By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I wonder if they'd been using typical Coleman tactics and delaying goal kicks, throw-ins etc?
It almost seems as if the ref was determined not to allow the goal when most refs allow play to continue if the attacking team looks like creating a chance.
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 19:35 - Mar 5 by D_Alien
I wonder if they'd been using typical Coleman tactics and delaying goal kicks, throw-ins etc?
It almost seems as if the ref was determined not to allow the goal when most refs allow play to continue if the attacking team looks like creating a chance.
Creating a chance? He bloody blows as the ball is virtually in! He's going to get done for that.
Its a BRILLIANT goal to cap a BRILLIANT start by Rochdale - Don Goodman 26/08/10
Reminds me of Clive Thomas in the 1978 World cup. Brazil V Sweden. Right at the end of the game Brazil get a corner, when the ball is in the air Clive blows for full time, Brazil score, so Clive disallows it. Brazil were not happy with Clive.
A large VAT Dave
0
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 20:21 - Mar 5 with 6365 views
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 20:11 - Mar 5 by ArthurDaley
Reminds me of Clive Thomas in the 1978 World cup. Brazil V Sweden. Right at the end of the game Brazil get a corner, when the ball is in the air Clive blows for full time, Brazil score, so Clive disallows it. Brazil were not happy with Clive.
I seem to remember the rules, or should I say, guidance issued to referees was changed as a result of that incident; as I've alluded to earlier, in respect of allowing play to continue whilst the attacking team are in the process of creating a chance to score.
EDIT: however, as also mentioned, there may be extenuating circumstances, i.e. where additional time has come to an end which was added on due to time-wasting tactics, the team using those tactics should not be allowed to benefit from them. So, it's entirely possible that Kettle will not "get done" for that.
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 20:21 - Mar 5 by D_Alien
I seem to remember the rules, or should I say, guidance issued to referees was changed as a result of that incident; as I've alluded to earlier, in respect of allowing play to continue whilst the attacking team are in the process of creating a chance to score.
EDIT: however, as also mentioned, there may be extenuating circumstances, i.e. where additional time has come to an end which was added on due to time-wasting tactics, the team using those tactics should not be allowed to benefit from them. So, it's entirely possible that Kettle will not "get done" for that.
[Post edited 5 Mar 2016 20:28]
I remember the same. That incident caused such cotroversy at the time that referees were issued with new guidelines.
It's rare these days that a referee lows for full time whe a team is in an advantageous position. Usually the ball is in a sterile area of the pitch or in mid-air.
Mr. Kettle will have some writing to do I should think.
“It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooledâ€
0
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 20:44 - Mar 5 with 6247 views
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 20:29 - Mar 5 by SuddenLad
I remember the same. That incident caused such cotroversy at the time that referees were issued with new guidelines.
It's rare these days that a referee lows for full time whe a team is in an advantageous position. Usually the ball is in a sterile area of the pitch or in mid-air.
Mr. Kettle will have some writing to do I should think.
My feeling is that when time, as per that which the ref has pre-decided, is up, the ref should blow for time. 90 minutes is 90 minutes. (I am a pedant, but what's wrong with that? :)). Thus I think Clive Thomas and Trevor Kettle were both correct.
However, for many years, refs have waited until an attack is over before they blow for time. I have no idea why they do this.
Can anyone point me to a website, law of the game that tells them that this is the correct procedure?
[Post edited 5 Mar 2016 22:40]
0
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 22:43 - Mar 5 with 6009 views
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 22:39 - Mar 5 by love_the_dale
My feeling is that when time, as per that which the ref has pre-decided, is up, the ref should blow for time. 90 minutes is 90 minutes. (I am a pedant, but what's wrong with that? :)). Thus I think Clive Thomas and Trevor Kettle were both correct.
However, for many years, refs have waited until an attack is over before they blow for time. I have no idea why they do this.
Can anyone point me to a website, law of the game that tells them that this is the correct procedure?
[Post edited 5 Mar 2016 22:40]
You are talking about half a second between Billy Kee striking the ball and it going in the goal - I'm sorry but the ref needn't be THAT accurate - no matter how pedantic .
Its a BRILLIANT goal to cap a BRILLIANT start by Rochdale - Don Goodman 26/08/10
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 22:43 - Mar 5 by dingdangblue
You are talking about half a second between Billy Kee striking the ball and it going in the goal - I'm sorry but the ref needn't be THAT accurate - no matter how pedantic .
I disagree. We are playing soccer, not rugby. When time is up, time is up - unless you can point me to somewhere in the laws / guidelines that says differently.
-1
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 22:48 - Mar 5 with 5996 views
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 22:39 - Mar 5 by love_the_dale
My feeling is that when time, as per that which the ref has pre-decided, is up, the ref should blow for time. 90 minutes is 90 minutes. (I am a pedant, but what's wrong with that? :)). Thus I think Clive Thomas and Trevor Kettle were both correct.
However, for many years, refs have waited until an attack is over before they blow for time. I have no idea why they do this.
Can anyone point me to a website, law of the game that tells them that this is the correct procedure?
[Post edited 5 Mar 2016 22:40]
They do it to avoid controversy and criticism. It's called common sense. If Kettle had used an ounce of nous, this thread wouldn't exist.
“It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooledâ€
0
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 22:55 - Mar 5 with 5980 views
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 22:47 - Mar 5 by love_the_dale
I disagree. We are playing soccer, not rugby. When time is up, time is up - unless you can point me to somewhere in the laws / guidelines that says differently.
Soccer?
Its a BRILLIANT goal to cap a BRILLIANT start by Rochdale - Don Goodman 26/08/10
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 22:47 - Mar 5 by love_the_dale
I disagree. We are playing soccer, not rugby. When time is up, time is up - unless you can point me to somewhere in the laws / guidelines that says differently.
Agree 100%,but it`s up to the fourth official now as too how much time they allow over the 45 minutes in each half,so exactness in time is impossible. They never put 3 minutes and 33 seconds on the board,it`s always 3 minutes,4 minutes etc,so as Sudden Lad says,might as well wait until an immediate goal scoring chance has come and gone before blowing for time.
0
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 23:49 - Mar 5 with 5877 views
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 22:39 - Mar 5 by love_the_dale
My feeling is that when time, as per that which the ref has pre-decided, is up, the ref should blow for time. 90 minutes is 90 minutes. (I am a pedant, but what's wrong with that? :)). Thus I think Clive Thomas and Trevor Kettle were both correct.
However, for many years, refs have waited until an attack is over before they blow for time. I have no idea why they do this.
Can anyone point me to a website, law of the game that tells them that this is the correct procedure?
[Post edited 5 Mar 2016 22:40]
Can you point out a game that has ever finished bang on 90 minutes?
I.E. no extra time etc. I've never been to a football match and not heard the words "there will be a MINIMUM of x amount of minutes"
0
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 23:59 - Mar 5 with 5847 views
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 22:48 - Mar 5 by SuddenLad
They do it to avoid controversy and criticism. It's called common sense. If Kettle had used an ounce of nous, this thread wouldn't exist.
I disagree. Only someone with a sure grasp of what he was entitled to do would take the action he did today. It's all well and good us moaning about refs but if the boot was on the other foot and the decision went in our favour, how many would be calling him?
I've set out the reasons I feel he acted according to the laws AND the spirit of the game elsewhere.
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 23:49 - Mar 5 by leonardrafc
Can you point out a game that has ever finished bang on 90 minutes?
I.E. no extra time etc. I've never been to a football match and not heard the words "there will be a MINIMUM of x amount of minutes"
And its been analysed that the ball is 'in play' for around 60 mins of the 90 in most matches - even more reason to not blow for time to the nearest millisecond. The paying customer is only seeing 2/3 of a game as it is!
Its a BRILLIANT goal to cap a BRILLIANT start by Rochdale - Don Goodman 26/08/10
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 00:04 - Mar 6 by dingdangblue
And its been analysed that the ball is 'in play' for around 60 mins of the 90 in most matches - even more reason to not blow for time to the nearest millisecond. The paying customer is only seeing 2/3 of a game as it is!
You've still to answer my point about whether you'd be calling him a f*ckwit if he'd disallowed a goal for the same reason against a team employing negative, timewasting tactics at Spotland.
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 23:49 - Mar 5 by leonardrafc
Can you point out a game that has ever finished bang on 90 minutes?
I.E. no extra time etc. I've never been to a football match and not heard the words "there will be a MINIMUM of x amount of minutes"
Of course I am not saying the ref should blow for time 45 minutes after the start of each half. He decides how much time to add on - to the second - and should blow at the end of that time. When I was reffing, we had stopwatches, and stopped the watch when the the ball was kicked 3 pitches away and started it again when it came back. At a higher level, we stopped and started it again when someone was wasting time, although this hardly ever happened in those days.
0
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 00:39 - Mar 6 with 5756 views
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 00:13 - Mar 6 by D_Alien
You've still to answer my point about whether you'd be calling him a f*ckwit if he'd disallowed a goal for the same reason against a team employing negative, timewasting tactics at Spotland.
For blowing the whistle when he did - whatever tactics any team employ - and even against us - Yes, he'd be a Fcukwit.
Its a BRILLIANT goal to cap a BRILLIANT start by Rochdale - Don Goodman 26/08/10
Trevor Kettle strikes again on 01:05 - Mar 6 by Frog
Who gives a sh@t, it's John Coleman.
Its a decision that's spoiled Coleman and Bells day, in my book that makes it a good one. Karma can be a bitch at times. Kettles a good referee and his decision showed he was still switched on.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.