[Albion] Ref today

[Thunder Bolt]

Regarding Martinez saving Trossard's shot and then throwing the ball out and going down.

• Didn't Martinez suffer a head injury/concussion last week/two weeks ago?
• This was the first time he'd dived to make a save in the match?
• So if he felt a problem after making a diving save does that mean he is still suffering the effects of a concussion and Villa are playing him anyway?

Either way, he was laying there wasting time as at no point did the physio/doctor actually come on the pitch to check him over.

He should have been booked around 60 mins at the latest due to blatant time wasting.

Referee was weak. Villa were cheating time wasters and I'd be ashamed if that was my club and I had to watch that shite every week.

There are Villa fans on Twitter saying similar.

 

[BBassic]

On the feigning head injury thing the only way to really stop that is to require the player who's gone down holding his head to be subbed off.

If it's a head injury you go off the pitch, using one of the substitutions, to get checked out by the medical team.

No more of this faffing about with "oh my head I can't possibly move...oh no wait turns out I'm fine" bollocks.

I'm still angry.

 

[Weststander]

Genuinely, the worst I've known. I didn't get wound-up by earlier accusations of corrupt refs at the Amex.

Four reasons:
1. Fell for every single one of the Villa players going to ground in gentle 50:50's.
2. Not giving the March penalty at first sight. Confirmed on TS earlier as a definite pen. Should've given it, then let VAT oversee.
3. No feel for the game, the spectacle. All too little and too late. An early second half booking or two for the time-wasting cheats, would've nipped it in the bud.
4. Classically arrogant. No dialogue, instead the archetypal Little Hitler, it's my way or you're booked.

To summarise, a complete ****.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

On the feigning head injury thing the only way to really stop that is to require the player who's gone down holding his head to be subbed off.

If it's a head injury you go off the pitch, using one of the substitutions, to get checked out by the medical team.

No more of this faffing about with "oh my head I can't possibly move...oh no wait turns out I'm fine" bollocks.

I'm still angry.

it's a tough one.
Even if the player goes off, the play still gets disrupted.
No way, you can just roll him off the field and make a "concussion sub" without using up just as much time as you would have done anyway.

 

[BBassic]

it's a tough one.
Even if the player goes off, the play still gets disrupted.
No way, you can just roll him off the field and make a "concussion sub" without using up just as much time as you would have done anyway.

It's less about the time wasting in this instance and more about forcing a team to use one of their five substitutions to deal with a "head injury".

Imagine a manager not being able to make a tactical substitution because some prick has faked a head injury.

It's harsh but again, it'll stop the bloody cheating.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

It's less about the time wasting in this instance and more about forcing a team to use one of their five substitutions to deal with a "head injury".

Imagine a manager not being able to make a tactical substitution because some prick has faked a head injury.

It's harsh but again, it'll stop the bloody cheating.

Difficulty being they get additional subs for concussion ( I think) so it wouldn't use up any subs ( well until they'd used up the bench)

 

[BBassic]

Difficulty being they get additional subs for concussion ( I think) so it wouldn't use up any subs ( well until they'd used up the bench)

Yeah I'd change that.

Five subs. Max. Including any players with "concussion".

If they've used up all five and someone has to later go off with a genuine concussion leaving the team down to 10 players they can take it up with their teammates on the bus home.

 

[Acker79]

I believe it is time for the ref to be given a third card, i.e. a blue card, specifically for a once-only warning for timewasting. A second transgression gets a yellow and a third transgression a red.

At a stroke it would eliminate timewasting by goalkeepers, particularly in the final 15 mins if their team had already used all their subs.

I don't see how that would help.

When officials are so reluctant to act, giving an extra step for players to push their luck will just increase timewasting. It doesn't need the complication of another card. Just instruct referees to clamp down on it.

If it's me designing the process: From the moment the ball is made available to the keeper the ref should count to 10/10secs (10secs to place the ball and make a choice to play short or long and take the kick should be plenty - plus it gives a standard time for everyone rather than a ref trying to judge how long feels like time wasting v not having a clear option to pass to). If no kick taken within the 10 count, a warning. Second time a yellow card, and 6 second rule strictly applied for non-goal kick situations. Then red. Make throw-ins similar to goal kicks. If we want to be very strict one warning per team, so if the keeper is warned, the throw-in taker get's a yellow for first offence. Set pieces where one stands ready to take it, then runs off and lets someone else take it - caution both of them.

 

[East London Exile]

Denying a break / goal scoring opportunity - a yellow card, and the free kick awarded anywhere outside the box - i.e. give the attacking team at least the chance of a goal scoring opportunity.

I have always thought that when a break is denied, when play restarts the opposition should only be allowed to have those players behind the ball that were there when the foul was committed. The player committing the foul also gets a yellow card. When play restarts the attacking team cannot be offside from the free kick (as is currently the case with throw ins). Any players in addition to the permitted number of defenders can be cautioned for encroachment.

With that any advantage for the “one for the team” foul / card is lost. Between the referee, assistants and 4th official, a good judgement of the defenders allowed to get behind the ball at the restart can be made. If a goalkeeper has gone up for a corner / free kick the situation could be very interesting!

I do of course realise that FIFA will never allow a change to the laws that potentially introduces a bit of fairness!

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

I don't see how that would help.

When officials are so reluctant to act, giving an extra step for players to push their luck will just increase timewasting. It doesn't need the complication of another card. Just instruct referees to clamp down on it.

If it's me designing the process: From the moment the ball is made available to the keeper the ref should count to 10/10secs (10secs to place the ball and make a choice to play short or long and take the kick should be plenty - plus it gives a standard time for everyone rather than a ref trying to judge how long feels like time wasting v not having a clear option to pass to). If no kick taken within the 10 count, a warning. Second time a yellow card, and 6 second rule strictly applied for non-goal kick situations. Then red. Make throw-ins similar to goal kicks. If we want to be very strict one warning per team, so if the keeper is warned, the throw-in taker get's a yellow for first offence. Set pieces where one stands ready to take it, then runs off and lets someone else take it - caution both of them.

I like that idea.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I don't see how that would help.

When officials are so reluctant to act, giving an extra step for players to push their luck will just increase timewasting. It doesn't need the complication of another card. Just instruct referees to clamp down on it.

If it's me designing the process: From the moment the ball is made available to the keeper the ref should count to 10/10secs (10secs to place the ball and make a choice to play short or long and take the kick should be plenty - plus it gives a standard time for everyone rather than a ref trying to judge how long feels like time wasting v not having a clear option to pass to). If no kick taken within the 10 count, a warning. Second time a yellow card, and 6 second rule strictly applied for non-goal kick situations. Then red. Make throw-ins similar to goal kicks. If we want to be very strict one warning per team, so if the keeper is warned, the throw-in taker get's a yellow for first offence. Set pieces where one stands ready to take it, then runs off and lets someone else take it - caution both of them.

I think the ref has enough to do already without counting to ten every time the ball goes dead, and I can't see how the introduction of a card for timewasting is going to increase timewasting. However, there's enough we agree on to suggest something can be worked out to improve the situation.

In rugby when the ball is in the ruck the referee shouts 'use it' to the team in possession, and if they don't use it he penalises that team and the opposition get possession. Timewasting is almost non-existent in rugby because it's an automatic penalty.

 

[Sheebo]

Saw the March pen earlier - I mean that is absolutely shocking of the highest order. VAR official should be embarrassed as should the ref. We’ve been totally robbed there and that’s before all the dirty tactics of time wasting - appalling. Well, we know what do do next time we play Villa at least…

 

[drew]

They could also apply the 6 second rule to keepers. ie once they have the ball under control they have to release it in that time. That might stop the theatrical gathering of the ball easily then falling to the ground.

Again, yet another rule that refs don't apply!!

 

[Swansman]

I have always thought that when a break is denied, when play restarts the opposition should only be allowed to have those players behind the ball that were there when the foul was committed. The player committing the foul also gets a yellow card. When play restarts the attacking team cannot be offside from the free kick (as is currently the case with throw ins). Any players in addition to the permitted number of defenders can be cautioned for encroachment.

With that any advantage for the “one for the team” foul / card is lost. Between the referee, assistants and 4th official, a good judgement of the defenders allowed to get behind the ball at the restart can be made. If a goalkeeper has gone up for a corner / free kick the situation could be very interesting!

I do of course realise that FIFA will never allow a change to the laws that potentially introduces a bit of fairness!

That sounds incredibly wonky

 

[Acker79]

I think the ref has enough to do already without counting to ten every time the ball goes dead, and I can't see how the introduction of a card for timewasting is going to increase timewasting. However, there's enough we agree on to suggest something can be worked out to improve the situation.

In rugby when the ball is in the ruck the referee shouts 'use it' to the team in possession, and if they don't use it he penalises that team and the opposition get possession. Timewasting is almost non-existent in rugby because it's an automatic penalty.

I don't see counting to 10 as a particularly taxing thing to do while the ref is stood there waiting for the ball to be put back into play.

Currently the process is (in theory*):

1) warning
2) yellow card
3) reminder you're one card away from red
4) red card

Adding a blue card would make it

1) warning
2) blue card
3) yellow card
4) reminder
5) red card

You're adding in an extra step, and have not given any explanation for why they would want to avoid the blue card. Does it result in a ban, a fine, is there any cost to it beyond adding another step before a yellow card?

The rugby thing would also be a good option - if you timewaste with a goal kick, it becomes a corner, throw ins go the other way, etc.

*Of course, in truth, it's more process is more like

tolerate
gesture
tolerate
gesture again
tolerate some more
warn
tolerate
gesture again
tolerate a bit more
yellow card!
[tolerate
gesture] - repeat these stages until
full time.

Highlighting that the problem is not the supposed punishment, but the willingness of the official to take action (and again, I think part of that it refs not having a standardised idea of when players are deemed to be taking 'too long').

 

[fly high]

They could also apply the 6 second rule to keepers. ie once they have the ball under control they have to release it in that time. That might stop the theatrical gathering of the ball easily then falling to the ground.

Again, yet another rule that refs don't apply!!

Stockdale used to do it all the time to slow things down, as I recall if we were 1 up we thought it was great

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Genuinely, the worst I've known. I didn't get wound-up by earlier accusations of corrupt refs at the Amex.

Four reasons:
1. Fell for every single one of the Villa players going to ground in gentle 50:50's.
2. Not giving the March penalty at first sight. Confirmed on TS earlier as a definite pen. Should've given it, then let VAT oversee.
3. No feel for the game, the spectacle. All too little and too late. An early second half booking or two for the time-wasting cheats, would've nipped it in the bud.
4. Classically arrogant. No dialogue, instead the archetypal Little Hitler, it's my way or you're booked.

To summarise, a complete ****.

Taking the actual decisions out of it, I'm completely down with referees booking players for any dissent.
They should get on with playing football and let referees get on with refereeing.

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't see how that would help.

When officials are so reluctant to act, giving an extra step for players to push their luck will just increase timewasting. It doesn't need the complication of another card. Just instruct referees to clamp down on it.

If it's me designing the process: From the moment the ball is made available to the keeper the ref should count to 10/10secs (10secs to place the ball and make a choice to play short or long and take the kick should be plenty - plus it gives a standard time for everyone rather than a ref trying to judge how long feels like time wasting v not having a clear option to pass to). If no kick taken within the 10 count, a warning. Second time a yellow card, and 6 second rule strictly applied for non-goal kick situations. Then red. Make throw-ins similar to goal kicks. If we want to be very strict one warning per team, so if the keeper is warned, the throw-in taker get's a yellow for first offence. Set pieces where one stands ready to take it, then runs off and lets someone else take it - caution both of them.

I'd add to that that when a team does that thing of nobody coming forward to take a throw (as Villa did), then the captain should be booked.

 

[drew]

Highlighting that the problem is not the supposed punishment, but the willingness of the official to take action (and again, I think part of that it refs not having a standardised idea of when players are deemed to be taking 'too long').

I think the problem is that refs are too detached from the game they are supposed to officiate on. Not knowing what is and isn't a foul even when viewed several times in slow motion. Perhaps they should introduce the sin bin so player time wasting go off for 10 minutes.

 

[Bodian]

I think the problem is that refs are too detached from the game they are supposed to officiate on. Not knowing what is and isn't a foul even when viewed several times in slow motion. Perhaps they should introduce the sin bin so player time wasting go off for 10 minutes.

They would have finished the game with five players....