www.altyfans.co.uk
General Category => Altrincham FC First Team => Topic started by: Hugh on April 02, 2023, 09:45:44 PM
-
In a good, heartfelt interview with PP after the Town semi, it is suggested that the referee has "played longer than he should have done" (see link).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAA7saFpg3I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAA7saFpg3I)
This brings me back to a point I think I've made before. When the 4th official holds up his board saying two minutes added time (something I am against personally as I feel it causes as many problems as it solves), what does it actually mean? Literally 120 seconds stoppage time plus any additional stoppages and discretionary added time? Anything from 60 seconds to 120 seconds? Anything from 120 seconds to 180 seconds? Some random approximation by the referee? And how much discretion does the referee have to add on additional time not for any stoppages if a team is attacking? I believe this started after a world cup match where the referee blew for time as the ball was put into the net from a corner as the referee's stopwatch said time up. After an outcry, referees made sure they didn't do this in repetitions of this situation. But surely you have to draw the line somewhere - how much time is too much? And would any referee (such as a certain David Rock) ever admit that they may have played the wrong amount of stoppage time? It would be nice to have some clarity on this.
Over to you Phil (or Anthony if you're reading!).
-
In a good, heartfelt interview with PP after the Town semi, it is suggested that the referee has "played longer than he should have done" (see link).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAA7saFpg3I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAA7saFpg3I)
This brings me back to a point I think I've made before. When the 4th official holds up his board saying two minutes added time (something I am against personally as I feel it causes as many problems as it solves), what does it actually mean? Literally 120 seconds stoppage time plus any additional stoppages and discretionary added time? Anything from 60 seconds to 120 seconds? Anything from 120 seconds to 180 seconds? Some random approximation by the referee? And how much discretion does the referee have to add on additional time not for any stoppages if a team is attacking? I believe this started after a world cup match where the referee blew for time as the ball was put into the net from a corner as the referee's stopwatch said time up. After an outcry, referees made sure they didn't do this in repetitions of this situation. But surely you have to draw the line somewhere - how much time is too much? And would any referee (such as a certain David Rock) ever admit that they may have played the wrong amount of stoppage time? It would be nice to have some clarity on this.
Over to you Phil (or Anthony if you're reading!).
Not trying to be a devils advocate here, but the ref indicated a minimum of 3mins added time. The flare was thrown on the pitch within that injury time. Halifax scored at 94:08. Meaning he allowed an extra 1min and 8secs form said flare to be removed from pitch. Not condoning the flare or anything like that. And you deserved the win. But I would say it was just about the right call to play an extra minute with the said flare causing the extra time.
-
Yes. I dare say you are right. Looking at comments from other people, and your comment, it would seem to support my view that holding up a board showing the "at least 'x' minutes of added time" is more of a source of dissension than clarity. Can't we just let the referee make the decisions rather than trying to micro-manage him (or her)?
-
Ah, but here's the rub. The message to fans of teams who are losing going into the final minutes is, you can buy yourself a few more minutes if you chuck a flare onto the pitch. If you're lucky it'll miss the keeper.
I'm not saying that the ref necessarily had a choice, but he will be reflecting on how that call basically condoned hooliganistic behaviour.
-
Ah, but here's the rub. The message to fans of teams who are losing going into the final minutes is, you can buy yourself a few more minutes if you chuck a flare onto the pitch. If you're lucky it'll miss the keeper.
I'm not saying that the ref necessarily had a choice, but he will be reflecting on how that call basically condoned hooliganistic behaviour.
You are absolutely correct, and I expect we will be hit by some sort of fine, but the ref probably had to do what he did.
-
Ah, but here's the rub. The message to fans of teams who are losing going into the final minutes is, you can buy yourself a few more minutes if you chuck a flare onto the pitch. If you're lucky it'll miss the keeper.
I'm not saying that the ref necessarily had a choice, but he will be reflecting on how that call basically condoned hooliganistic behaviour.
You're not buying more time. The game was stopped. Right call from the referee to play out the minute that was lost to deal with the incident and let's be honest, if we were chasing the game and a Halifax smoke bomb was thrown onto the pitch, we would be furious if the referee did not add the extra time on.
How did it get into the ground in the first place? That's the issue.
-
I meant buying more time to regroup, ramp up the pressure etc
-
If, as in certain leagues around Europe, the 3 minutes on the Board meant strictly 180 seconds that would give teams 'hanging on' carte blanche to waste as much of that time as they could.
By saying it's a minimum it allows the Referee to take any lost time into account
-
It certainly gave them time to regroup, disrupt the play of the match and most importantly add another dimension of added time to added time which not openly shared and down to the judgement of the ref.
Should have put away one of the many previous chances and it would have been irrelevant.
-
https://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/sport/football/shaymen-issue-warning-to-supporters-ahead-of-play-off-game-against-chesterfield-3705415
This is an article from 11 months ago before Halifax's play off game vs Chesterfield. Clearly the club know some of their support have form:
Halifax say they have witnessed "a number of unacceptable incidents" taking place with supporters over recent months and that in the main, those in question who have brought the game and the club into disrepute have been dealt with and "a number of banning orders are now in place".
and
"These flares are extremely dangerous and can cause life changing injuries, including severe burns and breathing difficulties. We will be searching everyone entering the South and North Stands, this includes those under 16.
"This will be conducted by the stewarding team in conjunction with the police. Anyone caught with a flare will be arrested and will receive a five year football ban and possible custodial sentence.
There is video footage available of the flare being thrown and of Sinclair appearing to be assaulted after his penalty miss by a fan invading the playing area. Obviously it was our responsibility to ensure these events didn't occur as the home club. However, for the good name of Halifax as a football club, I'd have thought they should, for the sake of consistency, be investigating the identities of the perpetrators of the two incidents with a view to placing a banning order on them. If they don't it will amount to condoning, in their own words, criminal behaviour.
-
As Parky quite rightly points out we are a young team. Old pros would have used their nous to run the clock down both within the rules of the game and otherwise. sh*thousery would have seen us home.
They will learn from this. Very hard way to learn though.
-
We aren't normally too bad at the gamesmanship aspect - I think the only chance we had to take it into the corner, for example, was when Jordan floated it across to nobody when trying to find Joe Hugill - but from memory it was still inside 90 and there's no way we'd have been able to sustain the ball in their half for that long.
I suspect slightly fresher players might have got tighter to Alli and blocked that shot, so that's probably still the main gripe I have with the whole thing. The missed chances are symptomatic of that too.
The reality is that the ref would have surely blown the whistle the moment the shot was blocked, as he was probably waiting for the watch to say 94 and hadn't looked down at it in the 8 seconds previous.
-
He played just over a minute and half over the allotted extra time
-
Ah, but here's the rub. The message to fans of teams who are losing going into the final minutes is, you can buy yourself a few more minutes if you chuck a flare onto the pitch. If you're lucky it'll miss the keeper.
I'm not saying that the ref necessarily had a choice, but he will be reflecting on how that call basically condoned hooliganistic behaviour.
You are absolutely correct, and I expect we will be hit by some sort of fine, but the ref probably had to do what he did.
And this is where an RL style hooter at the end of the half comes in. No need for someone to save a number aloft, just play until the time judge presses the button. Simple really.
-
Ah, but here's the rub. The message to fans of teams who are losing going into the final minutes is, you can buy yourself a few more minutes if you chuck a flare onto the pitch. If you're lucky it'll miss the keeper.
I'm not saying that the ref necessarily had a choice, but he will be reflecting on how that call basically condoned hooliganistic behaviour.
You're not buying more time. The game was stopped. Right call from the referee to play out the minute that was lost to deal with the incident and let's be honest, if we were chasing the game and a Halifax smoke bomb was thrown onto the pitch, we would be furious if the referee did not add the extra time on.
How did it get into the ground in the first place? That's the issue.
I think I can answer that. As I've posted previously, I was thoroughly checked by bad attitude steward (on reception at the Oldham game), I suspect because he blamed me for the assault on me at the Notts game that he failed to prevent or deal with. However, it seemed to me that a lot of other people were not being so closely searched. Reading other posts, it seems this may if anything have been worse at the FC end.
-
I meant buying more time to regroup, ramp up the pressure etc
I seem to recall a similar story about a dog going on the pitch at Torquay - after which Torquay got the goal they needed to stay in the Football League. In other cases too, games seem to sometimes change after these stoppages so this flare incident could have changed things.
-
As Brian points out in the Parky interview though the ref was ready to blow up but because they had some attacking "momentum" he bottled it. Not the way Brian put it, that is my interpretation. Anyway, what about the look Parky gives the officials as they meander by with not a care in the world right at the end of the interview? Meme worthy or what?!
-
Ah, but here's the rub. The message to fans of teams who are losing going into the final minutes is, you can buy yourself a few more minutes if you chuck a flare onto the pitch. If you're lucky it'll miss the keeper.
I'm not saying that the ref necessarily had a choice, but he will be reflecting on how that call basically condoned hooliganistic behaviour.
You're not buying more time. The game was stopped. Right call from the referee to play out the minute that was lost to deal with the incident and let's be honest, if we were chasing the game and a Halifax smoke bomb was thrown onto the pitch, we would be furious if the referee did not add the extra time on.
How did it get into the ground in the first place? That's the issue.
I think I can answer that. As I've posted previously, I was thoroughly checked by bad attitude steward (on reception at the Oldham game), I suspect because he blamed me for the assault on me at the Notts game that he failed to prevent or deal with. However, it seemed to me that a lot of other people were not being so closely searched. Reading other posts, it seems this may if anything have been worse at the FC end.
From my own experience I'd have to say that the stewards are inclined to be over zealous towards home fans, but are disinclined to step in when needed among large groups of leery away fans.
-
I think that's it in a nutshell.
-
He played just over a minute and half over the allotted extra time
Having watched the replays now, it's clear he looks at his watch about 5 seconds before the shot leaves Alli's foot - what I can't fathom is that not one of the Halifax players would have been aggrieved if he'd have blown up with the ball in that position - and yet he's let it develop to a position of extreme controversy instead.
Why not just take the easier route as a referee?
The difference between top level referees and those at this level is often emotional intelligence - say for example one or two of our players are in his ear, he's decided to strop and drag things out a bit - and much like a dog chasing a squirrel, he hasn't really thought about what to do if the unthinkable actually happens - hence losing complete control of the subsequent shootout?
-
He played just over a minute and half over the allotted extra time
Having watched the replays now, it's clear he looks at his watch about 5 seconds before the shot leaves Alli's foot - what I can't fathom is that not one of the Halifax players would have been aggrieved if he'd have blown up with the ball in that position - and yet he's let it develop to a position of extreme controversy instead.
Why not just take the easier route as a referee?
The difference between top level referees and those at this level is often emotional intelligence - say for example one or two of our players are in his ear, he's decided to strop and drag things out a bit - and much like a dog chasing a squirrel, he hasn't really thought about what to do if the unthinkable actually happens - hence losing complete control of the subsequent shootout?
Apparently he is an EFL league one appointed referee recently officiated a FGR game.
-
In reply to Marple Alty's most recent post.
To have blown the final whistle when a player was about to strike a shot would have been almost indefensible.
In that scenario I would be hoping that the shot went high or wide or even was blocked ending the phase of play and allowing the final whistle.
Those of us of certain vintage will probably recall the reaction to Clive Thomas blowing in a World Cup game whilst a corner was in the air
-
Ah, but here's the rub. The message to fans of teams who are losing going into the final minutes is, you can buy yourself a few more minutes if you chuck a flare onto the pitch. If you're lucky it'll miss the keeper.
I'm not saying that the ref necessarily had a choice, but he will be reflecting on how that call basically condoned hooliganistic behaviour.
You're not buying more time. The game was stopped. Right call from the referee to play out the minute that was lost to deal with the incident and let's be honest, if we were chasing the game and a Halifax smoke bomb was thrown onto the pitch, we would be furious if the referee did not add the extra time on.
How did it get into the ground in the first place? That's the issue.
I think I can answer that. As I've posted previously, I was thoroughly checked by bad attitude steward (on reception at the Oldham game), I suspect because he blamed me for the assault on me at the Notts game that he failed to prevent or deal with. However, it seemed to me that a lot of other people were not being so closely searched. Reading other posts, it seems this may if anything have been worse at the FC end.
From my own experience I'd have to say that the stewards are inclined to be over zealous towards home fans, but are disinclined to step in when needed among large groups of leery away fans.
bang on . The home fans are generally a friendly bunch .. easy targets. The away fans tend at times to be a bit more challenging so they can play as they want
-
I meant buying more time to regroup, ramp up the pressure etc
I seem to recall a similar story about a dog going on the pitch at Torquay - after which Torquay got the goal they needed to stay in the Football League. In other cases too, games seem to sometimes change after these stoppages so this flare incident could have changed things.
Indeed as soon as the flare went on the pitch the remainder of the game changed. We will never know how it would have ended if it didn’t happen but it certainly changed.
-
All in all Halifax fans chucked three smoke bombs on the pitch. One didn't go off.
-
Dorking are only a premier club due to a flare.
They beat Ebbsfleet in POs thanks to Ebbsfleet fans lobbing a flare on which they thought was the winner.
It gave Dorking time to re group, go again, equaliser and go up
-
blowing his whistle as the player is about to kick the ball,might have put him off ;D
-
Dorking are only a premier club due to a flare.
They beat Ebbsfleet in POs thanks to Ebbsfleet fans lobbing a flare on which they thought was the winner.
It gave Dorking time to re group, go again, equaliser and go up
So we need to invest in some flares. It's not conclusive and irreputable proof that the flare changed the course of the game because it isn't possible to say what would have happened if the flare hadn't been thrown. I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm rooting for Gateshead in the final. Ironically the Halifax halfwits wouldn't have got anywhere near the nets at the International Stadium and would have to be Olympic athletes to reach the pitch over the running track.
-
Dorking are only a premier club due to a flare.
They beat Ebbsfleet in POs thanks to Ebbsfleet fans lobbing a flare on which they thought was the winner.
It gave Dorking time to re group, go again, equaliser and go up
So we need to invest in some flares. It's not conclusive and irreputable proof that the flare changed the course of the game because it isn't possible to say what would have happened if the flare hadn't been thrown. I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm rooting for Gateshead in the final. Ironically the Halifax halfwits wouldn't have got anywhere near the nets at the International Stadium and would have to be Olympic athletes to reach the pitch over the running track.
If alty fans bring flares or invade the public airing and lambastation is clear . I can't say the the same for away fans
-
We need to show some bollocks and pay for policing.
I know you have to hire a job lot of them but even 2 coppers stood in that Halifax end would have solved all that.
Fans/trouble makers don’t give a sh*t about stewards of any form but do when police are there. We know that. We’ve known it for years. We scrimped on police costs and paid the penalty.
-
You're right. Wouldn't be a fortune would it for, at most, half a dozen matches per season?
-
We need to show some bollocks and pay for policing.
I know you have to hire a job lot of them but even 2 coppers stood in that Halifax end would have solved all that.
Fans/trouble makers don’t give a sh*t about stewards of any form but do when police are there. We know that. We’ve known it for years. We scrimped on police costs and paid the penalty.
Is that true though? I accept I may be wrong, but I thought that while we could request their presence, the decision on whether they would attend was made by the police themselves.
Interestingly, I was at the game in Runcorn on Tuesday and there was a greater police presence there!
-
We need to show some bollocks and pay for policing.
I know you have to hire a job lot of them but even 2 coppers stood in that Halifax end would have solved all that.
Fans/trouble makers don’t give a sh*t about stewards of any form but do when police are there. We know that. We’ve known it for years. We scrimped on police costs and paid the penalty.
Is that true though? I accept I may be wrong, but I thought that while we could request their presence, the decision on whether they would attend was made by the police themselves.
Interestingly, I was at the game in Runcorn on Tuesday and there was a greater police presence there!
And a sniffer dog looking for pyro.
-
We need to show some bollocks and pay for policing.
I know you have to hire a job lot of them but even 2 coppers stood in that Halifax end would have solved all that.
Fans/trouble makers don’t give a sh*t about stewards of any form but do when police are there. We know that. We’ve known it for years. We scrimped on police costs and paid the penalty.
Is that true though? I accept I may be wrong, but I thought that while we could request their presence, the decision on whether they would attend was made by the police themselves.
Interestingly, I was at the game in Runcorn on Tuesday and there was a greater police presence there!
The police charge good money per officer that attends as a resident. Most premiership matches attract staff on overtime rates. Operational demands may mean officers may not be available. The police are a business with budgets. They were a force but now a service.