DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 31693--------------------------------------------------
Re: 16th May 2021 - Mike Dean - WBALIV
DIR By: Bakis
Date: May 17, 2021, 10:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just for the record, at the Vase Semi Final on Saturday David
Richardson blew for time immediately after Walsall Wood, who
were 2-1 down at the time, gained a corner. If the clock on the
stream was correct this was about five seconds before the end of
the announced minimum of four minutes. Nobody appeared to
protest.
#Post#: 31694--------------------------------------------------
Re: 16th May 2021 - Mike Dean - WBALIV
DIR By: bmb
Date: May 17, 2021, 10:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: LateTackle link ---
>
> It is not within the laws to allow it to be taken after 94.00.
that is exactly the point.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes it is. With 4 min TAO the full time whistle could
conceivably have been blown at any point between 94.00 and 94.59
and be correct. TAO is a minimum figure and if there is enough
time wasting during that time or goals/injury/substitutions more
time can be added to the initial number at the referees
discretion, although that is not applicable in this case.
#Post#: 31696--------------------------------------------------
Re: 16th May 2021 - Mike Dean - WBALIV
DIR By: bmb
Date: May 17, 2021, 10:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RefObserver link ---
>
> [quote author=ARF link=topic=2479.msg31689#msg31689
date=1621264535]
> [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.
[/quote]
Situation on a Újpest game this season. TAO was +3. At 90+2
Tallo got sent off for Újpest who were trying to make a
substitution at the time. The player being substituted (Tallo),
already on a YC wasted time, was told to get a move on by the
ref, continued to waste time & was given a 2nd YC for time
wasting. No issue at all with the decision, it was correct. He
kicked off over it & was eventually dragged down the tunnel by
security staff. When play finally recommenced Újpest were down
to 10 men and instead of there being +1 left, 2 mins had been
added on due to the red card and subsequent ill discipline of
the player kicking off over it & there was +3 left. Thankfully
it was not enough for Újpest to also throw their lead away as
would be typical of my team! Never been so angry with one of my
players as that game. Referee was correct to both send him off
(we enjoyed his 5 match ban...) and also to add a further 2 mins
onto the original +3.
#Post#: 31697--------------------------------------------------
Re: 16th May 2021 - Mike Dean - WBALIV
DIR By: robbie_scouse
Date: May 17, 2021, 11:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Regarding time for a penalty, surely that just means if the
referee gives a penalty he cannot blow for the end of the half
until it has been taken. It doesn’t mean he cannot allow play to
continue/set pieces should he deem there is sufficient time
left.
Forcing a referee to blow time bang on the minute, even though
it’s a minimum, would lead to an increase in “gamesmanship”
which we already have enough of and seems to be looking for
controversy for controversies sake.
Using this theory, you could commit a cynical “professional”
foul with only seconds of the additional time left. Red card but
no time for the opposition to take the resulting free kick.
#Post#: 31700--------------------------------------------------
Re: 16th May 2021 - Mike Dean - WBALIV
DIR By: LateTackle
Date: May 17, 2021, 11:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RefObserver link ---
>
> [quote author=ARF link=topic=2479.msg31689#msg31689
date=1621264535]
> [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.
[/quote]
Allowing extra time on top of the allowance is fine, but that is
not the point I am making. Extending the game purely to allow
something to be taken is NOT within the laws, as I am sure you
are fully aware. It is not rocket science to realise that
many/most referees DO allow this. Yes, they can hide behind the
technicalities of added time, but it does not alter the fact
that it happens time and time again. A visible clock would sort
this out, the current system is no longer fit for purpose.
#Post#: 31703--------------------------------------------------
Re: 16th May 2021 - Mike Dean - WBALIV
DIR By: TVOS
Date: May 17, 2021, 12:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
While there are some very good points on here (as well as some
pedantry just to support an argument), it is blatantly obvious
from watching many, many matches as a paying spectator and TV
viewer that if the ball is, say, in the centre circle, the
“minimum of 4 minutes” will usually become “exactly 4 minutes”,
whereas if it is in a potential scoring position it suddenly
reverts to a “minimum of 4 minutes”.
I’m against all forms of rugby, but an independent time keeper
with a big hooter (not John Key) might bring a bit more
consistency into added time issues.
#Post#: 31706--------------------------------------------------
Re: 16th May 2021 - Mike Dean - WBALIV
DIR By: Ashington46
Date: May 17, 2021, 12:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TVOS link ---
>
> While there are some very good points on here (as well as some
pedantry just to support an argument), it is blatantly obvious
from watching many, many matches as a paying spectator and TV
viewer that if the ball is, say, in the centre circle, the
“minimum of 4 minutes” will usually become “exactly 4 minutes”,
whereas if it is in a potential scoring position it suddenly
reverts to a “minimum of 4 minutes”.
>
> I’m against all forms of rugby, but an independent time keeper
with a big hooter (not John Key) might bring a bit more
consistency into added time issues.
>
--- End Quote ---
The only problem with that is that it will give fans less to
moan about, however, they will still probably blame the onfield
officials so ---situation normal.
#Post#: 31717--------------------------------------------------
Re: 16th May 2021 - Mike Dean - WBALIV
DIR By: robbie_scouse
Date: May 17, 2021, 3:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: LateTackle link ---
>
> Extending the game purely to allow something to be taken is
NOT within the laws
>
--- End Quote ---
Factually incorrect, not sure why you cannot accept this?
#Post#: 31723--------------------------------------------------
Re: 16th May 2021 - Mike Dean - WBALIV
DIR By: bruntyboy
Date: May 17, 2021, 5:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RefObserver link ---
>
> [quote author=ARF link=topic=2479.msg31689#msg31689
date=1621264535]
> [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.
[/quote]
The problem with the "minimum of" is that nobody knows when it
is going to end.
Also a favourite bugbear is that it is once in a blue moon that
a referee issues a YC for time wasting in the first half and
there is regularly only 1 minute added on. Why should it be
deemed more of an offence it it occurs in the last 10 minutes or
in time added on?
#Post#: 31729--------------------------------------------------
Re: 16th May 2021 - Mike Dean - WBALIV
DIR By: Ref Watcher
Date: May 18, 2021, 4:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TVOS link ---
>
> I’m against all forms of rugby, but an independent time keeper
with a big hooter (not John Key) might bring a bit more
consistency into added time issues.
>
--- End Quote ---
In both codes of rugby the game doesn't finish until the phase
of play is over regardless of how big the time keeper's hooter
is. In Union (especially) this often results in the game going
on ad nauseum until the winning team finally manage to boot the
ball into the crowd.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page