| Villla - The timekeeping! 16:39 - Jan 3 with 4008 views | PinnerPaul |
Just watched the 90' through
Added time 1st half
Kodja Injury = 1
Lumley injury = 6 1/2
QPR Goal celebs = 1
Pav injury + Villa subs x 2 = 2
QPR Sub = 1
Villa Goal = 1
QPR Sub = 1
Villa Sub = 1/2
I make that 14. Clearly ref has not added anything on for goal celebs nor the timewasting.
Have to say didn't see much wrong with us timewasting wise in 90' - nowhere near justifying the levels of angst on HERE about it!
Added time - he actually played 13 - we made a sub that took a minute, given he's booked both Lumley and Bidwell for timewasting - he's added on 1 more minute for that - that seems fair to me.
|  | | |  |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 18:20 - Jan 3 with 3227 views | danehoop |
How dare you come on here and write informative fact based rationale posts!! |  |
| Never knowingly understood |
| |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 20:57 - Jan 3 with 3023 views | FrankRightguard |
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! |  | | |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 22:11 - Jan 3 with 2934 views | smegma |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 18:20 - Jan 3 by danehoop |
How dare you come on here and write informative fact based rationale posts!! |
Or sticking up for a ref who was pony.
The fourth official indicated 11 minutes would be played. He played nigh on 30% more. | | | |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 22:20 - Jan 3 with 2911 views | Lblock |
And your view on Lumley headbutting Kodja's boot would be that Lumley should've been arrested for assault no doubt?
I appreciate you ref's are a tight knit bunch but come on, you've hardly ever concurred that a ref has been terrible on here once.
So as in the games themselves.... one man in black, green, yellow is right and 10's of thousands watching are wrong?????? |  |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 22:30 - Jan 3 with 2882 views | CiderwithRsie |
I thought that was an interesting run through from PP, and not an endorsement of the ref's approach to the foul on Lumley (which wasn't mentioned.) | | | |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 02:33 - Jan 4 with 2777 views | timcocking |
Quite right, we don't really do much time wasting. Certainly less than every other team we play. Somebody tell me when we last had a player feigning injury?
. |  | | |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 10:17 - Jan 4 with 2596 views | francisbowles |
I thought the ref was ok, he got 5.8 on here and 5 from Clive. Refs who were real 'pony' have fared much worse than that. I personally marked him higher than that.
Thought he kept control, was fair to both teams, got most decisions correct, the added time was reasonable and it was a normal championship experience.
The injury to Lumley, I don't think he really saw the foul and only took action when he saw the outcome. i.e. blood meaning there was contact and therefore a yellow for dangerous play. (Pinner will know the latest correct terminology.) There were similar missed incidents in other matches this week e.g. Shelvey on Pogba.
I've seen a lot worse than Mr Linnington. [Post edited 4 Jan 2019 10:19]
| | | |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 10:21 - Jan 4 with 2578 views | daveB |
do they normally add on 1 minute for goals and 1 min for subs, if that was the case we'd have at least 6 minutes every week just for the subs |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 10:23 - Jan 4 with 2578 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 02:33 - Jan 4 by timcocking |
Quite right, we don't really do much time wasting. Certainly less than every other team we play. Somebody tell me when we last had a player feigning injury?
. |
Furlong against Villa. |  |
| |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 10:47 - Jan 4 with 2531 views | Hunterhoop |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 10:21 - Jan 4 by daveB |
do they normally add on 1 minute for goals and 1 min for subs, if that was the case we'd have at least 6 minutes every week just for the subs |
It’s 30 seconds, isn’t it?! No idea why Pinner is saying one minute. That would be ludicrous, and clearly isn’t happening in other games, as you show. |  | | |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 11:22 - Jan 4 with 2462 views | Tonto |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 22:20 - Jan 3 by Lblock |
And your view on Lumley headbutting Kodja's boot would be that Lumley should've been arrested for assault no doubt?
I appreciate you ref's are a tight knit bunch but come on, you've hardly ever concurred that a ref has been terrible on here once.
So as in the games themselves.... one man in black, green, yellow is right and 10's of thousands watching are wrong?????? |
I think has just demonstrated that in this case, yes there were wrong (and I'll add probably biased in their opinion at the same time). |  |
| |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 13:10 - Jan 4 with 2378 views | jonno |
I have also just watched the full 90 mins again and to be honest any time wasting we did was certainly no worse than what we see most weeks from other sides. The foul on Lumley was clearly a red card but it's not fair to blame the referee who would not have been able to see exactly what happened. I don't think he even realised there had been contact until he saw the extent of the injury at which point he dished out a yellow card which seems fair enough. We defended very well and Villa hardly had a decent chance on goal apart from the goals - we should be complimenting the team on that and their "game management" (slowing the game down) because that is something we have been poor at in recent times. |  | | |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 13:49 - Jan 4 with 2288 views | PinnerPaul |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 22:11 - Jan 3 by smegma |
Or sticking up for a ref who was pony.
The fourth official indicated 11 minutes would be played. He played nigh on 30% more. |
Added time is ALWAYS the minimum that's added on - you sound like 'our' commentator on the match!
If it was the maximum, we could have taken 11 minutes with that sub!
That took a minute plus we were wasting time - criticise refs when required but you can't criticise this one on his timekeeping - except to say he maybe should have added on 14 minutes in the first place! | | | |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 13:57 - Jan 4 with 2271 views | PinnerPaul |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 22:20 - Jan 3 by Lblock |
And your view on Lumley headbutting Kodja's boot would be that Lumley should've been arrested for assault no doubt?
I appreciate you ref's are a tight knit bunch but come on, you've hardly ever concurred that a ref has been terrible on here once.
So as in the games themselves.... one man in black, green, yellow is right and 10's of thousands watching are wrong?????? |
Well the '10's of thousands' are usually a tad bias!
By your logic the '10s of thousands' telling Lumley to get on with it, when he had blood streaming from his face were right!!!!!!!!!!!
As DaveB and others have said in real time the Kodja incident looked innocuous but clearly he caught Joe so should have been a red.
Interestingly I DID argue with many on here who told me the Angel Rangel boot to opoo face (that caused far more damage) was Ok because it was totally accidental! THAT was a red (and a pen)
All I try to do on here with referees is put my QPR hat away and explain why I think the referee has made a decision based on the fact that I am qualified current referee.
A 'fans' view is always going to be different - you don't referee for 16 years without realising that the '10s of thoudands' including managers/coaches etc ALWAYS view the game from their own perspective - witness Dean Smith's ridiculous assertion here that we stared wasting time in minute 2 - a risible claim. | | | |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 14:01 - Jan 4 with 2265 views | PinnerPaul |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 10:21 - Jan 4 by daveB |
do they normally add on 1 minute for goals and 1 min for subs, if that was the case we'd have at least 6 minutes every week just for the subs |
No - not always - that's a good point DaveB
Goals - sometimes if celebrations take too long.
Subs - usually 30 seconds - but it obviously varies!
The last Villa one near 90' took about 20 seconds - our one in added time a full minute and a few seconds on top of that. | | | |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 14:35 - Jan 4 with 2229 views | TacticalR |
@PinnerPaul 'As DaveB and others have said in real time the Kodja incident looked innocuous but clearly he caught Joe so should have been a red.'
If the ref didn't see it, or saw it and it looked innocuous, can he then give a red card? Wouldn't that be guesswork by the ref? |  |
| |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 15:53 - Jan 4 with 2173 views | PinnerPaul |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 14:35 - Jan 4 by TacticalR |
@PinnerPaul 'As DaveB and others have said in real time the Kodja incident looked innocuous but clearly he caught Joe so should have been a red.'
If the ref didn't see it, or saw it and it looked innocuous, can he then give a red card? Wouldn't that be guesswork by the ref? |
If he didn't see it - it can't be a yellow.
'Endangering safety of an opponent' is a red - doesn't have to be excessive force or deliberate.
A good example of that is the Bobby Zamora red card at LR a few years back - player came from behind him, barely any contact with the guys face, but was still a red.
You're quite right - if referee hasn't seen it than he can't give a red, but can't give a yellow either I don't think - that would have to be a 'reckless' challenge - if he hasn't seen it or thinks there's nothing in it - how can he give a yellow?
For me, yellow is a bit of a cop out - its either a red or nothing based on the fact that he hasn't seen it or deems it just careless, but clearly the injury tells you it HAS endangered Joe's 'safety'! | | | |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 20:25 - Jan 4 with 2078 views | TacticalR |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 15:53 - Jan 4 by PinnerPaul |
If he didn't see it - it can't be a yellow.
'Endangering safety of an opponent' is a red - doesn't have to be excessive force or deliberate.
A good example of that is the Bobby Zamora red card at LR a few years back - player came from behind him, barely any contact with the guys face, but was still a red.
You're quite right - if referee hasn't seen it than he can't give a red, but can't give a yellow either I don't think - that would have to be a 'reckless' challenge - if he hasn't seen it or thinks there's nothing in it - how can he give a yellow?
For me, yellow is a bit of a cop out - its either a red or nothing based on the fact that he hasn't seen it or deems it just careless, but clearly the injury tells you it HAS endangered Joe's 'safety'! |
I see what you are saying. Maybe the reality is that he was prepared to guess a yellow but not guess a red? | |
| |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 20:28 - Jan 4 with 2075 views | smegma |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 14:01 - Jan 4 by PinnerPaul |
No - not always - that's a good point DaveB
Goals - sometimes if celebrations take too long.
Subs - usually 30 seconds - but it obviously varies!
The last Villa one near 90' took about 20 seconds - our one in added time a full minute and a few seconds on top of that. |
Do refs ever criticise their fellow refs is a more apt question ??? | | | |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 02:10 - Jan 5 with 1958 views | JAPRANGERS |
Thanks Pinner for your knowledgeable insights. Very interesting discourse!
May I ask out of interest, where do you do your refereeing? I mean, which league?? |  | | |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 09:43 - Jan 5 with 1860 views | Antti_Heinola |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 15:53 - Jan 4 by PinnerPaul |
If he didn't see it - it can't be a yellow.
'Endangering safety of an opponent' is a red - doesn't have to be excessive force or deliberate.
A good example of that is the Bobby Zamora red card at LR a few years back - player came from behind him, barely any contact with the guys face, but was still a red.
You're quite right - if referee hasn't seen it than he can't give a red, but can't give a yellow either I don't think - that would have to be a 'reckless' challenge - if he hasn't seen it or thinks there's nothing in it - how can he give a yellow?
For me, yellow is a bit of a cop out - its either a red or nothing based on the fact that he hasn't seen it or deems it just careless, but clearly the injury tells you it HAS endangered Joe's 'safety'! |
Agree with you Pinner - for me, it was a clear red and not sure how it could be anything else. If the ref didn't 'see' the contact, there's ample evidence to demonstrate it and he certainly wold have 'seen' that Kodija had no need to make contact. Therefpre he made contact, therefore it was deliberate (not that that matters as you say), therefore it's a red.
I mean, come on. You can't tell me a ref can't give a red if he's not sure contact was made or didn't see it, but on closer inspection a guy's nose is hanging off, but he's not allowed to put two and two together? |  |
| |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 10:09 - Jan 5 with 1828 views | loftboy |
As a card was issued it now means the FA can’t impose anymore sanctions as the ref was deemed to have seen it, had he not carded and said I didn’t see it then I would expect a charge of violent conduct. Maybe it’s time for a rugby style grassing up system. |  |
| |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 10:58 - Jan 5 with 1794 views | TacticalR |
| Villla - The timekeeping! on 10:09 - Jan 5 by loftboy |
As a card was issued it now means the FA can’t impose anymore sanctions as the ref was deemed to have seen it, had he not carded and said I didn’t see it then I would expect a charge of violent conduct. Maybe it’s time for a rugby style grassing up system. |
Or good old VAR. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
