Torquay v Hartlepool 28/10/17

[tufcyellowarmy]

Oh Merse: Are you suggesting that football will introduce these changes of its own volition or did you forget to insert a negative at the appropriate juncture? Surely not the latter, for we all know that you are infallible and do not make mistakes!

Football is certainly a simple game and would be even simpler if knobs had not introduced goal posts ... crossbars ... referees who did not only make decisions when requested ( your ego would have struggled in those days wouldn't it Merse - having to actually wait for someone to ask for your opinion ) ... floodlights ... goal-line technology ... Sorry you were only talking about the laws of the game weren't you. Of course that scratch game in Africa adheres to the same laws as the World Cup Final: presumably your old mates Pele and Bobby Charlton were there watching it with you - which version of fantasy football do you consider to be the beautiful game? I suspect that those bare footed players are not overly concerned about the intricacies of the offside law or making sure that they have retreated the requisite distance for a free kick awarded by a zealous official and it is unlikely that they will be affected by any other laws introduced to improve the game at its highest levels. You are fully aware that In terms of laws and needs there is no correlation between football played at a professional level and the amateur kickabout that you cite so please do not make such ingenuous assertions.

Completely agree with you .
Not only that but well done for actually daring to have an opinion that may differ from another individual.
Merse , it looks like you stuck your fingers in your ears and screamed , just because you don't want to talk about it.
Come on , it's just diffent opinions...... we are all on the same side aren't we ???????

[Arrywithnobrain]

You certainly live up to your posting name; a waste of time and effort debating with you ~ goodnight!

Dear Merse, it's a pity that you do not recognise irony when it stares you in the face and maybe you would learn something by looking up a dictionary definition of the word "debating". By all means disagree with me but give reasoned arguments for your disagreements, don't act like the spoiled brat who supplies the ball then picks it up and goes home because the rest of his team don't want to be called Manchester United. Anyway I'm sure that Mummy will give you a cuddle to dry your tears and reassure you that it's all the fault of those other nasty boys and that you're not really an obnoxious bully who has to have his own way all the time whether right or wrong.

[merse btpir]

I also thought the ref was pretty good as well. He was continually talking to the players (which I think is a positive thing) and not one of these aloof officials who you are not allowed to say a word to. Every team, including us, if we are winning! will ‘waste time’ and I actually think he did ok with the substitutions in one case actually walking the player off!

David Rock was the ref on Saturday; he has a reputation within the game as a 'players' man' and who I have seen have some outstanding games as well as the proverbial mediocre ones.

I was at a game last night ~ Harringey Borough v Harrow Borough; FA Trophy replay ~ where a further injury in time added on (which was already 8 minutes due to a very delicate situation requiring expert removal from the scene of an injured player) became a whopping great 11 minutes through further injury and a booking and substition.

The point I am making is that it is perfectly within the referee's remit to be the sole arbiter of time and that works perfectly well in football as a whole. Embellishments such as fourth officials (linesmen even) TV replays and the like are exactly that; embellishments. The 17 laws of the game remain the same wherever football is played.

Maybe some people see so much perceived 'time wasting' from away teams at Plainmoor because so many of those away teams approach the end of the match in the lead and are time managing the situation in exactly the same way that Torquay United would if they were in that position. If anyone decides to 'stop the clock' it's still going to be a human being with their opinion being the deciding factor, whether referee (who is the timekeeper) or an additional officially appointed timekeeper; and people need to be aware of the increasing shortage of available referees for Saturday football and part of the reason for that shortage is the increasing demands from 'higher up' for linesmen and fourth officials........one game's fourth official is another game without an official referee remember!

This got so serious that step 6 (National League regional leagues) are now the lowest ranked leagues allocated fourth officials whilst relatively senior stuff in the steps below ~ Isthmian, Southern and Northern Premier ~ no longer get fourth officials let alone 'time keepers'

Law 7: A standard adult football match consists of two periods of 45 minutes each, known as halves. Each half runs continuously, meaning that the clock is not stopped when the ball is out of play. There is usually a 15-minute half-time break between halves. The end of the match is known as full-time. The referee is the official timekeeper for the match, and may make an allowance for time lost through substitutions, injured players requiring attention, or other stoppages. This added time is called additional time in Fifa documents, but is most commonly referred to as stoppage time or injury time, while loss time can also be used as a synonym. The duration of stoppage time is at the sole discretion of the referee.

So; considering that the law clearly states that that the clock is not stopped when the ball is out of play; any perceived delay in taking throw ins or free kicks cannot be used as a reason to add on time.

[SuperNickyWroe]

We have seen how one good striker - k. Moore for example - can turn a team

We would have been out of sight with a decent striker on Saturday

well, Rob, lets hope he's on it as he says below...... he's got 2 weeks!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41804104

[wivelgull]

Watching the ten minute video of the game just now, I noted with interest that GILBERT has 'grown' a full head of hair - or is it a wig?

[arrywithanh]

arrywithanh: watch, or better still play a game of hockey, at international level - you will find that the umpires do not control the time. If you do not know what you are talking about: shut up or are you acknowledging that it is you that has no brain? You will find in hockey that the nature of the game is different from football - did you realise that they use sticks rather than feet to hit the ball - and being a faster game with rolling substitutions and passes to oneself instead of throw-ins when the ball goes out of play there is intrinsically less opportunity or need for time-wasting. Unfortunately you obviously did not understand the point that I was making, even though I thought that it was written in simple enough English even for you: with an off the field official maintaining the clock, the referee is relieved of that responsibility and there becomes no need for arbitrary assessments of the length of time that it takes to make a substitution or treat in injured player etc. The lawmakers would decide what was considered to be active play and what required the clock to stop: if they considered retrieving a ball to be an active part of the game there could be no complaint about the time wasted doing it.

merse: you pontificate about football to the extent that I wonder why you are not a senior figure at the F.A., or perhaps you are - you are certainly full of enough hot air to be one. There is a lot wrong with football and its administrators as you well know, not least its unwillingness to learn from examples in other sports. You may not enjoy Rugby or American Football, possibly because you do not understand their technicalities but that is no reason to dismiss innovations that could be introduced from such sports, merely because they do not conform to your long established pre-conceived ideas. I thought that the dinosaurs became extinct a long time ago but obviously some are still alive and well in football administration: from your comment you appear to one.

Utter rubbish

[SuperNickyWroe]

Watching the ten minute video of the game just now, I noted with interest that GILBERT has 'grown' a full head of hair - or is it a wig?

well, I'll sleep a lot better tonight knowing that.................. :}

[brucie]

Blatant time wasting is boring to watch in the extreme. Its up to the officials to deal with it as best they can. Many moons ago I saw an opposition player red carded at Plainmoor for wasting time when leaving the pitch when substituted.

We have all seen opposition goalkeepers waste time constantly. Personally I wouldn't bother with a yellow. One warning then instant dismissal. That's the answer.

[Arrywithnobrain]

Utter rubbish

Well up to your usual standard of comment: please accept my apologies for using words that were too difficult for you to comprehend.

[Louis]

Now now handbags away

[Arrywithnobrain]

David Rock was the ref on Saturday; he has a reputation within the game as a 'players' man' and who I have seen have some outstanding games as well as the proverbial mediocre ones.

I was at a game last night ~ Harringey Borough v Harrow Borough; FA Trophy replay ~ where a further injury in time added on (which was already 8 minutes due to a very delicate situation requiring expert removal from the scene of an injured player) became a whopping great 11 minutes through further injury and a booking and substition.

The point I am making is that it is perfectly within the referee's remit to be the sole arbiter of time and that works perfectly well in football as a whole. Embellishments such as fourth officials (linesmen even) TV replays and the like are exactly that; embellishments. The 17 laws of the game remain the same wherever football is played.

Maybe some people see so much perceived 'time wasting' from away teams at Plainmoor because so many of those away teams approach the end of the match in the lead and are time managing the situation in exactly the same way that Torquay United would if they were in that position. If anyone decides to 'stop the clock' it's still going to be a human being with their opinion being the deciding factor, whether referee (who is the timekeeper) or an additional officially appointed timekeeper; and people need to be aware of the increasing shortage of available referees for Saturday football and part of the reason for that shortage is the increasing demands from 'higher up' for linesmen and fourth officials........one game's fourth official is another game without an official referee remember!

This got so serious that step 6 (National League regional leagues) are now the lowest ranked leagues allocated fourth officials whilst relatively senior stuff in the steps below ~ Isthmian, Southern and Northern Premier ~ no longer get fourth officials let alone 'time keepers'

Law 7: A standard adult football match consists of two periods of 45 minutes each, known as halves. Each half runs continuously, meaning that the clock is not stopped when the ball is out of play. There is usually a 15-minute half-time break between halves. The end of the match is known as full-time. The referee is the official timekeeper for the match, and may make an allowance for time lost through substitutions, injured players requiring attention, or other stoppages. This added time is called additional time in Fifa documents, but is most commonly referred to as stoppage time or injury time, while loss time can also be used as a synonym. The duration of stoppage time is at the sole discretion of the referee.

So; considering that the law clearly states that that the clock is not stopped when the ball is out of play; any perceived delay in taking throw ins or free kicks cannot be used as a reason to add on time.

That's much better Merse, as you give an explanation that may not be apparent to everyone. It would seem from the extract that you quote that the referee has no mandatory requirement to add time on and it is that discretion which can lead to perceived 'time-wasting' as players know that the official is unlikely to fully compensate for the time lost. All that I am suggesting is a way that circumvents that kind of gamesmanship without the referee needing to be judgemental. As for the pressure on the limited number of qualified officials there is no need for a timekeeper to be a qualified referee to be able to operate a clock: I am sure that in cricket very few official scorers have the necessary qualifications to umpire a match but they are nevertheless perfectly capable of performing their own specific job. Unfortunately professional football is now governed by television and its requirements so there is no risk that the football administrators will ever take into account the views of ordinary fans. However, be prepared for the beautiful game to follow the path of its American counterpart as advertisers become less and less willing to allow 45 minute intervals between posting their TV messages.

[tufcyellowarmy]

I would support any reasonably thought out amendments on a trial basis first of course.
Goal mouth technology , time outs , and even challenges to decisions should be seriously discussed.
I can never accept that blatantly wrong decisions such as the lampard "goal" against Germany is " just a part of the game " nor can o accept blatant time wasting . I go to watch football not Play acting and unsportsmanlike behaviour.

[westyorkshiregull]

Lampards goal was a matter of fact and that now on the bigger stages won't happen again , or shouldn't do. But I can not get my head around reviewing challenges and someone feigning injury. These things are debated for and against in the aftermath of a game and still on occasions are left open for debate. Rugby union a sport I also enjoy and follow has the review system and I can't say I'm keen on it myself. Someone breaks a gut for a try only for a marginal offside or knock on. Time wasting for me is no problem , if I was playing in a match and 1 -0 up , why would I want to rush and take a throw in quick. The other team should be getting that ball back and making the difference. Pretending to be injured they often have to go off the pitch now if treated. Ref I assume with the Minimum add on time can allow for certain things. Let's see the team losing make the difference instead of impeding the team winning. Obviously time wasting with ball on corner is tactical and not time wasting.
Just my opinion. Leave it be, I will add goal line technology is great and it affects nothing apart from a goal given when it should and promote the game to keep flowing.

[MellowYellow]

Time-wasting in football has been with us since time immortal. Its often referred too by supporters to justify our outrage over our team losing. The rules are simple and clear on time-wasting and the players normally play to them. The ref can not add time because he or we think they are time-wasting. If anyone saw the Halifax match we were master's that day at 'time-wasting', within the rules of the game Indeed when we concede a late goal do we not debate on this forum why we did not keep the ball and play it down the oppositions corner.

The rules are periodically changed to try an prevent time wasting. Take Law 12, Section 2, the back pass rule to goalie introduced in 1992 after the overly defensive play after the 1990 World Cup. But today goalie's will go to extremes to circumnavigate this rule taking time wasting to a new level - see below.
 

AND

[Dazza]

Let's stop burbling around with this. The referee seemed average to me. His time keeping though was ridiculous. The game stopped for c 3 minutes for the nose injury. He warned Hartlepool three times to my knowledge about time wasteing and to one stage indicated he would be adding time on. The substitutions were slow. You simply can't get the almost conventional 4 minute add on out of that...