|
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - El Referee
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
« on: Mon 26 Jan 2026 19:21 »
I thought he was really good. He did let a fair bit go, but it was for both sides. No issues here!
2
« on: Mon 26 Jan 2026 19:20 »
https://x.com/propsMCFC/status/2015413140805021830?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2015413140805021830%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=
Apart from the penalty there were a couple of other odd decisions. The clip above shows a corner where Donnarumma seems to have comfortably kept the ball in play. Both the commentary on the City webpage and City fans at the match agree that this decision was given by the referee (some 25 yards away) and there was no flag by the Assistant referee. Should have gone to Specsavers?
The other was a discretionary choice, but one that I have rarely seen. Doku was fouled, a regular occurrence, firstly as he was moving forward he was forcibly pushed in the back causing him to fall forward and then as he fell a boot was planted on his ankle. A yellow card was issued and Doku was treated on the pitch. He was then sent to the sidelines and not allowed to return to the field immediately. Now the treatment was on the long side and I know referees have discretion on this matter, but in the circumstances I would regard that as a harsh decision.
Certainly doesn’t look like it has gone out. But it’s hard to comment on who gives it based on that footage. Whether Doku can stay on the pitch is down to whether the treatment was completed by the time the cautioning process was completed. Based on what you’re saying, it wasn’t. So it was correct that Doku went off.
3
« on: Fri 23 Jan 2026 20:42 »
My mind is genuinely blown that we shouldn’t make a change to potentially help the game because ‘the referee might forget’.
I guess this is where there is a major disconnect between referees & players/fans. If you said to a non-referee, we aren’t going to implement something because the referee might forget, would they agree?
No they would disagree because they would want it implementing so that they would have another reason to have a go at the referee ---they never need much of an excuse anyway.
Again, a disconnect between referees and everyone else. The arrogance needs to stop, on both sides
Where is the arrogance in honesty? I retired from all activities in football some 8 years ago after dedicating 56 years to the senior game as a player, official, league secretary and treasurer and general dogsbody.
I am now a fan who supports local non-league and grassroots football and a good friend of some officials who officiate in the professional game.
They are not arrogant at all and I have every sympathy with them trying to do the job these days because, no matter what they do, they still get abused by fans who, in many cases, are totally ignorant of The Laws of the Game, as can be seen if you frequent any fans' boards and see the abuse posted on them by fans who mark the performance of the referee.
The arrogance is in the excuse. To say we shouldn’t make a change because the referee might forget is ridiculous. Referees, at least at the higher levels, are seen as untouchable. So to say not changing something in case they forget, is just embarrassing.
4
« on: Fri 23 Jan 2026 19:04 »
My mind is genuinely blown that we shouldn’t make a change to potentially help the game because ‘the referee might forget’.
I guess this is where there is a major disconnect between referees & players/fans. If you said to a non-referee, we aren’t going to implement something because the referee might forget, would they agree?
No they would disagree because they would want it implementing so that they would have another reason to have a go at the referee ---they never need much of an excuse anyway.
Again, a disconnect between referees and everyone else. The arrogance needs to stop, on both sides
5
« on: Fri 23 Jan 2026 18:20 »
My mind is genuinely blown that we shouldn’t make a change to potentially help the game because ‘the referee might forget’.
I guess this is where there is a major disconnect between referees & players/fans. If you said to a non-referee, we aren’t going to implement something because the referee might forget, would they agree?
6
« on: Thu 22 Jan 2026 21:03 »
I'd really like them to go further in trialing stopping the clock each time the ball goes out of play. Maybe they'd need to shorten the length of the match, but would in theory help stop this time wasting.
In principle, I support the idea of stopping the clock whenever the ball is dead and playing a fixed amount of time. In practice, however, I have two significant concerns. First, how would this be implemented at levels below the professional game? It would require dedicated timekeepers, which is simply not affordable, and so would almost certainly lead to different Laws being applied at different levels of the sport, an outcome I find highly undesirable. Second, once the clock is routinely stopped, broadcasters would inevitably push to extend these pauses to accommodate advertising with the result that matches would last even longer.
You just stop your watch. Isn’t particularly difficult. Might end up hurting your finger in the end, but you’ll just have to hope they can keep the ball in play!
With the advertisements; that’s realistically going to happen anyway. I’m surprised they haven’t printed sponsorships in the centre circle yet……
They'd forget though, or more likely forget to restart it. Even when I was relatively experienced i often forget to restart the watch, to the extent that I gave up stopping it unless there was obviously going to be a very lengthy stoppage.
So the referee has to take accountability and ensure they do it. After a while, it would become second nature. You can’t not do something ‘because the referee might forget’
Yes, but they will forget and it would cause chaos, referees since the day dot have stopped their watch and forgotten to restart it so I don't see how it would ever stop. I don't know the answer to this but do other sports where play is stopped when the ball is out of play rely on a referee on his own also being the timekeeper? Bearing that 90% of games, certainly in England, have just one match official.
So we shouldn’t bring a law in that could improve the game because the referee might forget?
I just think referees on their own on Hackney Marshes on a Sunday morning have enought to deal with without having to become the independent timekeeper (who isn't independent).
It is literally the referees job to be the timekeeper. Should we not change any laws ever in case referees forget?
7
« on: Thu 22 Jan 2026 20:31 »
As Norwich don't win many games 5-0, and I had an hour to spare I thought I would re watch the 2nd half and make a note of all the time lost in the half.
The 2nd half lasted 49.05 ( 4 minutes added time signalled )
There were 4 goals and the time between the goal being scored and the restart were
1 min 10 secs
1 min 20 secs ( this included a substitution )
1 min
1 min 7 secs
There were 3 other substitution periods
36 secs
20 secs
45 secs ( 2 subs )
There were 6 Norwich goal kicks
Whilst 1-0 19 secs
Whilst 2-0 15 secs & 21 secs
Whilst 4-0 18 secs, 9 secs & 35 secs ( keeper cautioned )
and there was also 30 seconds wasted when there were 2 balls on the pitch.
I understand that, but what does that have to do with cautioning the goalkeeper? You’ve kind of just answered your question; 35 seconds to take a goal kick. Why does he need 35 seconds unless he’s running the clock down?
8
« on: Thu 22 Jan 2026 20:18 »
I'd really like them to go further in trialing stopping the clock each time the ball goes out of play. Maybe they'd need to shorten the length of the match, but would in theory help stop this time wasting.
In principle, I support the idea of stopping the clock whenever the ball is dead and playing a fixed amount of time. In practice, however, I have two significant concerns. First, how would this be implemented at levels below the professional game? It would require dedicated timekeepers, which is simply not affordable, and so would almost certainly lead to different Laws being applied at different levels of the sport, an outcome I find highly undesirable. Second, once the clock is routinely stopped, broadcasters would inevitably push to extend these pauses to accommodate advertising with the result that matches would last even longer.
You just stop your watch. Isn’t particularly difficult. Might end up hurting your finger in the end, but you’ll just have to hope they can keep the ball in play!
With the advertisements; that’s realistically going to happen anyway. I’m surprised they haven’t printed sponsorships in the centre circle yet……
They'd forget though, or more likely forget to restart it. Even when I was relatively experienced i often forget to restart the watch, to the extent that I gave up stopping it unless there was obviously going to be a very lengthy stoppage.
So the referee has to take accountability and ensure they do it. After a while, it would become second nature. You can’t not do something ‘because the referee might forget’
Yes, but they will forget and it would cause chaos, referees since the day dot have stopped their watch and forgotten to restart it so I don't see how it would ever stop. I don't know the answer to this but do other sports where play is stopped when the ball is out of play rely on a referee on his own also being the timekeeper? Bearing that 90% of games, certainly in England, have just one match official.
So we shouldn’t bring a law in that could improve the game because the referee might forget?
9
« on: Thu 22 Jan 2026 18:55 »
I'd really like them to go further in trialing stopping the clock each time the ball goes out of play. Maybe they'd need to shorten the length of the match, but would in theory help stop this time wasting.
In principle, I support the idea of stopping the clock whenever the ball is dead and playing a fixed amount of time. In practice, however, I have two significant concerns. First, how would this be implemented at levels below the professional game? It would require dedicated timekeepers, which is simply not affordable, and so would almost certainly lead to different Laws being applied at different levels of the sport, an outcome I find highly undesirable. Second, once the clock is routinely stopped, broadcasters would inevitably push to extend these pauses to accommodate advertising with the result that matches would last even longer.
You just stop your watch. Isn’t particularly difficult. Might end up hurting your finger in the end, but you’ll just have to hope they can keep the ball in play!
With the advertisements; that’s realistically going to happen anyway. I’m surprised they haven’t printed sponsorships in the centre circle yet……
They'd forget though, or more likely forget to restart it. Even when I was relatively experienced i often forget to restart the watch, to the extent that I gave up stopping it unless there was obviously going to be a very lengthy stoppage.
So the referee has to take accountability and ensure they do it. After a while, it would become second nature. You can’t not do something ‘because the referee might forget’
10
« on: Thu 22 Jan 2026 18:12 »
I'd really like them to go further in trialing stopping the clock each time the ball goes out of play. Maybe they'd need to shorten the length of the match, but would in theory help stop this time wasting.
In principle, I support the idea of stopping the clock whenever the ball is dead and playing a fixed amount of time. In practice, however, I have two significant concerns. First, how would this be implemented at levels below the professional game? It would require dedicated timekeepers, which is simply not affordable, and so would almost certainly lead to different Laws being applied at different levels of the sport, an outcome I find highly undesirable. Second, once the clock is routinely stopped, broadcasters would inevitably push to extend these pauses to accommodate advertising with the result that matches would last even longer.
You just stop your watch. Isn’t particularly difficult. Might end up hurting your finger in the end, but you’ll just have to hope they can keep the ball in play! With the advertisements; that’s realistically going to happen anyway. I’m surprised they haven’t printed sponsorships in the centre circle yet……
11
« on: Thu 22 Jan 2026 14:09 »
I'd really like them to go further in trialing stopping the clock each time the ball goes out of play. Maybe they'd need to shorten the length of the match, but would in theory help stop this time wasting.
The countdown for throw ins is all well and good, but as someone said, are they expecting the big centre half to sprint up to the penalty area everytime they get a throw in........
12
« on: Thu 22 Jan 2026 08:20 »
He had been doing it most of the game, especially with the score at 0-1 and 0-2, and had been warned on several occasions.
Not really a surprise when he did get cautioned, regardless of the score at the time.
And yet, there was 4 additional minutes added and played.
Norwich scored 4 goals, all celebrated with the away fans behind the goal, no rush to get the game restarted ( 4 x 30 secs = 2 mins )
5 substitutions ( 5 x 30 secs = 2 mins 30 )
Doesn't seem that much additional time was actually added on for all this wasted time!
Can managing incidents like this be possible late on? Absolutely. However, if the referee has been on to the goalkeeper on multiple occasions to speed up and he doesn’t, it gets to a point in which the referee has to take action. In an ideal world, referees would take this action a lot earlier on than the 85+ minute as we so often see!
13
« on: Wed 21 Jan 2026 15:43 »
Michael Owen thought yellow card and it is inaccurate to say all ex pros thought it red.
Okay. All but 1 ex-pro that I have seen has said red card……
neville…
He coudln't make his mind up. He flip-flopped between what he thought about it.
on the podcast after he said again yellow was correct decision
I know. That’s when he changed his mind…..
14
« on: Wed 21 Jan 2026 15:38 »
Michael Owen thought yellow card and it is inaccurate to say all ex pros thought it red.
Okay. All but 1 ex-pro that I have seen has said red card……
neville…
He coudln't make his mind up. He flip-flopped between what he thought about it.
15
« on: Wed 21 Jan 2026 12:23 »
Michael Owen thought yellow card and it is inaccurate to say all ex pros thought it red.
Okay. All but 1 ex-pro that I have seen has said red card……
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
|
Home
Search
Contact
Login
Register
Show Posts
