Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hugh]

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

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!).

[AussieShaymen]

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

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.

[Hugh]

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)?

[Alty Bri]

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.

[AussieShaymen]

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.

[andrewflynn]

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.

[Alty Bri]

I meant buying more time to regroup, ramp up the pressure etc

[AltyTunnelSteward]

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

[RockyRobin]

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.

[JTH]

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.

[rorysgrandad]

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.

[MarpleAlty]

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.

[RockyRobin]

He played just over a minute and half over the allotted extra time

[CRT Butty]

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.

[Hugh]

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.