DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 39211--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leyton Orient v Hartlepool
DIR By: Mikael W
Date: October 30, 2021, 2:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: aaa link ---
>
> It should not have happened so if he played the 4 mins added
time in the second half, that is wrong in law. Extract from Law
7 states:
>
> "The Referee must [b]not compensate for a timekeeping error
during the first half by changing the length of the second
half[/b]".
>
> Case closed.
>
--- End Quote ---
You are misunderstanding what happened here. In the de jure
sense of the LotG, the first half never finished during the
fifteen minute break, but when the players switched ends during
the 'second half', that was 'halftime'.
So the LotG weren't violated in this instance.
#Post#: 39213--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leyton Orient v Hartlepool
DIR By: aaa
Date: October 30, 2021, 2:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm no Expert on interpreting LoTG at the highest level.
Here it is for everyone to interpret.
Law 7 - The Duration of the Match
7.1 Periods of play
A match lasts for two equal halves of 45 minutes, which may only
be reduced if agreed between the referee and the two teams
before the start of the match and if in accordance with
competition rules.
7.2 Half-time interval
Players are entitled to an interval at half-time, not exceeding
15 minutes; a short drinks break (which should not exceed one
minute) is permitted at the interval of half-time in extra time.
Competition rules must state the duration of the half-time
interval and it may be altered only with the referee’s
permission.
7.3 Allowance for time lost
Allowance is made by the referee in each half for all playing
time lost in that half through:
•
•
•
•
•
breaks (which should not exceed one minute) and ‘cooling’ breaks
(ninety seconds to three minutes)
•
•
(e.g. goal celebrations)
The fourth official indicates the minimum additional time
decided by the referee at the end of the final minute of each
half. The additional time may be increased by the referee but
not reduced.
The referee must not compensate for a timekeeping error during
the first half by changing the length of the second half.
7.4 Penalty kick
If a penalty kick has to be taken or retaken, the half is
extended until the penalty kick is completed.
7.5 Abandoned match
An abandoned match is replayed unless the competition rules or
organisers determine otherwise.
#Post#: 39217--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leyton Orient v Hartlepool
DIR By: AFAref
Date: October 30, 2021, 3:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: aaa link ---
>
> It should not have happened so if he played the 4 mins added
time in the second half, that is wrong in law. Extract from Law
7 states:
>
> "The Referee must [b]not compensate for a timekeeping error
during the first half by changing the length of the second
half[/b]".
>
> Case closed.
>
--- End Quote ---
But he didn't change the length of the 2nd half, he
continued the 1st half after a "half time" break for 4 minutes
then started the 2nd half
#Post#: 39218--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leyton Orient v Hartlepool
DIR By: AFAref
Date: October 30, 2021, 3:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Whistleblower link ---
>
> Had you see Alan Young so comprehensively lose control and put
in just about one of the worst performances I have ever seen in
over fifty years of watching professional football, as I did at
Portman Road, then you would understand why his reputation is
totally deserved. Harsh? I don't think so, accurate is more
like it.
>
--- End Quote ---
Oh but for the grace of god go I. I've had some shockers on
the pitch and at work during a long career in both. I'm not
sure how a reputation can be tarnished for having the odd bad
day at the office. Only in football refereeing eh
#Post#: 39219--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leyton Orient v Hartlepool
DIR By: Whistleblower
Date: October 30, 2021, 3:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Mikael W link ---
>
> [quote author=aaa link=topic=3000.msg39210#msg39210
date=1635620467]
> It should not have happened so if he played the 4 mins added
time in the second half, that is wrong in law. Extract from Law
7 states:
>
> "The Referee must [b]not compensate for a timekeeping error
during the first half by changing the length of the second
half[/b]".
>
> Case closed.
>
--- End Quote ---
You are misunderstanding what happened here. In the de jure
sense of the LotG, the first half never finished during the
fifteen minute break, but when the players switched ends during
the 'second half', that was 'halftime'.
So the LotG weren't violated in this instance.
[/quote]
This is one of the most stunning pieces of casuistry I've
come across in a long time. The first half ended when Young blew
his whistle for it to end and indicated this by leading the
players from the field because the referee is the sole arbiter
when it comes to timekeeping. If he had not brought the first
half to its conclusion then what was the reason for an
unwarranted fifteen minute delay with the players and officials
in the changing rooms? The referee must not compensate for a
timekeeping error in the first half is the pertinent law here.
If however we accept that the first half did not conclude until
the four minutes ( after the fifteen minute delay which had all
the aspects of a half time break let it be noted ) was played
then Young should be facing a misconduct charge for producing a
fifteen minute delay in the conclusion of the first half for no
good or apparent reason.
I contend that the blowing of a whistle indicating the end of
the first half and leading the players from the field for a
break did, in fact, bring the first half to a conclusion. In
either interpretation it is a piece of staggering incompetence
for which Young should face a sanction. Either by not correctly
allowing for added on time when it was proper to do so or for
producing a delay of fifteen minutes in an unconcluded half for
no good reason.
#Post#: 39220--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leyton Orient v Hartlepool
DIR By: Whistleblower
Date: October 30, 2021, 3:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: AFAref link ---
>
> [quote author=Whistleblower link=topic=3000.msg39209#msg39209
date=1635619104]
> Had you see Alan Young so comprehensively lose control and put
in just about one of the worst performances I have ever seen in
over fifty years of watching professional football, as I did at
Portman Road, then you would understand why his reputation is
totally deserved. Harsh? I don't think so, accurate is more
like it.
>
--- End Quote ---
Oh but for the grace of god go I. I've had some shockers on
the pitch and at work during a long career in both. I'm not
sure how a reputation can be tarnished for having the odd bad
day at the office. Only in football refereeing eh
[/quote]
An interesting argument to be employed in the case of a
neurosurgeon perhaps. We have of course all had shockers
professionally and if there is to be any accountability then we
have to be accountable for our performances. I also happen to
believe that is how we learn.
#Post#: 39222--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leyton Orient v Hartlepool
DIR By: Whistleblower
Date: October 30, 2021, 3:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: AFAref link ---
>
> [quote author=aaa link=topic=3000.msg39210#msg39210
date=1635620467]
> It should not have happened so if he played the 4 mins added
time in the second half, that is wrong in law. Extract from Law
7 states:
>
> "The Referee must [b]not compensate for a timekeeping error
during the first half by changing the length of the second
half[/b]".
>
> Case closed.
>
--- End Quote ---
But he didn't change the length of the 2nd half, he
continued the 1st half after a "half time" break for 4 minutes
then started the 2nd half
[/quote]
This is an interesting argument and raises the question of
intention and retrospective action. If Young intended to
conclude the first half when he blew his whistle for play to
cease and led the players from the field for a fifteen minute
break then, as the sole arbiter of time keeping, could it not
be argued that he did in fact bring the first half to a
conclusion by his intention to do so. If however, a referee is
permitted to act retrospectively in timekeeping then, provided
the second half had not begun, the fifteen minutes can be seen
as a hiatus in the first half.
#Post#: 39223--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leyton Orient v Hartlepool
DIR By: RCG
Date: October 30, 2021, 3:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Given it was a professional game with a crowd any decision to
suspend the first half would be communicated (otherwise lots of
people have no idea whats happening and pies dont get
served/eaten).
There is, currently, no evidence to suggest why the first half
was paused/suspended.
Im just trying to imagine the conversations in the dressing room
"we need to play 4 mins then change ends to play 2nd half"
Oh to be a fly on the wall.....
#Post#: 39224--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leyton Orient v Hartlepool
DIR By: Mackem ref
Date: October 30, 2021, 5:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I get that we all make mistakes in our professional life, god
knows I have as a teacher. However, there are non-negotiables
that you simply can’t get wrong. Using teaching as an example,
an accurate register each morning for safeguarding, something
you simply can’t get wrong. Refereeing, then the length of the
half is something I’d say you simply can’t get wrong so I don’t
think much sympathy is deserved.
#Post#: 39225--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leyton Orient v Hartlepool
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: October 30, 2021, 6:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Mikael W link ---
>
> [quote author=aaa link=topic=3000.msg39210#msg39210
date=1635620467]
> It should not have happened so if he played the 4 mins added
time in the second half, that is wrong in law. Extract from Law
7 states:
>
> "The Referee must [b]not compensate for a timekeeping error
during the first half by changing the length of the second
half[/b]".
>
> Case closed.
>
--- End Quote ---
You are misunderstanding what happened here. In the de jure
sense of the LotG, the first half never finished during the
fifteen minute break, but when the players switched ends during
the 'second half', that was 'halftime'.
So the LotG weren't violated in this instance.
[/quote]
I think you are right in that regard, although based on
AAA's post the competition rules presumably state half time
should have been 15 minutes which seemingly it wasn't if we
accept it officially only happened after the four minutes were
played?
This would not be desirable but I'm sort of thinking the
officials would have been better off just saying they hadn't
thought there was any injury time to be played, as often happens
in Champions League matches, and perhaps, ahem, punishing time
wasting a little more strictly than you normally would in the
second half. It would not have become the high profile
embarrassment it now has.
As others have said, there are certain non-negotiables in any
profession and this is one of them for refereeing.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page