DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 39250--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leyton Orient v Hartlepool
DIR By: Affy_Moose
Date: October 31, 2021, 8:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I for one am utterly bemused by the wild statement being banded
about here. The referee [team] made a mistake and corrected it.
Whether the teams should have played four minutes after the
mistake being realised, to then re-enter the changing rooms is a
fairly moot point.
We don't know at which point the mistake was realised, and
if we assume it wasn't immediate, the least preferable
option would have been effectively splitting up half time into
either two (for example) 7.5 minute intervals, or worse still, a
5-minute, then 15-minute interval (as we don't know at which
point it was realised, and we don't know what the League
regulations require).
As I understand it, the match 'restarted' from the point
where the first half ended. The teams played four minutes,
before finally 'ending' the first half, and immediately
swapping ends and then restarting from kick off for the second
half.
Every element of this (once the error was realised) seems both
by the book, and a pragmatic solution far superior to some of
the alternatives being offered.
I would assume that the best solution is to realise the error
immediately, and return to the field of play. However, if it
takes a few minutes to spot it, then the process followed in
this match looks correct.
Agitated commentators would do well to introspect slightly as to
why they are so animated. I for one, cannot see the reason for
upset, and rather would use it as a fantastic opportunity to
highlight such oversights to younger and less experienced
colleagues as well as a LotG reminder as to what to do, should
this ever unfortunately happen to them or their team.
#Post#: 39263--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leyton Orient v Hartlepool
DIR By: Whistleblower
Date: October 31, 2021, 12:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Affy_Moose link ---
>
> I for one am utterly bemused by the wild statement being
banded about here. The referee [team] made a mistake and
corrected it. Whether the teams should have played four minutes
after the mistake being realised, to then re-enter the changing
rooms is a fairly moot point.
>
> We don't know at which point the mistake was realised, and if
we assume it wasn't immediate, the least preferable option would
have been effectively splitting up half time into either two
(for example) 7.5 minute intervals, or worse still, a 5-minute,
then 15-minute interval (as we don't know at which point it was
realised, and we don't know what the League regulations
require).
>
> As I understand it, the match 'restarted' from the point where
the first half ended. The teams played four minutes, before
finally 'ending' the first half, and immediately swapping ends
and then restarting from kick off for the second half.
>
> Every element of this (once the error was realised) seems both
by the book, and a pragmatic solution far superior to some of
the alternatives being offered.
>
> I would assume that the best solution is to realise the error
immediately, and return to the field of play. However, if it
takes a few minutes to spot it, then the process followed in
this match looks correct.
>
> Agitated commentators would do well to introspect slightly as
to why they are so animated. I for one, cannot see the reason
for upset, and rather would use it as a fantastic opportunity to
highlight such oversights to younger and less experienced
colleagues as well as a LotG reminder as to what to do, should
this ever unfortunately happen to them or their team.
>
--- End Quote ---
No upsetment from me nor agitation and if I am being animated
then this is such a rare accolade these days that I accept it
with gratitude and have shared the same with Mrs W who merely
raised an eyebrow slightly.
I entirely agree that such an occurrence should be put to good
use in coaching younger and less experienced colleagues. This is
all part of being accountable.
#Post#: 39292--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leyton Orient v Hartlepool
DIR By: nemesis
Date: October 31, 2021, 4:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Whistleblower link ---
>
> [quote author=Mikael W link=topic=3000.msg39211#msg39211
date=1635620751]
> [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.
[/quote]
Wonderfully put ......... and I've learnt a new word.
#Post#: 39301--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leyton Orient v Hartlepool
DIR By: Hendo
Date: November 1, 2021, 2:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: nemesis link ---
>
> [quote author=Whistleblower link=topic=3000.msg39219#msg39219
date=1635624767]
> [quote author=Mikael W link=topic=3000.msg39211#msg39211
date=1635620751]
> [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.
[/quote]
Wonderfully put ......... and I've learnt a new word.
[/quote]
As ever a wonderful and logical summary from Whistleblower.
Young made a big mistake, undisputed fact. I see that Michael
Salisbury has realised he erred in giving Fulham a penalty on
Saturday and the teams are coming back this afternoon to correct
that …….
#Post#: 39335--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leyton Orient v Hartlepool
DIR By: Ref Watcher
Date: November 1, 2021, 12:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The original mistake was unforgiveable. However I am sure most
of us have erred in operating our watches at some time. I
certainly have. However, his colleagues should have alerted
him. The relationship between officials needs to be like that
between a pilot and co-pilot. No matter how senior or junior
someone is, if you see something that is wrong you must speak
up. The senior person must encourage this culture. The
alternative is usually far worse. A quick intervention here
would have saved much pain for everyone.
That said, having identified the error, they seem to have come
up with the least worse solution. Both teams played in each
direction for the same amount of team with one break. The game
played out as it was likely to have done without the timing
error. Not playing the missing four minutes would likely have
left claims for a replay on the table, despite the scoreline. I
suspect Mr Young's superiors will be grateful for the course he
eventually chose.
#Post#: 39342--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leyton Orient v Hartlepool
DIR By: Leggy
Date: November 1, 2021, 2:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ref Watcher link ---
>
> The original mistake was unforgiveable. However I am sure
most of us have erred in operating our watches at some time. I
certainly have. However, his colleagues should have alerted
him. The relationship between officials needs to be like that
between a pilot and co-pilot. No matter how senior or junior
someone is, if you see something that is wrong you must speak
up. The senior person must encourage this culture. The
alternative is usually far worse. A quick intervention here
would have saved much pain for everyone.
>
> That said, having identified the error, they seem to have come
up with the least worse solution. Both teams played in each
direction for the same amount of team with one break. The game
played out as it was likely to have done without the timing
error. Not playing the missing four minutes would likely have
left claims for a replay on the table, despite the scoreline. I
suspect Mr Young's superiors will be grateful for the course he
eventually chose.
>
--- End Quote ---
100% agree. I always used to say to my ARs': "If I am going to
do something daft (or worse) and you have the opportunity to
intervene and stop me, then do so. If I then go on and do it,
then it is me in the s**t. If you keep you mouth shut and I go
and do it, we are all in the s**t".
All four of Mr. Young's team would now appear to be in the s**t.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 4
DIR Previous Page