Most attractive? Over Wolves v Shrewsbury and Newport v Boro? Don’t think so.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Injury Time Yesterday
- Thread starter Hugo Rune
- Start date
Most attractive? Over Wolves v Shrewsbury and Newport v Boro? Don’t think so.
I was thinking of it more being the likelihood of a cup upset, especially as the lower placed team are at home.
- Apr 5, 2014
- 23,530
West Brom beating us wouldn't really be regarded as an upset.
el punal
Well-known member
Can you imagine what confusion would have been caused had the ref blown for full time in the 85th minute? Those early leavers would have been running like the clappers for the trains and buses. It just doesn’t bear thinking about.
Winker
CUM ON FEEL THE NOIZE
Did anyone understand one strange decision yesterday. In the second half, a West Brom player pushed the ball into touch with his hand, no free kick was given so we took the throw-in. The referee then stopped the game and gave West Brom a free kick or something? Weird.
Deadly Danson
Well-known member
I've said it before but a refs job is incredibly difficult but the one part of it that's dead easy is timekeeping. Just stop and start your watch as appropriate - it really isn't hard but most officials fail miserably and the farce in only adding 3 mins yesterday and then not even playing that much despite blatant time wasting just makes the ref look daft.
Thumbs up for BG here.
An obvious and sensible solution to a perennial problem that both codes of rugby have been using for years.
Horses Arse
Well-known member
i thought the ref was OK but there were two incidents that totally confused me on Saturday. One was where a goal kick was taken, one WBA received and passed out to the wing where another player fell over, handballed it and knocked it out for our throw. We took a throw on but the ref then stopped it and got them to take a goal kick again. Plain weird as the ball left the area and the ref only called for the goal kick to be re-taken several actions on.
The other was Locadia winning the ball fairly, then getting held back. I could understand a booking for his reaction (just) but surely our free kick. Could not see whey it went the other way at all. Watched the replay on the press TV monitors from high up in the WS and still couldn't get it.
Any clues? Or was the frozen WSU causing temporary madness/blindness
From the original goal kick, the ball hadnt left the penalty area, so the ref made them take it again. I assume this was passed on from VAR.
Horses Arse
Well-known member
ah - so not just me. Really bloody odd that was. I thought it was a re-take of the goal kick but whatever it was it was a bloody strange decision
Horses Arse
Well-known member
The ball definitely left the area, the receiving player had one foot in the area at the time though.
Would VAR really be used for such minor issues? Strange that it didn't see fit to see the hold on Locadia
No player is allowed inside the box until the ball leaves the area on a goal kick for. This is what the referee clearly signalled.
However it is my assumption that this was highlighted by VAR as it was so long after the Goal Kick was taken. VAR may have been consulted for the Handball and foul which we were all expected to be given and in the run up to that it was highlighted about the goal kick. Regardless the Goal Kick was retaken and the Referee clearly signled this to be the reason why.
JJ McClure
Go Jags
WBA did that a couple of times. Basically means if they felt under pressure they just touch the ball in the area and get to retake the goal kick. Its a crap rule that needs changing.
Also decided that I have a new found dislike for Kyle Bartley. The number of times when it was our corner or free kick he picked the ball up and just wondered off and dropped it somewhere else was pathetic, and the sort of thing that refs ought to stop.
I remember Dunky doing this a couple of times for us before in the past. It does feel like this should be given as an Indirect Free Kick should be given to stop the get out of jail free card. The same however applies to any defensive free kick inside thier own penalty area.
So, just so I've understood this, you're saying it can be that actually less than 90 mins of in-play football is allowable by the ref? I did not know that.
GT49er
Well-known member
I'd certainly vote for this. Technology would not be expensive, and the game would have to be changed to 30 minutes each way - 30 minutes with the ball actually and actively in play. Clock stops ticking instantly play stops, be it for a throw in, goal kick, free kick, goal, injury, substitution or whatever. No excuses, no time-wasting, no arguments.
Bring it on!
BensGrandad
New member
I have been saying this for years that an indirect free kick should be warded against the offending player from where the ball was touched, This reduces the risk of cheating if a player is near by .
BensGrandad
New member
I'd certainly vote for this. Technology would not be expensive, and the game would have to be changed to 30 minutes each way - 30 minutes with the ball actually and actively in play. Clock stops ticking instantly play stops, be it for a throw in, goal kick, free kick, goal, injury, substitution or whatever. No excuses, no time-wasting, no arguments.
Bring it on!
I do not think that is feasible for many reasons the foremost being travel home after the games. It would however work with the clock being stopped when play is topped due to an incident ie injury, substitution the ball not being returned by fans behind the goals etc.
Last edited:
- Aug 8, 2005
- 26,545
I think we were talking about this last night. If it is the same incident as we are referring to we can only conclude that the lino thought the ball had not made it out of the box and therefore got he goal kick taken again as had happened earlier. However it was a long way out so this seems unlikely and also the lino wouldn't have been able to see better than the ref.
We also wondered if there is some weird rule that the ball has to go forwards, as in this instance it didn't, but googling doesn't show any such rule so who knows?
Edit: Now read the reply above, but I'm certain that the second one easily left the box. I concur though that the rule is wrong as it's an easy way to waste time now.