[Football] Injury Time Yesterday

[hans kraay fan club]

Maybe the ref thought a replay at a championship ground against prem opposition would be an attractive game to have as a mid week televised game on the BBC / Sky/ BT etc (delete as applicable) looking at results so far this weekend I'd say our game would be the most attractive eh? Let's hope for positive outcomes for today's games.

Most attractive? Over Wolves v Shrewsbury and Newport v Boro? Don’t think so.

 

[golddene]

Most attractive? Over Wolves v Shrewsbury and Newport v Boro? Don’t think so.

I was thinking of it more being the likelihood of a cup upset, especially as the lower placed team are at home.

 

[Eeyore]

I was thinking of it more being the likelihood of a cup upset, especially as the lower placed team are at home.

West Brom beating us wouldn't really be regarded as an upset.

 

[el punal]

Ha! I said to my lad "christ, has he got a bird waiting for him or something" when he blew up on the dot of 45.

Can you imagine what confusion would have been caused had the ref blown for full time in the 85th minute? Those early leavers would have been running like the clappers for the trains and buses. It just doesn’t bear thinking about.

 

[golddene]

West Brom beating us wouldn't really be regarded as an upset.

Fair enough, though it'd upset me

 

[Winker]

Did anyone understand one strange decision yesterday. In the second half, a West Brom player pushed the ball into touch with his hand, no free kick was given so we took the throw-in. The referee then stopped the game and gave West Brom a free kick or something? Weird.

 

[Deadly Danson]

I've said it before but a refs job is incredibly difficult but the one part of it that's dead easy is timekeeping. Just stop and start your watch as appropriate - it really isn't hard but most officials fail miserably and the farce in only adding 3 mins yesterday and then not even playing that much despite blatant time wasting just makes the ref look daft.

 

[rippleman]

Are you advocating a large clock displayed that stops when the ball is not in play or when a player goes down injured, which could be operated by the 4th official. There would then be no confusion and everybody would know when the clock has been stopped.

He could also stop it when the sub board is raised and restart when play restarts so nothing gained by players taking ages to walk across the pitch to be subbed.

Thumbs up for BG here.

An obvious and sensible solution to a perennial problem that both codes of rugby have been using for years.

 

[Horses Arse]

I thought the officials had, in general, a good game yesterday. The ref was clearly not interested in awarding free kicks due to diving and was not about to hand out unwarranted cards; the game flowed well.

However, there was a delay due to an injury to a West Brom player for around 3mins in the 2nd half (around the 83rd minute).

Added to the 5 substitutions, I’d justifiably calculated that we should have had at least 5mins of time added. This was crucial because I’d noticed an increased determinism and drive from our boys towards the end. I was looking forward to a last minute winner!

And what happened?

3mins announced and only 2 1/2 mins played.

Really ****ed me off.

i thought the ref was OK but there were two incidents that totally confused me on Saturday. One was where a goal kick was taken, one WBA received and passed out to the wing where another player fell over, handballed it and knocked it out for our throw. We took a throw on but the ref then stopped it and got them to take a goal kick again. Plain weird as the ball left the area and the ref only called for the goal kick to be re-taken several actions on.

The other was Locadia winning the ball fairly, then getting held back. I could understand a booking for his reaction (just) but surely our free kick. Could not see whey it went the other way at all. Watched the replay on the press TV monitors from high up in the WS and still couldn't get it.

Any clues? Or was the frozen WSU causing temporary madness/blindness

 

[Munkfish]

Did anyone understand one strange decision yesterday. In the second half, a West Brom player pushed the ball into touch with his hand, no free kick was given so we took the throw-in. The referee then stopped the game and gave West Brom a free kick or something? Weird.

From the original goal kick, the ball hadnt left the penalty area, so the ref made them take it again. I assume this was passed on from VAR.

 

[Horses Arse]

Did anyone understand one strange decision yesterday. In the second half, a West Brom player pushed the ball into touch with his hand, no free kick was given so we took the throw-in. The referee then stopped the game and gave West Brom a free kick or something? Weird.

ah - so not just me. Really bloody odd that was. I thought it was a re-take of the goal kick but whatever it was it was a bloody strange decision

 

[Horses Arse]

From the original goal kick, the ball hadnt left the penalty area, so the ref made them take it again. I assume this was passed on from VAR.

The ball definitely left the area, the receiving player had one foot in the area at the time though.

Would VAR really be used for such minor issues? Strange that it didn't see fit to see the hold on Locadia

 

[Munkfish]

The ball definitely left the area, the receiving player had one foot in the area at the time though.

Would VAR really be used for such minor issues? Strange that it didn't see fit to see the hold on Locadia

No player is allowed inside the box until the ball leaves the area on a goal kick for. This is what the referee clearly signalled.

However it is my assumption that this was highlighted by VAR as it was so long after the Goal Kick was taken. VAR may have been consulted for the Handball and foul which we were all expected to be given and in the run up to that it was highlighted about the goal kick. Regardless the Goal Kick was retaken and the Referee clearly signled this to be the reason why.

 

[JJ McClure]

From the original goal kick, the ball hadnt left the penalty area, so the ref made them take it again. I assume this was passed on from VAR.

WBA did that a couple of times. Basically means if they felt under pressure they just touch the ball in the area and get to retake the goal kick. Its a crap rule that needs changing.

Also decided that I have a new found dislike for Kyle Bartley. The number of times when it was our corner or free kick he picked the ball up and just wondered off and dropped it somewhere else was pathetic, and the sort of thing that refs ought to stop.

 

[Munkfish]

WBA did that a couple of times. Basically means if they felt under pressure they just touch the ball in the area and get to retake the goal kick. Its a crap rule that needs changing.

Also decided that I have a new found dislike for Kyle Bartley. The number of times when it was our corner or free kick he picked the ball up and just wondered off and dropped it somewhere else was pathetic, and the sort of thing that refs ought to stop.

I remember Dunky doing this a couple of times for us before in the past. It does feel like this should be given as an Indirect Free Kick should be given to stop the get out of jail free card. The same however applies to any defensive free kick inside thier own penalty area.

 

[Mellotron]

It's never a precise calculations. Some commentator or other made a comment once estimating about 30secs for a goal and 30secs for a substitution and that idea took hold and a lot of people seem to think it is a standard. It isn't. One of West Brom's subs was for a player who was already off the pitch due to injury, he came on in seconds (after a false start because, I think, the fourth official didn't immediately realise the injured player was already off the pitch). But certainly didn't take 30secs. A certain amount of time is allowed to pass in any circumstance (sub, goal, set piece, injury) before the ref should start noting time to be added on. These are all natural occurrences in football, and so a degree of time lost to them is generally expected and accepted.

The other substitutions didn't stick out as taking a particularly long time in my memory, so perhaps the ref didn't feel the need to add time on for them. Maybe the injury you timed at 3 minutes, the ref allowed 30-60 seconds before adding time.

The concerning issue would be indicating "a minimum of" 3 minutes, then not playing that minimum. I can only suggest perhaps the board went up a little late so while we played 2.5minutes from when the board went up, it was actually 3min(+?) from 90mins? Were you going by the clocks on the big screens without the seconds, so not knowing if the 90mins were up on 16:46:00 or 16:46:25?

So, just so I've understood this, you're saying it can be that actually less than 90 mins of in-play football is allowable by the ref? I did not know that.

 

[GT49er]

A running / stopping clock works well in basketball and would stop time wasting my concern would be that ninety minutes could last three hours. I'm sure I read somewhere that in a standard game of ninety minutes the ball is only in play for sixty five minutes.

I'd certainly vote for this. Technology would not be expensive, and the game would have to be changed to 30 minutes each way - 30 minutes with the ball actually and actively in play. Clock stops ticking instantly play stops, be it for a throw in, goal kick, free kick, goal, injury, substitution or whatever. No excuses, no time-wasting, no arguments.


Bring it on!

 

[BensGrandad]

WBA did that a couple of times. Basically means if they felt under pressure they just touch the ball in the area and get to retake the goal kick. Its a crap rule that needs changing.

.

I have been saying this for years that an indirect free kick should be warded against the offending player from where the ball was touched, This reduces the risk of cheating if a player is near by .

 

[BensGrandad]

I'd certainly vote for this. Technology would not be expensive, and the game would have to be changed to 30 minutes each way - 30 minutes with the ball actually and actively in play. Clock stops ticking instantly play stops, be it for a throw in, goal kick, free kick, goal, injury, substitution or whatever. No excuses, no time-wasting, no arguments.


Bring it on!

I do not think that is feasible for many reasons the foremost being travel home after the games. It would however work with the clock being stopped when play is topped due to an incident ie injury, substitution the ball not being returned by fans behind the goals etc.

 

[Giraffe]

One was where a goal kick was taken, one WBA received and passed out to the wing where another player fell over, handballed it and knocked it out for our throw. We took a throw on but the ref then stopped it and got them to take a goal kick again. Plain weird as the ball left the area and the ref only called for the goal kick to be re-taken several actions on.

I think we were talking about this last night. If it is the same incident as we are referring to we can only conclude that the lino thought the ball had not made it out of the box and therefore got he goal kick taken again as had happened earlier. However it was a long way out so this seems unlikely and also the lino wouldn't have been able to see better than the ref.

We also wondered if there is some weird rule that the ball has to go forwards, as in this instance it didn't, but googling doesn't show any such rule so who knows?

Edit: Now read the reply above, but I'm certain that the second one easily left the box. I concur though that the rule is wrong as it's an easy way to waste time now.