A&H

Bellingham Red Card

wazztie16

wazztie16

Level 4 Referee
Level 4 Referee

Jude is sent off after the final whistle for, I presume, OFFINABUS.

Goal scored by Real Madrid but whistle had been blown a little before it went in.

I haven't seen the match or highlights etc, only going on the above link.

If it's to be believed that the whistle was blown as the cross came in, what on earth was the referee thinking?
 
The Referee Store
wazztie16 said:

Jude is sent off after the final whistle for, I presume, OFFINABUS.

Goal scored by Real Madrid but whistle had been blown a little before it went in.

I haven't seen the match or highlights etc, only going on the above link.

If it's to be believed that the whistle was blown as the cross came in, what on earth was the referee thinking?
Click to expand...
8:40 had been played, of a minimum 7 added. Real Madrid had already just had a corner which got flicked on and went out of the penalty area. It isn't fair on the defending team to extend time beyond what you are intending to play simply because the attacking side were just about to cross the ball.
 
RustyRef said:
He blows the whistle here. Clearly no chance of scoring from there and a safe enough position to end it.

View attachment 7171
Click to expand...
He puts his whistle to his mouth and takes it away again, not blowing until the ball is in the air and the third blast is as the ball goes in the goal.

For me he should do one of two things to avoid any possible flare ups, blow earlier as the first corner was cleared or delay and allow the goal. As sole arbitrator of time he could argue either case and would surely have been better overall for the game.
 
ARF said:
8:40 had been played, of a minimum 7 added. Real Madrid had already just had a corner which got flicked on and went out of the penalty area. It isn't fair on the defending team to extend time beyond what you are intending to play simply because the attacking side were just about to cross the ball.
Click to expand...

I agree it isn't fair on the DT, but surely for your own match control in a game that's currently a draw, it makes sense to allow it to play out to a more neutral area? Even an attacking throw in before the team has taken it would surely be preferable?

We've now got 2 different posters stating that the whistle was blown when the ball was away from goal, player facing towards the sideline, edge of the PA, but also that the whistle was blown when the ball was in the air (towards goal), and the final blast was with the ball going into the net.

I just wouldn't have expected the second claimed decision from a referee in La Liga, though if RustyRef IS correct, then I can completely understand it.
 
He had a chance to blow as the ball was going out of the box, the ball was going away from goal for the first couple of seconds of the clip (he even put the whistle to his lips), or even before the player faked the first cross, once he decided to let play continue even for that extra second it became an attacking opportunity and IMHO he has to let the opportunity play out.

Doesn't look great from the ref's perspective.

But this is also one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't. If the goal stood, then Valencia kick off as to why an extra minute and a half was added on
 
Really poor timing.

But look, he’s made this mistake so we don’t have to.

If ever there was a great clip to explain why you should always blow when in the ball is in neutral, this is it.

Complete with a resulting red for arguably the best player in the world right now (tm).
 
wazztie16 said:
I agree it isn't fair on the DT, but surely for your own match control in a game that's currently a draw, it makes sense to allow it to play out to a more neutral area? Even an attacking throw in before the team has taken it would surely be preferable?

We've now got 2 different posters stating that the whistle was blown when the ball was away from goal, player facing towards the sideline, edge of the PA, but also that the whistle was blown when the ball was in the air (towards goal), and the final blast was with the ball going into the net.

I just wouldn't have expected the second claimed decision from a referee in La Liga, though if RustyRef IS correct, then I can completely understand it.
Click to expand...
To be honest, when I first watched it I thought the whistle was blown before the cross, but having watched it again it appears the whistle goes just as/very slightly after the ball is kicked. As @MDempster points out above, it seems bizarre that he had the opportunity to blow (and looked like he was going to) two seconds before, and then waits until the ball is about to be put into the box for some reason.
 
santa sangria said:
Really poor timing.

But look, he’s made this mistake so we don’t have to.

If ever there was a great clip to explain why you should always blow when in the ball is in neutral, this is it.

Complete with a resulting red for arguably the best player in the world right now (tm).
Click to expand...
Imo this is an argument for a law change regarding time. I can't think of another sport where this sort of thing can happen - normally, there's an independent clock visible to players (like basketball) or the game ends when the ball is next out of play (like rugby).
 
santa sangria said:
Ball next out of play would be a great rule change
Click to expand...
Great idea in theory, think the application of it would be far more challenging and the laws around timekeeping would need to be changed completely.

You could have 8 minutes added on, and then a team successfully keeping hold of the ball for 3/4 minutes in their attempts to score. 90 minute games suddenly become 100/110 minute games. So the likely suggestion is time is up at 90 minutes which would then increase timewasting.

It works well in rugby because a foul is penalised with a point scoring opportunity. The winning team could effectively kill the game by persistent fouling until the ball inevitably goes out of play.

I don't think it needs changing as 99.9% of full time whistles will be blown without controversy. The 0.01% everyone else will just need to live with.
 
I've had a few games, where the better team needs a goal in extra time. So they are relentless. Everything is a direct attack, and the minutes start to tick past.

Obviously you have the coaches screaming to end the game.

I personally in those rare scenarios wish there was a hard stop in place.

As it is a referee judgement call, so if a team end up getting a goal, you are screwed.

Imagine Dawins 90+9 goal at grassroots. Good luck.
 
OldNavyRef said:
Imagine Dawins 90+9 goal at grassroots. Good luck.
Click to expand...
The really funny thing about all that fuss is that NFO got a good minute of playing time after the game did restart - it's pretty clear that the ref didn't consider that goal to be a "buzzer beater" at all! Given he'd cautioned two player for delaying restarts he was clearly intending to play at least until +9 on his watch.
 
I have, and I'd imagine everyone else has, had situation where you think "I'll blow up next time the ball is in a neutral position".
Then a team get's a break up the other end, gets a corner. You let them take a corner and they get another. Then they get a 3rd corner, before you know it you've ran 3-4 minutes over the time you intended and you're thinking "if they score now, the team that concede are going to go mad"

A law that once the additional time is up, the ball must be in clear defensive possession OR out of play, would be a handy one.
 
RefereeX said:
I have, and I'd imagine everyone else has, had situation where you think "I'll blow up next time the ball is in a neutral position".
Then a team get's a break up the other end, gets a corner. You let them take a corner and they get another. Then they get a 3rd corner, before you know it you've ran 3-4 minutes over the time you intended and you're thinking "if they score now, the team that concede are going to go mad"

A law that once the additional time is up, the ball must be in clear defensive possession OR out of play, would be a handy one.
Click to expand...
If ball goes dead and time has elapsed unless it's a penalty it's game over for me.
Sure you'll get some moans but it's always easier to defend something correct in law. Play is not extended for a corner and the more we reinforce that, the less controversial it will become.
 
JamesL said:
If ball goes dead and time has elapsed unless it's a penalty it's game over for me.
Sure you'll get some moans but it's always easier to defend something correct in law. Play is not extended for a corner and the more we reinforce that, the less controversial it will become.
Click to expand...
It's a fair point. Admittedly it's been a long time since I've had a situation that extended, but it always felt 'expected' that the team get to take their corner. I don't disagree with you though.
 
RefereeX said:
It's a fair point. Admittedly it's been a long time since I've had a situation that extended, but it always felt 'expected' that the team get to take their corner. I don't disagree with you though.
Click to expand...
Ultimately you have to ask them to put the shoe on the other foot, and what they would expect if it was at their end.
Almost certainly the answer would be for the half/match to end at the correct time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top