner.  The law says that only a penalty
       kick extends the game, yet we invariably see a corner or free
       kick causing such an extension.  Then, as soon as the outcome is
       known, the final whistle blows.  Why do referees do this?  Are
       they instructed to do so, as they all seem to do it?
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Whilst I agree with your general opinion on timekeeping, I don’t
       think you’ve picked the best example here to back it up.
       The ball went out of play on 93:52 so surely it’s within reason
       to allow the corner to be taken? If the clock had passed 94:00
       then I would agree with you that it would have been a reasonable
       time to blow - only if the match referee decided the minimum
       time allowed would also be the maximum.
       Nor did Mike Dean blow for time when Allison scored. West Brom
       restarted the match and were given time to mount an attack
       albeit it failed, went out for a goal kick and the match ended.
       #Post#: 31686--------------------------------------------------
       Re: 16th May 2021 - Mike Dean - WBALIV
   DIR By: LateTackle
       Date: May 17, 2021, 10:04 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Leggy link ---
       >
       > 1978 World Cup, Brazil .v. Sweden, Clive Thomas.
       International career ending move.
       >
       > But you are right that a time-keeper might be the next member
       of the "playing control team" (**) to be added.  In an earlier
       thread we almost got up to eleven match officials in various
       guises!
       >
       > ** - This is how the ICC describes the on-field umpires (x2),
       the TV umpire, the Fourth Umpire and the Match Referee.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       I was going to mention Clive Thomas, strangely enough.  This is
       why I suggested that, if a timekeeper were used, the play would
       perhaps continue until the ball was out of play.
       I wouldn't worry too much about the number of officials as long
       as they have their designated roles. Football is hardly short of
       money at that level.  Many sports have supplementary officials.
       When I was a basketball referee there were 2 of us (now 3 at top
       level) plus a scorer and a timekeeper.
       #Post#: 31688--------------------------------------------------
       Re: 16th May 2021 - Mike Dean - WBALIV
   DIR By: LateTackle
       Date: May 17, 2021, 10:11 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: robbie_scouse link ---
       >
       > [quote author=LateTackle link=topic=2479.msg31666#msg31666
       date=1621245148]
       > There is another issue at stake here, something which crops up
       on quite a regular basis but usually makes no difference to the
       result.  There were 4 minutes added on, and I cannot recall
       anything in those 4 minutes to extend it.  However, with the 4
       minutes expired Liverpool get a corner.  So the game was
       extended to take the corner.  The law says that only a penalty
       kick extends the game, yet we invariably see a corner or free
       kick causing such an extension.  Then, as soon as the outcome is
       known, the final whistle blows.  Why do referees do this?  Are
       they instructed to do so, as they all seem to do it?
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Whilst I agree with your general opinion on timekeeping, I don’t
       think you’ve picked the best example here to back it up.
       The ball went out of play on 93:52 so surely it’s within reason
       to allow the corner to be taken? If the clock had passed 94:00
       then I would agree with you that it would have been a reasonable
       time to blow - only if the match referee decided the minimum
       time allowed would also be the maximum.
       Nor did Mike Dean blow for time when Allison scored. West Brom
       restarted the match and were given time to mount an attack
       albeit it failed, went out for a goal kick and the match ended.
       [/quote]
       Actually, it is a perfect example to illustrate the point.  It
       is not within the laws to allow it to be taken after 94.00. that
       is exactly the point.  It is also another trait of referees to
       allow a brief restart then blow the final whistle, even when
       time has expired.  What you are suggesting would seem to be
       that, if the corner was conceded within time, it should be
       allowed to be taken.  This is only allowed for a penalty.  I
       trained as a referee many decades ago and it was drilled into us
       that this was the only reason to extend the playing time.  After
       the Clive Thomas incident it became the accepted wisdom that you
       should avoid blowing the final whistle while the ball was in
       play in the penalty area.
       #Post#: 31689--------------------------------------------------
       Re: 16th May 2021 - Mike Dean - WBALIV
   DIR By: ARF
       Date: May 17, 2021, 10:15 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: LateTackle link ---
       >
       > Actually, it is a perfect example to illustrate the point.  It
       is not within the laws to allow it to be taken after 94.00.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Yes, it is.
       #Post#: 31691--------------------------------------------------
       Re: 16th May 2021 - Mike Dean - WBALIV
   DIR By: RefObserver
       Date: May 17, 2021, 10:38 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: ARF link ---
       >
       > [quote author=LateTackle link=topic=2479.msg31688#msg31688
       date=1621264293]
       > Actually, it is a perfect example to illustrate the point.  It
       is not within the laws to allow it to be taken after 94.00.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Yes, it is.
       [/quote]
       Absolutely correct - IT'S A MINIMUM OF.........
       I was observing a game this season at 1-0 where the winning team
       took so long at restarts the referee rightly cautioned two of
       them and played 6 and 1/2 minutes instead of the (a minimum of)
       4 shown.
       *****************************************************
       Page 3 of 5
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page