ENG vs SEN
- Thread starter ARF
- Start date
Supervising the replacement balls?
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
Has the referee forgotten his cards? That's now 3 England players who can consider themselves lucky not to be carded so far...
one
RefChat Addict
Not sure if you are serious on this but I will bite. Nowhere in the lotg says that if the announced added time is "minimum of x minutes" the referee has to play at least x minutes. But he blows a minutes short of x minutes we all say it's wrong.Can't see that anywhere in the LotG
This is not about lotg. It's about what is expected.
Yeah, but that doesn't say anything about "minimum of" only being in case there are further stoppages during added time.
Not sure how Sam Matterface has become ITV's No1 football commentator. We are in the knockout stages and he hadn't even realised there is a multi-ball system in place judging by his comment "Not sure how easy it is to replace the ball as it has a chip". Lee Dixon responded they do have another one
To borrow from wrestling vernacular, Matterface is a mark for himself. So long as he’s taking and generating a reaction, he’s on top of the world. In his own mind he’s the best and all the hate proves it. Never mind he’s clueless
one
RefChat Addict
No he is just waiting for someone to roll on the ground before he takes his card out.
Yes, you have correctly quoted law. No, it still doesn't say that it's only the minimum amount of time in case of stoppages during added time.
As @JamesL has already pointed out, if the referee intends to play 2 minutes 30 seconds, then it's a minimum of 2 shown on the board. Just because he plays 30 seconds over the two minutes doesn't mean it's because of a stoppage during those two minutes.
one
RefChat Addict
Yes fair point and a bad example from me. But the reason additional time is increased is that there has been further added time during added time. It's common sense. There is no reason to announce a time that is less than what is actually accounted for in the half. You are taking the wording in law too literally.What
If they announce minimum of two but play three there can only be two reasons within law.
- there actually was three minutes added time during the half but for some reason they announced it as minimum two (non sensical)
- there was added time during added time (which wasn't IMO).
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
it doesn’t in reality, but it seems that the practice in professional games is generally to only add whole minutes (with the exception of time added during the stoppage play).
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
In this world cup and top flight matches we expect the match to finish on the minute.
It looked like referee had forgotten.
Fortunate for England. Killed the game. Just before half time - the most morale-damaging time to score ( (c) Liverpool in the 80s)
It looked like referee had forgotten.
Fortunate for England. Killed the game. Just before half time - the most morale-damaging time to score ( (c) Liverpool in the 80s)
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Not buying it as the goal was on 47:20 and there was no restart. It was Trafford time!
one
RefChat Addict
I get the partial minute point and although I don't think this was the reason behind it let's go with that theory and that they also follow the law. I don't have any replays as yet. How long exactly, to the second, was added to the first half? If this is less than 3 minutes then I'll find out if Uber Eats delivers humble pie.
(I am going on assumption that there was no significant delays due to goal celebrations as it was pretty short)
(I am going on assumption that there was no significant delays due to goal celebrations as it was pretty short)