DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 66431--------------------------------------------------
Re: New directives - so far?
DIR By: MCPridz
Date: August 14, 2023, 3:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: magpie1892 link ---
>
> Scitt seemed to be onto Howe and Tindall as soon as one of
them moved towards the front of the technical area but the 4th
at the Arsenal game (not sure who but think was a SG2) didnt
seem to bother trying to enforce it
>
--- End Quote ---
Yeah even the commentators noticed it and mentioned it and were
joking about it
#Post#: 66439--------------------------------------------------
Re: New directives - so far?
DIR By: magpie1892
Date: August 14, 2023, 5:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
4th at Arsenal was Darren Bond apparently
#Post#: 66453--------------------------------------------------
Re: New directives - so far?
DIR By: Whistleblower
Date: August 14, 2023, 10:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me that you can either have a policy of strictly
enforcing the new directives or a policy of "managing" a game
but I think the two approaches are pretty much incompatible, at
least in the early weeks of the season. Personally I hope they
go for a strict enforcement; it may cause a bit of temporary
discomfort to players who have got used to getting away with far
too much but they will have to accept it. For everything
worthwhile there is usually a price to pay and if that be a
flurry of yellow and red cards, then so be it. Eventually the
players and clubs will learn.
What Howard Webb is seeking to do is commendable and will have a
good knock-on effect further down the Pyramid and into the
amateur game BUT the senior referees have got to implement and
be seen to implement the policy and if they do not then
sanctions must apply to them.
#Post#: 66507--------------------------------------------------
Re: New directives - so far?
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: August 14, 2023, 4:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If this article's correct, it suggests that the 4 Saturday 3pm
PL games all had a length of under 100 minutes whereas the 5
live PL games in UK from Fri-Sun were all over 100 minutes
(article was published before Monday's game at Old Trafford) -
HTML https://www.givemesport.com/how-long-each-premier-league-game-lasted-under-the-new-time-wasting-rules/#:~:text=But%20the%2054%3A44%20of,average%20in%20the%20Premier%20League.<br
/>
There were three games where the ball was in play for over 60
minutes, at Burnley, Brentford and Arsenal, whilst Chelsea game
was close at just over 58 minutes.
It would suggest refs probably need to generally be adding at
least 10 minutes of added time across the two halves, albeit
it's obviously partly on a game by game basis.
#Post#: 66583--------------------------------------------------
Re: New directives - so far?
DIR By: Mr Castilli
Date: August 15, 2023, 3:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think some of them using the new directives well, but some
still putting in weak performances. HOOPER Has to be careful
imo, 2/3 missed yellows last night he can’t allow this again, I
don’t understand what hard, just pull the card out and show it.
#Post#: 66589--------------------------------------------------
Re: New directives - so far?
DIR By: bmb
Date: August 15, 2023, 3:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Readingfan link ---
>
> If this article's correct, it suggests that the 4 Saturday 3pm
PL games all had a length of under 100 minutes whereas the 5
live PL games in UK from Fri-Sun were all over 100 minutes
(article was published before Monday's game at Old Trafford) -
HTML https://www.givemesport.com/how-long-each-premier-league-game-lasted-under-the-new-time-wasting-rules/#:~:text=But%20the%2054%3A44%20of,average%20in%20the%20Premier%20League.
>
> There were three games where the ball was in play for over 60
minutes, at Burnley, Brentford and Arsenal, whilst Chelsea game
was close at just over 58 minutes.
>
> It would suggest refs probably need to generally be adding at
least 10 minutes of added time across the two halves, albeit
it's obviously partly on a game by game basis.
>
--- End Quote ---
I was surprised the AFCB game was not higher - it felt like it
was.
#Post#: 66646--------------------------------------------------
Re: New directives - so far?
DIR By: stig231
Date: August 17, 2023, 5:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Observations on the new directives on Simon Mather in the
Wrexham v Walsall match on Tuesday...on at least 4-5 occasions,
the ball went out for a throw in, not into row Z, a few yards
away but easily retrievable from by the pitch-side advertising
boards/with a ball boy or girl etc. When a player picked up one
of the 'multi-balls' off a cone near to where the throw in
should be taken from (which from my understanding is the purpose
of them, to speed up the game and get the ball back in play
quicker), Mr Mather made the player put that ball back on the
cone and go and get the original ball which was a few yards away
and take the throw in with that one, thus defeating the whole
purpose of the multi-ball system!
Bizarrely, had a player tapped the ball away the 5-10 yards he
was asked to go and retrieve the original ball from, he may well
have received a yellow card!
Not sure if this is the approach among all EFL referees now? If
so, it just irks supporters and makes referees look
unnecessarily over-officious...of which Mr Mather doesn't
usually have any trouble in doing himself.
Other observations from me for the first few EFL league and EFL
cup games are that referees are missing some fairly obvious
fouls (even allowing for a 'high threshold') and when some fouls
are give, are not giving as many cautions for seemingly
cautionable offences like pulling players back, stopping a
promising attack etc.
#Post#: 66647--------------------------------------------------
Re: New directives - so far?
DIR By: stig231
Date: August 17, 2023, 6:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't think many supporters, pundits have cottoned on to one
aspect of the additional time being added....
If say the board goes up with 10 minutes on it, that is (for
ease of argument) approx a quarter of the half as added time.
Now I know that 10 is meant to be a minimum, however following
that logic, it is not unreasonable to expect a quarter of that
10 to be added on afterwards meaning another 2-3 mins on top so
when board says 10, it is more likely to be nearer 12 or 13.
In each of the 3 EFL league games I have seen this season, it
has been board plus somewhere between 2:00 and 4:00 played,
although admittedly a goal has been scored in each of those 3
games at 90:00 or later.
Not sure of a way around it really but you can certainly see
managers/supporters getting increasingly vocal in that scenario
when the clock ticks past 10, 11, 12 etc....would it just be
better to say, show 12 on the board in the first place?
#Post#: 66648--------------------------------------------------
Re: New directives - so far?
DIR By: TVOS
Date: August 17, 2023, 6:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stig231 link ---
>
> Observations on the new directives on Simon Mather in the
Wrexham v Walsall match on Tuesday...on at least 4-5 occasions,
the ball went out for a throw in, not into row Z, a few yards
away but easily retrievable from by the pitch-side advertising
boards/with a ball boy or girl etc. When a player picked up one
of the 'multi-balls' off a cone near to where the throw in
should be taken from (which from my understanding is the purpose
of them, to speed up the game and get the ball back in play
quicker), Mr Mather made the player put that ball back on the
cone and go and get the original ball which was a few yards away
and take the throw in with that one, thus defeating the whole
purpose of the multi-ball system!
>
> Bizarrely, had a player tapped the ball away the 5-10 yards he
was asked to go and retrieve the original ball from, he may well
have received a yellow card!
>
> Not sure if this is the approach among all EFL referees now?
If so, it just irks supporters and makes referees look
unnecessarily over-officious...of which Mr Mather doesn't
usually have any trouble in doing himself.
>
> Other observations from me for the first few EFL league and
EFL cup games are that referees are missing some fairly obvious
fouls (even allowing for a 'high threshold') and when some fouls
are give, are not giving as many cautions for seemingly
cautionable offences like pulling players back, stopping a
promising attack etc.
>
--- End Quote ---
Tom Reeves failed to caution Portsmouth's Marlon Pack on Tuesday
for waving an imaginary yellow card when he thought an Exeter
player had dived to win a penalty.
These things have to be applied consistently.
#Post#: 66650--------------------------------------------------
Re: New directives - so far?
DIR By: bmb
Date: August 17, 2023, 6:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stig231 link ---
>
> I don't think many supporters, pundits have cottoned on to one
aspect of the additional time being added....
>
> If say the board goes up with 10 minutes on it, that is (for
ease of argument) approx a quarter of the half as added time.
>
> Now I know that 10 is meant to be a minimum, however following
that logic, it is not unreasonable to expect a quarter of that
10 to be added on afterwards meaning another 2-3 mins on top so
when board says 10, it is more likely to be nearer 12 or 13.
>
> In each of the 3 EFL league games I have seen this season, it
has been board plus somewhere between 2:00 and 4:00 played,
although admittedly a goal has been scored in each of those 3
games at 90:00 or later.
>
> Not sure of a way around it really but you can certainly see
managers/supporters getting increasingly vocal in that scenario
when the clock ticks past 10, 11, 12 etc....would it just be
better to say, show 12 on the board in the first place?
>
>
--- End Quote ---
They can't 2nd guess how much additional time might be added to
the original added time so no. If they have decided it's 10 mins
and things like goals/subs/cards/time wasting mean it ends up
with more then sobeit. If managers have a problem with it then
they need to tell their players to stop with all the shenanigans
and it won't happen. It is really that simple. If players just
play ball during the 90 mins and cut out the play
acting/whinging over every decision/time wasting etc then they
won't get 10 mins added on in the first place.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page