The Ref Stop

Celtic - Hearts

DavidObs said:
As far as this game was concerned Herts were never keen to go back whereby they soon got on their coach and returned back to their ground, most still in kit and boots & many of their supporters greeting them. This was mainly because from reports I have read, the Referee did end the game almost immediately following the scoring of the goal. I think the authorities should close certain or all parts of the ground from Home or all spectators for x number of matches with immediate effect.
Click to expand...
If he did end it immediately after the 3rd goal went in, he shouldn't have done. There was still time to be played. I think he bottled it. Totally understandable, mind. He must have been petrified, along with the AR's and players
 
The Ref Stop
BCMilan said:
Wouldn't ending a game with 40 seconds remaining be wrong in law, though ?
Click to expand...
Depends which way you look at it. Game is 90 mins - 45 mins each way. The Referee played that. Granted once stoppage time was informed to the 4th official and displayed strictly speaking he should have played no less, but then I think it could be argued with seconds not mins remaining that common sense prevailed - not bottled it.
 
DavidObs said:
Depends which way you look at it. Game is 90 mins - 45 mins each way. The Referee played that. Granted once stoppage time was informed to the 4th official and displayed strictly speaking he should have played no less, but then I think it could be argued with seconds not mins remaining that common sense prevailed - not bottled it.
Click to expand...
As much as what happened was wrong, and common sense did prevail, Hearts only have to look at Law 7.3 which specifically states "The additional time may be increased by the referee but not reduced" to know they potentially have reasonable grounds for appeal imho as clearly he did reduce the time if he blew up when he supposedly did, although I don't recall ever actually hearing the whistle, which suggests it was closer to being an abandonment than a completed game.

I think the most reasonable outcome is a big fine, games behind closed doors and maybe a points deduction of some form for Celtic, but in theory a replay is possible if the SFA/SPFL agree that the referee was erroneous in law to end the game.
 
Gabriel said:
As much as what happened was wrong, and common sense did prevail, Hearts only have to look at Law 7.3 which specifically states "The additional time may be increased by the referee but not reduced" to know they potentially have reasonable grounds for appeal imho as clearly he did reduce the time if he blew up when he supposedly did, although I don't recall ever actually hearing the whistle, which suggests it was closer to being an abandonment than a completed game.

I think the most reasonable outcome is a big fine, games behind closed doors and maybe a points deduction of some form for Celtic, but in theory a replay is possible if the SFA/SPFL agree that the referee was erroneous in law to end the game.
Click to expand...
Absolutely could do that. But would they want a reply - don’t think so and same thing could happen again unless no spectators allowed. Would that be the right thing to do - I don’t think so. Just because of what happened other than replaying the game, everything else the SFA can still do - points deduction and/or ground closure would be appropriate.
 
Does anyone rwally think the statement is anything other than a deflection from the SFA about perfectly valid criticism of some of the worst calls you'll ever see? They'd have been over the moon some cretin leaked the address (love to see a prison sentence for this btw). The fake pearl cluthing is obvious.

The abandonement (let's call it what it was) yesterday was a much more dangerous incident. Police almost having to manhandle an opposition manager away for his own safety.
I look forward to their strongly worded statement.
 
BCMilan said:
Wouldn't ending a game with 40 seconds remaining be wrong in law, though ?
Click to expand...
The third goal was scored at 97min 27 seconds. Are you saying he blew before the goal was scored?
But back to the point, eding 40 seconds short of 45min, absolutely wrong in law if normal time in first half was 45min. If there was added time, then there can be arguments made against it. Say the ref tells the 4O I have 7min and 30 seconds added. The 4O displays 8min. Blowing at 7min 30 seconds is all good.

Either way, wrong in law doesn't necessarily mean replay. Football body always has the final say and the first thing they look at is the impact of the decision on the outcome the game.
 
The SPFL have confirmed the referee ended the match, and didn't abandon it.
I'd note normal full language for the end of match, ie ble the full time whistle, wasn't in the statement.

If I was Hearts I'd be asking when this decision was reached and why the remaining time wasn't played out.
If there's 8 minutes additional time, it will usually end up being 9 or 10 minutes played.
 
one said:
The third goal was scored at 97min 27 seconds. Are you saying he blew before the goal was scored?
But back to the point, eding 40 seconds short of 45min, absolutely wrong in law if normal time in first half was 45min. If there was added time, then there can be arguments made against it. Say the ref tells the 4O I have 7min and 30 seconds added. The 4O displays 8min. Blowing at 7min 30 seconds is all good.

Either way, wrong in law doesn't necessarily mean replay. Football body always has the final say and the first thing they look at is the impact of the decision on the outcome the game.
Click to expand...
Playing Devil's Advocate, would the 4O not display 7 minutes rather than 8? If 8 is displayed the final whistle cannot be blown at 7m30s.
 
Agreeed. If the R had 7:30 added, the 4O would have made a clear error in posting 8:

“ The fourth official indicates the minimum additional time decided by the referee at the end of the final minute of each half. The additional time may be increased by the referee but not reduced.”

Additionally, as best I can tell, in the professional game the added time is a round number of minutes—though it my get “unfounded” by what happens in additional time.
 
BCMilan said:
I think the officials should have taken the players off and restarted the game once ALL the fans were safely back in the stands and the security had gained control. An announcement could have been made that the game will not end until this happens. That would have allowed the security time to restore order and may have helped the Hearts players that were attacked. You just can't allow fans to invade pitches and control how games finish. It sets an awful precidence
Click to expand...
3 point deduction for Celtic for not controlling fans...
 
Even if the 4th official had put up 8 minutes and only 7:30 played there would be no recourse, if push came to shove they could just say there was a misunderstanding. There will only be issues if less than 45 minutes in either half is played as that would be factually wrong in law.
 
bester said:
Maybe I'm naive but I find a referee even suggesting this quite disturbing.
Click to expand...
So you've never heard the phrase "let's get our stories straight" in a referee changing room? I have, many times, usually before the observer enters.
 
Last edited:
From. Whatni’ve seen, it sounds likely the R shorted the game by 30 seconds from a technical perspective. But, uh, it was a 2 goal game with chaos. I’m just not seeing any reason to get worked up here. If it was a one goal game, it might be worth a concern. But sometimes Law 18 needs to take over.
 
I don't know the stipulations for calculating added time in the SPL but if it's like the EFL then 30 seconds after a goal is not added, and only the time used after 30 seconds is added. For that reason, at 7:30, it's impossible that Hearts could have scored 2 goals within the 8 minutes (unless of course they scored instantly and Celtic bizarrely rushed to retake kick off in less than 30 seconds.) I think it's a safe bet that it was irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
Playing Devil's Advocate, would the 4O not display 7 minutes rather than 8? If 8 is displayed the final whistle cannot be blown at 7m30s.
Click to expand...
True, but that won't be an error in law and won't certainly be cause for a replay, which my post was about.

I think "error in law" is used too often incorrectly for cases of just error in judgement or other mistakes.
 
one said:
True, but that won't be an error in law and won't certainly be cause for a replay, which my post was about.

I think "error in law" is used too often incorrectly for cases of just error in judgement or other mistakes.
Click to expand...
Would it be an error in law? - the LOTG state:
The fourth official indicates the minimum additional time decided by the referee at the end of the final minute of each half. The additional time may be increased by the referee but not reduced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top