Exactly, you wrote "regulation 30 seconds" . Whose "regulation"?
And as for extending beyond 7 mins injury time, Bonne was subbed but I don't recall an injury on top of that..but could be wrong, I was dying seven deaths at that time.
Okay, Prague ......... maybe a better word is 'guidance' to refs to estimate/allow 30 seconds towards time added on. It seems to be the rule of thumb applied by refs at all levels throughout football.
It seems to be a 'guidance'. The referee has absolute authority to add whatever additional time he thinks reasonable: he can add as much time as he sees fit if he believes a player or the bench are unreasonably stringing out effecting a substitution.
Also take into account that Assistants and the 4th official are also involved in accounting for time keeping during the game.
The Laws of the Game state:
Law 7: Duration of
the Match:
Allowance is made by the referee in each half for all time lost in that half through: • substitutions • assessment and/or removal of injured players • wasting time • disciplinary sanctions • stoppages for drinks or other medical reasons permitted by competition rules • any other cause, including any significant delay to a restart (e.g. goal celebrations)
Thanks for posting that, Oggster.
Again, it does not at all refer to "30 seconds per sub", that just appears to be some legend that has sprung up.
My question remains, why should we, the paying customers, not be allowed to know exactly what has ben added on and when? Nobody has answered, but I don't know why more people don't demand it, given the amount of beefing about injury time (throughout the game, listen to any commentary).
If it is now accepted that we need VAR (I certainly do) then we definitely need transparency over time-keeping, and compared with VAR its a technical doddle.
BTW if it really was 3 mins for Mitrovic, at least 2 mins of that shouldn't have been added, because he was hamming it up.
It works very well in Rugby. There is a wider issue and in all honesty, most people's complaint about the length of time added on is around consistency of refereeing. I saw in a recent European game a stoppage of around 50n seconds in added time for a free-kick, but the ref blew his whistle on the dot of the time allocated. In reality, more than 7 minutes should have been added. Refs never add the time on that is lost. We all know that, and players know that. It is the reason so many games are spoilt by game management.
Most games are lucky to have 60 minutes of football and fans are being short changed by this. Why not have a separate time keeper and give us all our money's worth. And of course stamp out time wasting forever? Stroud was justified in adding the time. I am bothered that it shouldn't be a one man crusade of his and all refs need to do the same.
Thought he wasn’t too bad......i’d give him a 7.....got a few things wrong but nothing drastically so. The lino was at fault with the offside, not Stroud.
Thought he was rubbish in the second half. What’s the history that we have with him? Saw some people mention it yesterday but wasn’t certain on the details.
Like others I don’t understand why we can’t have a separate timekeeper and stop the clock when necessary. It’s a simple solution. Stroud like most referees I’ve seen this season may give a free kick for foul but allow the effect of consistent fouling by a team to go unpunished. I’ve noticed we’ve been on the end of that a lot recently and quite often some players are targeted with Williams being a stand out example.
All I'd say about the extra 7 mins is this; Its the longest added on time I've seen this season & probably for a number of seasons. There were no real lengthy stoppages (none that required a stretcher) & no significant time wasting (mainly because neither side were winning & thus trying to "hold on"). Anyone who has seen our home games this season would have seen numerous attempts at time wasting by both us & our opponents (Birmingham)......and none of those games has seen more than 5 mins added on time. Also to add into the mix (as I said up thread) Fulham made a double substitution at the start of the 2nd half so its not as if there were 6 substitutions to take into account.
Stroud might have been right with 7 mins.....if so then I'll be expecting similar or more over our remaining 35 games this season. I doubt whether ANY will be more than 5 mins, unless there is a serious injury (which I hope against btw).
Glad Mutts at least has noticed the different approach to time adding in Europe, and as usual it is us in England who are the exceptions. Why is this?
One possible rational explanation that occurred to me is that maybe, just maybe, there are more genuine injuries in English football due to its physical intensity. But I would have thought somebody would have done some research on that by now, if true.
I am pretty sure they don't add on 30 seconds per sub as a rule on the continent. But at least in Czech football you also don't see a big palava around the actual sub process. Subs leave the field pretty quickly, and hardly ever miking the applause as they go.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the injury front yesterday wasn't Mitrovic down for about 3 minutes, their keeper around 2, Pratley had a bloody nose (maybe a minute?) If so that's around 6 minutes alone.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the injury front yesterday wasn't Mitrovic down for about 3 minutes, their keeper around 2, Pratley had a bloody nose (maybe a minute?) If so that's around 6 minutes alone.
But then if those timings are correct, AND it is "30 seconds per sub", and all six subs are used, then the board should have gone up with 9 minutes on it.
The problem is the lack of consistency and the lack of transparency. I certainly do not hold Stroud responsible for that, but the arrogant cretins who "run" the English game.
In grass roots football, refs add on even less time. They are usually in a hurry to go home or ref another game!
Being half Italian, I think I can provide a controversial response in relation to differences in the UK and Europe with less of a risk. Basically, an Italian, for instance, sees cheating as something you do to win if you can. It simply doesn't bother them as much as it does us. or should I say, it simply doesn't bother us as much as it does you! I'm confused now!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the injury front yesterday wasn't Mitrovic down for about 3 minutes, their keeper around 2, Pratley had a bloody nose (maybe a minute?) If so that's around 6 minutes alone.
But then if those timings are correct, AND it is "30 seconds per sub", and all six subs are used, then the board should have gone up with 9 minutes on it.
The problem is the lack of consistency and the lack of transparency. I certainly do not hold Stroud responsible for that, but the arrogant cretins who "run" the English game.
The two half time subs wouldn't count so that would make it 8 but if 30 seconds are added on for celebrations it's 9.30. Some are saying all refs add on less than it's supposed to be, so if this is accurate then Stroud did the same.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the injury front yesterday wasn't Mitrovic down for about 3 minutes, their keeper around 2, Pratley had a bloody nose (maybe a minute?) If so that's around 6 minutes alone.
You're probably wrong but I'm sure someone who was watching it on tv or has recorded it can confirm the time both players were down injured. I would estimate no more than 60-90 secs each. Its surprising when you actually time it how long a minute is.
Exactly, you wrote "regulation 30 seconds" . Whose "regulation"?
And as for extending beyond 7 mins injury time, Bonne was subbed but I don't recall an injury on top of that..but could be wrong, I was dying seven deaths at that time.
Okay, Prague ......... maybe a better word is 'guidance' to refs to estimate/allow 30 seconds towards time added on. It seems to be the rule of thumb applied by refs at all levels throughout football.
It seems to be a 'guidance'. The referee has absolute authority to add whatever additional time he thinks reasonable: he can add as much time as he sees fit if he believes a player or the bench are unreasonably stringing out effecting a substitution.
Also take into account that Assistants and the 4th official are also involved in accounting for time keeping during the game.
The Laws of the Game state:
Law 7: Duration of
the Match:
Allowance is made by the referee in each half for all time lost in that half through: • substitutions • assessment and/or removal of injured players • wasting time • disciplinary sanctions • stoppages for drinks or other medical reasons permitted by competition rules • any other cause, including any significant delay to a restart (e.g. goal celebrations)
Thanks for posting that, Oggster.
Again, it does not at all refer to "30 seconds per sub", that just appears to be some legend that has sprung up.
My question remains, why should we, the paying customers, not be allowed to know exactly what has ben added on and when? Nobody has answered, but I don't know why more people don't demand it, given the amount of beefing about injury time (throughout the game, listen to any commentary).
If it is now accepted that we need VAR (I certainly do) then we definitely need transparency over time-keeping, and compared with VAR its a technical doddle.
BTW if it really was 3 mins for Mitrovic, at least 2 mins of that shouldn't have been added, because he was hamming it up.
Hello again, Prague! This is the sort of chat we should be having over a pint.
1) The "30 seconds per sub" is not just some legend, it's a rule of thumb guidance that many refs tend to use to allow for time lost for substitutions. Of course, there could be all sorts of variations depending on circumstances during each match - and the referee has absolute authority to add on whatever time he sees fit.
2) Apart from a timekeeper clock installed where the crowd can see it, perhaps on the screen? I can't see what else can practically be done - apart from endless irritating loudspeaker announcements during the game? I wouldn't want that.
3) VAR is coming to all professional levels, whether we like it or not. But again, it's already been proven to further disrupt the flow of the game. Will eventually further time be added on to account for VAR interruptions?
4) Mitrovic ....... if 2 minutes of the 3 minutes was caused by Mitrovic hamming it up, then that's a time wasting situation - and the ref will add it on regardless. You're not going to win, Prague! Ha ha!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the injury front yesterday wasn't Mitrovic down for about 3 minutes, their keeper around 2, Pratley had a bloody nose (maybe a minute?) If so that's around 6 minutes alone.
You're probably wrong but I'm sure someone who was watching it on tv or has recorded it can confirm the time both players were down injured. I would estimate no more than 60-90 secs each. Its surprising when you actually time it how long a minute is.
I have seen a few games, even this season where there have been similar levels of stoppages for the ref to add on 4 or 5 minutes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the injury front yesterday wasn't Mitrovic down for about 3 minutes, their keeper around 2, Pratley had a bloody nose (maybe a minute?) If so that's around 6 minutes alone.
You're probably wrong but I'm sure someone who was watching it on tv or has recorded it can confirm the time both players were down injured. I would estimate no more than 60-90 secs each. Its surprising when you actually time it how long a minute is.
I have seen a few games, even this season where there have been similar levels of stoppages for the ref to add on 4 or 5 minutes.
Yeah fair cop on my Mitrovic argument @Oggy Red :-) I did also have in mind the big screen as the "clock".
But your point 1 remains the one that summarises the problem. The referee has "absolute authority" but there are wide variations in how each one adds on time. I believe that this wide variation needs to be, if not eliminated, then drastically reduced by technology for the same reasons that VAR is coming in.
Apart from Gallagher's booking - which was harsh in the extreme - I didn't think he did a lot wrong. Wasn't his fault the lino didn't spot the offside.
This. Plus I thought there would be at least 6 mins added time. Then the match was delayed again with 2 substitutions in added time.
Mitrovic injury took 2.10 mins. Their goalie injury took 1.15 mins. Pratley nosebleed took 1.30 mins. 3 subs adds another 1.30 mins. Total 6.25 mins = 7 mins added. Then there were 2 subs in added time, which adds a further minute. I don't think too many commenting were concentrating on what happened on the pitch.
Yeah fair cop on my Mitrovic argument @Oggy Red :-) I did also have in mind the big screen as the "clock".
But your point 1 remains the one that summarises the problem. The referee has "absolute authority" but there are wide variations in how each one adds on time. I believe that this wide variation needs to be, if not eliminated, then drastically reduced by technology for the same reasons that VAR is coming in.
I get what you're saying, Prague ..... but it's all down to the referee and his own interpretation; the Laws of the game and guidance for referees allow for that.
Do you know, I believe the game is all the better for human interpretation and perhaps error - even if it fuels controversy? That can add to the tension and passion we feel watching a game of football. Technology can kill all that stone dead. Maybe it's best to leave it just as it is, eh?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the injury front yesterday wasn't Mitrovic down for about 3 minutes, their keeper around 2, Pratley had a bloody nose (maybe a minute?) If so that's around 6 minutes alone.
You're probably wrong but I'm sure someone who was watching it on tv or has recorded it can confirm the time both players were down injured. I would estimate no more than 60-90 secs each. Its surprising when you actually time it how long a minute is.
I have seen a few games, even this season where there have been similar levels of stoppages for the ref to add on 4 or 5 minutes.
That doesn't make it right.
No, but we must demand consistency in these matters. My view is more time should be played in general. Even a village idiot can work out that players waste time because it benefits them to. As that is clearly the case, surely it has to be addressed as for me the practise, whether it is us doing it or opponents, it detracts from the game. That isn't to say Stroud can be a one man beacon of virtue and play more than other refs do.
There were 2 instances in the 2nd half where both sets of players left the pitch for a drink for a couple of minutes as the on pitch treatment was taking so long. The 7 minutes was about right. Then there was a fairly lengthy stoppage during the 7 minutes so, again, the 9 minutes total was about right
Conor's booking was very picky. The second Fulham goal was probably more down to the assistant ref rather than Stroud. But it happened real quick so that is where VAR would have been useful. As for the time added on I thought we would get at least 6 mins as the physios had to come on a few times for a period of time. So I wasn't totally surprised to see 7. But I think it's a good idea to time keep football in the same way rugby is. Half or game ends when the ball goes out of play. But only if it's not a corner. If it goes for a goal-kick or throw in then half or game ends.
Didn't book Knockaert for the most blatant deliberate handball in the box.
Didn't book Bryan for a super late challenge but booked Gallagher for a nothing challenge.
Somehow gave a foul to Fulham when we had the ball in the corner.
No booking for a late tackle behind on Williams in the lead-up to a chance.
Gave Fulham Fergie-level extra time. And then added on another minute on top of that.
I thought he was an absolute joke.
I agree the bookings or lack of, were a joke.
Knockaert handled the ball twice yesterday, the second was ridiculously deliberate because who in their right mind jumps with both arms well above their head?
The challenges by Bryan and Mitrovic throughout the game were poor and both should’ve been booked sooner, you could even make a case for a sending off overall.
For Stroud, he was good yesterday by his standards. And maybe we are looking at things a little differently because of how poor he is. Some decisions were stupid and I think he goes along with whatever he feels like at the time. But I would say on the whole, he was no worse yesterday than any other referee we have had this season.
Conor's booking was very picky. The second Fulham goal was probably more down to the assistant ref rather than Stroud. But it happened real quick so that is where VAR would have been useful. As for the time added on I thought we would get at least 6 mins as the physios had to come on a few times for a period of time. So I wasn't totally surprised to see 7. But I think it's a good idea to time keep football in the same way rugby is. Half or game ends when the ball goes out of play. But only if it's not a corner. If it goes for a goal-kick or throw in then half or game ends.
I don't think it was that quick - I spotted it straight away and I am not quick! But that was not Stroud's fault to be fair.
Didn't think I's ever say this, but Keith Stroud is not the worst referee going.......
Just seen on BBC Sport website a ref sending off a player for not "exiting the pitch in accordance to the laws".
Glentoran player was being subbed & he was 2/3rd's to one side of the pitch. Saw that he was being subbed & naturally went off towards the subs bench as has been the norm for, well, forever. He trotted over to the bench......yes, he actually trotted. He didn't saunter, or shake hands with team mates, or hand the armband over to someone, he actually trotted off. Referee then gave him a yellow card & that being his 2nd he promptly gave him a red. Apart from the fact he took less time than most players ever do to leave the field (go on, watch it) what is the point of a yellow card in that instance ??
Refs really do think its all about them & not the game.
Apart from Gallagher's booking - which was harsh in the extreme - I didn't think he did a lot wrong. Wasn't his fault the lino didn't spot the offside.
Definitely sided with Fulham over us on a number of challenges. Including one of their players elbowing Pearce.
I think Gallagher's booking was more to do with us being pulled up for a number of "fouls" running up to it. The ref felt he had to book someone and connor was the unlucky one. Doesn't make it right but that was my view. Thought the added on time was reasonable given the number of stoppages, but i watched the game on saturday evening after recording it, so i knew the result! If id been there I'd probably have been fuming haha!
Apart from Gallagher's booking - which was harsh in the extreme - I didn't think he did a lot wrong. Wasn't his fault the lino didn't spot the offside.
Definitely sided with Fulham over us on a number of challenges. Including one of their players elbowing Pearce.
What, the one when the ref yellow carded Mitrovic ? If so, he obviously wasn't siding with Fulham.
Apart from Gallagher's booking - which was harsh in the extreme - I didn't think he did a lot wrong. Wasn't his fault the lino didn't spot the offside.
Definitely sided with Fulham over us on a number of challenges. Including one of their players elbowing Pearce.
What, the one when the ref yellow carded Mitrovic ? If so, he obviously wasn't siding with Fulham.
That said, he was looking directly at Pearce and Mitrovic when Pearce was kicked by him and the ref actually looked like he was telling him to behave. That should have been his first booking 😉
Comments
Again, it does not at all refer to "30 seconds per sub", that just appears to be some legend that has sprung up.
My question remains, why should we, the paying customers, not be allowed to know exactly what has ben added on and when? Nobody has answered, but I don't know why more people don't demand it, given the amount of beefing about injury time (throughout the game, listen to any commentary).
If it is now accepted that we need VAR (I certainly do) then we definitely need transparency over time-keeping, and compared with VAR its a technical doddle.
BTW if it really was 3 mins for Mitrovic, at least 2 mins of that shouldn't have been added, because he was hamming it up.
Most games are lucky to have 60 minutes of football and fans are being short changed by this. Why not have a separate time keeper and give us all our money's worth. And of course stamp out time wasting forever? Stroud was justified in adding the time. I am bothered that it shouldn't be a one man crusade of his and all refs need to do the same.
The lino was at fault with the offside, not Stroud.
Stroud like most referees I’ve seen this season may give a free kick for foul but allow the effect of consistent fouling by a team to go unpunished.
I’ve noticed we’ve been on the end of that a lot recently and quite often some players are targeted with Williams being a stand out example.
Stroud might have been right with 7 mins.....if so then I'll be expecting similar or more over our remaining 35 games this season. I doubt whether ANY will be more than 5 mins, unless there is a serious injury (which I hope against btw).
As usual, it was about him.
One possible rational explanation that occurred to me is that maybe, just maybe, there are more genuine injuries in English football due to its physical intensity. But I would have thought somebody would have done some research on that by now, if true.
I am pretty sure they don't add on 30 seconds per sub as a rule on the continent. But at least in Czech football you also don't see a big palava around the actual sub process. Subs leave the field pretty quickly, and hardly ever miking the applause as they go.
The problem is the lack of consistency and the lack of transparency. I certainly do not hold Stroud responsible for that, but the arrogant cretins who "run" the English game.
Being half Italian, I think I can provide a controversial response in relation to differences in the UK and Europe with less of a risk. Basically, an Italian, for instance, sees cheating as something you do to win if you can. It simply doesn't bother them as much as it does us. or should I say, it simply doesn't bother us as much as it does you! I'm confused now!
This is the sort of chat we should be having over a pint.
1) The "30 seconds per sub" is not just some legend, it's a rule of thumb guidance that many refs tend to use to allow for time lost for substitutions. Of course, there could be all sorts of variations depending on circumstances during each match - and the referee has absolute authority to add on whatever time he sees fit.
2) Apart from a timekeeper clock installed where the crowd can see it, perhaps on the screen? I can't see what else can practically be done - apart from endless irritating loudspeaker announcements during the game? I wouldn't want that.
3) VAR is coming to all professional levels, whether we like it or not. But again, it's already been proven to further disrupt the flow of the game. Will eventually further time be added on to account for VAR interruptions?
4) Mitrovic ....... if 2 minutes of the 3 minutes was caused by Mitrovic hamming it up, then that's a time wasting situation - and the ref will add it on regardless. You're not going to win, Prague! Ha ha!
But your point 1 remains the one that summarises the problem. The referee has "absolute authority" but there are wide variations in how each one adds on time. I believe that this wide variation needs to be, if not eliminated, then drastically reduced by technology for the same reasons that VAR is coming in.
Didn't book Bryan for a super late challenge but booked Gallagher for a nothing challenge.
Somehow gave a foul to Fulham when we had the ball in the corner.
No booking for a late tackle behind on Williams in the lead-up to a chance.
Gave Fulham Fergie-level extra time. And then added on another minute on top of that.
I thought he was an absolute joke.
Then the match was delayed again with 2 substitutions in added time.
Mitrovic injury took 2.10 mins.
Their goalie injury took 1.15 mins.
Pratley nosebleed took 1.30 mins.
3 subs adds another 1.30 mins.
Total 6.25 mins = 7 mins added.
Then there were 2 subs in added time, which adds a further minute.
I don't think too many commenting were concentrating on what happened on the pitch.
Do you know, I believe the game is all the better for human interpretation and perhaps error - even if it fuels controversy?
That can add to the tension and passion we feel watching a game of football. Technology can kill all that stone dead. Maybe it's best to leave it just as it is, eh?
Knockaert handled the ball twice yesterday, the second was ridiculously deliberate because who in their right mind jumps with both arms well above their head?
The challenges by Bryan and Mitrovic throughout the game were poor and both should’ve been booked sooner, you could even make a case for a sending off overall.
For Stroud, he was good yesterday by his standards. And maybe we are looking at things a little differently because of how poor he is. Some decisions were stupid and I think he goes along with whatever he feels like at the time. But I would say on the whole, he was no worse yesterday than any other referee we have had this season.
Didn't think I's ever say this, but Keith Stroud is not the worst referee going.......
Just seen on BBC Sport website a ref sending off a player for not "exiting the pitch in accordance to the laws".
Glentoran player was being subbed & he was 2/3rd's to one side of the pitch. Saw that he was being subbed & naturally went off towards the subs bench as has been the norm for, well, forever. He trotted over to the bench......yes, he actually trotted. He didn't saunter, or shake hands with team mates, or hand the armband over to someone, he actually trotted off. Referee then gave him a yellow card & that being his 2nd he promptly gave him a red. Apart from the fact he took less time than most players ever do to leave the field (go on, watch it) what is the point of a yellow card in that instance ??
Refs really do think its all about them & not the game.
If so, he obviously wasn't siding with Fulham.