Full confidence in our professional refs
With this in mind which error will cost us in the next 4 games:
1. A clear penalty not being given
2. A foul outside the box being given as a penalty against us
3. A clear dive being given as a penalty against us
4. A sending off the should not have been against us
5. A foul against us which is a clear 2nd yellow/sending off not given.
6. A a goal standing that should have been disallowed against us.
7. An opposition centre back bringing a high powered assault weapon onto the pitch and the ref allowing its use?
Feel free to pick one per game as a sort of predictor league.
1. A clear penalty not being given
2. A foul outside the box being given as a penalty against us
3. A clear dive being given as a penalty against us
4. A sending off the should not have been against us
5. A foul against us which is a clear 2nd yellow/sending off not given.
6. A a goal standing that should have been disallowed against us.
7. An opposition centre back bringing a high powered assault weapon onto the pitch and the ref allowing its use?
Feel free to pick one per game as a sort of predictor league.
Comments
3. A clear dive being given as a penalty against us; Payet is sent off and Ozil scores.
Options 1 and 2 have been so commonplace in our games recently so it will probably continue.
Given when Carroll wins a header on halfway.
We need 8. Goal disallowed that should have been given.
Goal disallowed for offside, in which no one was offside.
If it had happened in South America he would have been burger filling before the day was out. ;biggrin
Separately, at least our kids can get a pen...
It's just not the norm and not cricket mate.
If you are the team scored against, 'cos the ref lets it go on to Fergie time, you feel miffed, don't you?
I know many did, in the scenario I allude to.
How many other times have you seen a ref do that when the ball is in the penalty area like that.....
Barely any and that's why it's a rubbish thing to do.
If he lets the goal stand and blows up after the kick off.....who complains, virtually nobody.
IMO
But I don't think there is anything in the rules that says a ref has to let an action complete past the time he thinks the game should end. The game is over when he decides it is, not when he thinks people won't mind.
It's clearly statistically very rare, but it would be more surprising if it didn't happen every now and again, imo.
I'm just surprised Mark Clattenburg wasn't the ref.
#ItsAllAboutYouMarkClattenburg
Don't see it as 'wrong'.
Be honest, how often have you shouted at the telly/live game (and I paraphrase to keep within site rules)
'We've had the time added on, why are we still playing, Mr Referee?'
Someone is always going to want the game to go on, and someone is always going to want it to finish.
I'd assume refs decide that they will blow up when the watch shows a specific time, and that's what they do.
A Man with a dirty weapon ,,,has no friends
;biggrin
As usual, I think the problem here is consistency. I think it's a bit of a convention to allow an attack to be completed so if it's not going to be applied consistently then they should make sure the game finishes on 90 mins. Rules say its at discretion of referee at the moment.
Edit - and on official twitter ;wahoo