Jump to content

Norwich - V - Wednesday OMDT


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, September65 said:

We understand that. But what gives the ref the right to add as much more as he wants??

 

He’s not adding more on. The amount announced has to be a round number. If he decides in the 89th minute that he’s adding 5:59 on, it still has to be announced as five minutes. He has to round down, he can’t round up.

 

In my opinion the ref should stop his watch like they do in other sports so it can be more accurate, but in football it’s left up to the ref to use his discretion on what he thinks is the correct amount to add on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, sheffix said:

Could have done with Joao running it into the corner instead of his mazy pointless dribble. 

 

Bet Bruce gave him a right bollocking after the game - losing possession there at that time put us under pressure and lead to the goal

 

Simple game management - keep the ball and see it out.

Edited by Earlsfieldowl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, punkskaphil said:

 

This I agree with, but that’s not the point being made here. The point is that nobody seems to understand the meaning of the word “minimum”, even though they’ve been announcing minimum times for years now. It’s really easy to understand.

 

No need to be patronising or condescending is there?

I think most do understand that it is a minimum and have explained that in this instance there hasn't been any good reason to add to that minimum. You often see teams making subs, kicking the ball away, taking ages over set pieces in injury time and all that extra doesn't get added on properly. None of that happened here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, punkskaphil said:

 

He’s not adding more on. The amount announced has to be a round number. If he decides in the 89th minute that he’s adding 5:59 on, it still has to be announced as five minutes. He has to round down, he can’t round up.

 

In my opinion the ref should stop his watch like they do in other sports so it can be more accurate, but in football it’s left up to the ref to use his discretion on what he thinks is the correct amount to add on.

 

That's round uns. If you think they announce a minimum of 5 when the watch shows 5min 59 seconds then you are kidding yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Birley Owl 1867 said:

I think it's you that's failing to understand.

 

He announced 5 minutes to add on. Where in that 5 minutes did he find the extra time to add on to get over it?

 

Yes it's a minimum, but he can't just announced 5 and play on to whenever he wants.

 

1) You’re responding to my argument that nobody knows what minimum means. Trust me, it’s you who’s missing the point.

 

2) I have no idea. That’s down to his discretion. I’m not saying that the amount he added on is correct.

 

3) Yes he can. It’s his discretion. If he thinks he needs to add on 5:30 (the foul occurred at 5:29), then he will announce as five minutes and play the extra 30 seconds at least. Presumably (and I’m not 100% on this) discretion is also what’s used for him to decide to let the free kick be taken. I know that he has to allow time if it’s a penalty, but I don’t know about free kicks.

Edited by punkskaphil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, punkskaphil said:

 

1) your responding to my argument that nobody knows what minimum means. Trust me, it’s you who’s missing the point.

 

2) I have no idea. That’s down to his discretion. I’m not saying that the amount he added on is correct.

 

3) Yes he can. It’s his discretion. If he thinks he needs to add on 5:30 (the foul occurred at 5:29), then he will announce as five minutes and play the extra. Presumably (and I’m not 100% on this) discretion is also what’s used for him to decide to let the free kick be taken. I know that he has to allow time if it’s a penalty,

One time is up he has to blow his whistle. Discretion is NOT allowed, referees just do it anyway.

 

Thing is, refs never add on 5.30 seconds because they just round it up. So he would have just added 6 on and played an extra 30. Stop being daft and suggesting that to be the case. 

 

There was no reason for him to go over the 5 mins in the added time, which is why you are misunderstanding. You are correct it's a minimum, but there was no reason at all for him to extend over the announced minimum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

That's round uns. If you think they announce a minimum of 5 when the watch shows 5min 59 seconds then you are kidding yourself.

 

Again, it’s down to discretion. The ref probably would announce six minutes. But what if he plans to add five-and-a-half? He’s required to announce a round number, and the laws say he cannot round up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, punkskaphil said:

 

Again, it’s down to discretion. The ref probably would announce six minutes. But what if he plans to add five-and-a-half? He’s required to announce a round number, and the laws say he cannot round up.

 

Where does the law say this? Even if it does say this, how will the law ever know, he is the one the decides how much to add on in the first place!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 2roland2 said:

 

If you aren’t having a drink I struggle to understand you saying he should save it, it was in the top corner. If that was Harry Kane or sterling’s they would have had it on replay for three months. 

It was a perfect free kick to be fair, 

 

Agree, just annoying that he had to cheat to win it in the first place then was allowed to take it from a position which was to his advantage. Can't blame Dawson for that one. Only chance he had of saving it would have been to stand that side, which was behind the wall, thus giving the player the option of a free shot into the other side of the net.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Birley Owl 1867 said:

One time is up he has to blow his whistle. Discretion is NOT allowed, referees just do it anyway.

 

Thing is, refs never add on 5.30 seconds because they just round it up. So he would have just added 6 on and played an extra 30. Stop being daft and suggesting that to be the case. 

 

There was no reason for him to go over the 5 mins in the added time, which is why you are misunderstanding. You are correct it's a minimum, but there was no reason at all for him to extend over the announced minimum.

 

Only the ref knows how much is being added on. A rounded-down minimum is announced. The referee has discretion.

 

We don’t know how much he planned to add on. We only know it was at least five minutes. The foul by Matias happened at 95:29.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Where does the law say this? Even if it does say this, how will the law ever know, he is the one the decides how much to add on in the first place!

 

True, the law will never know. But the ref has discretion. They used to be assessed on a match-by-match basis and had to provide a report. I don’t know if it’s still the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 2roland2 said:

 

If you aren’t having a drink I struggle to understand you saying he should save it, it was in the top corner. If that was Harry Kane or sterling’s they would have had it on replay for three months. 

It was a perfect free kick to be fair, 

There was only one place that freekick was going the top left hand corner and he is stood predominantly in the right side of his goal he should've anticipated that 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, punkskaphil said:

 

True, the law will never know. But the ref has discretion. They used to be assessed on a match-by-match basis and had to provide a report. I don’t know if it’s still the case.

 

Well, he is likely to be assessed on his overall performance for this game and it won't make very good reading for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Well, he is likely to be assessed on his overall performance for this game and it won't make very good reading for him.

 

All he has to say is “in my opinion 5:30 additional time was needed. The foul happened just before that time was up so I thought it best - using my discretion - to allow it to be taken.”

 

I doubt they’ll actually ask him to show how he came to a figure of 5+ minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 2roland2 said:

 

Mate, honestly you are off your rocker if you think he can stop that.

 

ok we'll agree to disagree but where he positioned himself yes he had no chance, but I'm saying he should have anticipated I left footed player 90%of the time is going to stick it in that corner, going to take some strike to put in the other corner from there 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...