VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

Is there a rule where if the losing team does the time wasting, it doesn’t count?

It wouldn’t have made a difference, but Onana wasting a minute to take a free kick, only for the ref blow for full time right on 7 mins. It just felt odd.
 
Golden Nugget said:
Is there a rule where if the losing team does the time wasting, it doesn’t count?

It wouldn’t have made a difference, but Onana wasting a minute to take a free kick, only for the ref blow for full time right on 7 mins. It just felt odd.
Click to expand...
Time wasting is the only rule in the game that depends on the current score line isn't it.
First half and level the ref never cares if a keeper takes a minute. Yet later if a team is winning he'll claim down on them taking 30seconds.
 
Spurs v Chelsea. So far in this game I’ve seen what looked like a red from Caiceido (at at least a yellow) for an over the ball kick on opponents shin, and then a Kulusevski elbow on Lavia’s head. I get that the ref can miss incidents but how VAR can clear both of these is mind boggling to me.
 
Sandikan said:
Time wasting is the only rule in the game that depends on the current score line isn't it.
First half and level the ref never cares if a keeper takes a minute. Yet later if a team is winning he'll claim down on them taking 30seconds.
Click to expand...

My originally thinking was had we scored from it, surely the ref would have added on time for the celebration + the time Onana wasted - but as we didn’t, nothing was done.

You have a great point though and I was overthinking it
 
WeePat said:
Both were red cards imo.
Click to expand...
Perhaps this is a distinction without a difference but Caicedo's was a clear orange card for me - not a stonewall red but probably worse than most yellows.

I can't recall seeing a player fly in elbow first like fecking Tony Jaa and connect with the opposing player's head. Absolutely egregious decision to not send him off.
 
TheGame said:
Absolute shocker of a decision in the game today. Felt it was a clear shove in the back and a pen.

Click to expand...

Does anyone doubt that PGMOL are now punishing Wolves (O'Neill more specifically) for putting the refs in the spotlight? It's clear they can just make whatever decisions they feel like without repercussion - the result was a complete sham when you actually look through what happened. West Ham score from a corner that was not a corner, West Ham score after a clear foul on a CB who gets flatlined but say the ball then coming out and being scored 10 seconds later is a different phase of play? Then there are stonewall penalties turned down, the Buendia one you can argue might be a fk, but it would be a second yellow. The other one is just a clear pen.
 
Until refs are removed from VAR then nothing will change as they are either looking to ref the game themselves or they just stick up for their mates on the field.

Way more pressure should be put on Howard Webb in my opinion, the guy is protected by the media for some reason but he is failing at his job at a alarming rate.
 
I thought yesterdays ref was one of the better refs we've had in a while... Let a lot of little stuff go (and was fairly consistent with it) so there was a decent flow to the game. Should have booked Bruno though.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Does anyone doubt that PGMOL are now punishing Wolves (O'Neill more specifically) for putting the refs in the spotlight? It's clear they can just make whatever decisions they feel like without repercussion - the result was a complete sham when you actually look through what happened. West Ham score from a corner that was not a corner, West Ham score after a clear foul on a CB who gets flatlined but say the ball then coming out and being scored 10 seconds later is a different phase of play? Then there are stonewall penalties turned down, the Buendia one you can argue might be a fk, but it would be a second yellow. The other one is just a clear pen.
Click to expand...

They only wanted it removed because they were regularly screwed over last season. The referees would be doing well to be worse towards them this season.
 
Withnail said:
MOTD trying to claim it shouldn't have been a red card on Robertson was a bit mad. He's the last man and takes the guy out.
Click to expand...
Lineker banging on as though it was a completely mystifying decision was just grating, and that’s putting aside the fact he’s supposed to be eliciting the opinions of the pundits rather than taking centre stage.
 
Withnail said:
MOTD trying to claim it shouldn't have been a red card on Robertson was a bit mad. He's the last man and takes the guy out.
Click to expand...
I thought it was a little tricky in the sense that the red is for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity but no opportunity is actually denied. Am I right in thinking advantage was played and that the goal would have counted if Jimenez had scored? The ball was always going to him and he got his shot in. Makes it a bit of an edge case for me and I’m not sure the rules are that clear in those cases. If I’m wrong and the whistle sounded before Jimenez finished, then it’s a stonewall red. But you’re not supposed to have it both ways: the obvious goalscoring opportunity and the red for denying said opportunity. Fulham also shouldn’t have had a freekick if advantage was played.
 
Jev said:
I thought it was a little tricky in the sense that the red is for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity but no opportunity is actually denied. Am I right in thinking advantage was played and that the goal would have counted if Jimenez had scored? The ball was always going to him and he got his shot in. Makes it a bit of an edge case for me and I’m not sure the rules are that clear in those cases. If I’m wrong and the whistle sounded before Jimenez finished, then it’s a stonewall red. But you’re not supposed to have it both ways: the obvious goalscoring opportunity and the red for denying said opportunity. Fulham also shouldn’t have had a freekick if advantage was played.
Click to expand...
It’s not an advantage if you don’t score.
 
acnumber9 said:
It’s not an advantage if you don’t score.
Click to expand...
Yes. That’s the very idea of the advantage rule: to give you the best chance to score. The point of the rule is not to reward you for screwing up by giving you two chances.
 
Jev said:
Yes. That’s the very idea of the advantage rule: to give you the best chance to score. The point of the rule is not to reward you for screwing up by giving you two chances.
Click to expand...
Play regularly gets pulled back if the advantage dissipates. Which happened very quickly there.
 
acnumber9 said:
Play regularly gets pulled back if the advantage dissipates. Which happened very quickly there.
Click to expand...
Yes, if it turns out the advantage doesn’t materialise. This clearly was an advantage, it was a clear-cut chance.
 
Here are the rules from the FA website. Not clear-cut but as I interpret them, it should not have been a red (but instead a yellow) due to the bolded part:

Advantage

If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play. However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.
 
Not when you get the shot in. If play broke down before they had a chance to score, then yes, it gets pulled back.
 
Jev said:
Here are the rules from the FA website. Not clear-cut but as I interpret them, it should not have been a red (but instead a yellow) due to the bolded part:

Advantage

If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play. However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.
Click to expand...

That applies when the referee never stops play for the offence. This didn’t happen here. He stopped play, albeit after waiting a couple of seconds to see how play develops. Which he’s entitled to do.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
That applies when the referee never stops play for the offence. This didn’t happen here. He stopped play, albeit after waiting a couple of seconds to see how play develops. Which he’s entitled to do.
Click to expand...
It’s a mistake from the referee. When you play the advantage, and it very clearly is an advantage, you’re not supposed to pull back play just because the chance is not taken.
 
Jev said:
It’s a mistake from the referee. When you play the advantage, and it very clearly is an advantage, you’re not supposed to pull back play just because the chance is not taken.
Click to expand...

That’s a matter for debate. And the advantage needs to be taken in the context of the foul. If he’s going to bring play back for a foul on the half way line then he’ll have a much lower threshold for what constitutes an advantage than a red card/free kick on the edge of the box. How long they let play develop is a grey area. But it didn’t feel unusually long watching it in real time.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
That’s a matter for debate. And the advantage needs to be taken in the context of the foul. If he’s going to bring play back for a foul on the half way line then he’ll have a much lower threshold for what constitutes an advantage than a red card/free kick on the edge of the box. How long they let play develop is a grey area. But it didn’t feel unusually long watching it in real time.
Click to expand...
It’s a grey area, yeah. That’s why these comments about the red being stonewall strike me as more emotional than anything else. It’s an edge case, and an interesting one at that.
 
Jev said:
It’s a grey area, yeah. That’s why these comments about the red being stonewall strike me as more emotional than anything else. It’s an edge case, and an interesting one at that.
Click to expand...

I think the foul itself is a stone wall sending off. Even without the DOGSO it’s probably violent enough for a straight red. I agree that the way advantage was used is more of a matter of debate.
 
Jev said:
It’s a grey area, yeah. That’s why these comments about the red being stonewall strike me as more emotional than anything else. It’s an edge case, and an interesting one at that.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen it at all but I always thought if advantage is played and someone else takes a shot advantage should be over right away.

This is of course opposite to my view in rugby.

As clear as mud
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I think the foul itself is a stone wall sending off. Even without the DOGSO it’s probably violent enough for a straight red. I agree that the way advantage was used is more of a matter of debate.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a stone wall sending off. The referee puts the whistle in the mouth and waits a second to see whether it's an immediate goal from the rebound before he blows it when it isn't. He never gestures for advantage. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the decision and any other decision would have been bad.
 
FortunaUtd said:
Yes, it is a stone wall sending off. The referee puts the whistle in the mouth and waits a second to see whether it's an immediate goal from the rebound before he blows it when it isn't. He never gestures for advantage. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the decision and any other decision would have been bad.
Click to expand...
How is that not playing the advantage, though? Still means Fulham had it both ways, they got a clear-cut chance and a red for denying said chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.