And lets be honest, the ref would have probably played for another 20 or 30 seconds if not for Haalands headloss and the lack of intent from City to go for a winner.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
DJ's point is that if Arsenal were wasting lots of time then there would generally be a lower than average ball in play time. There was a higher than average ball in play time. His point is valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no DJ's point was that the second half the ball was in play loads, which has zero to do with the time added on. Its not valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If Arsenal were time wasting a lot then the ball wouldn't be in play so much would it? You cannot time waste whilst the ball is in play. (ball in play doesn't mean on the pitch, means active).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you can, if you waste time at every opportunity compared to a team that never do it then its possible to waste more time in a game that the ball is in play more..... there is more than one factor involved in adding on time, not just time wasting. If the game last longer then there is more chance of the ball being in play for longer.
And time spent with the ball in play or out of play is not one of them.
did think this one through as much today Barry ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you time waste when the ball is in play? Apart from holding on to possession of the ball? Which isn't time wasting, it's just part of the game?
Give me one example of how you can time waste whilst the ball is in play, meaning the ref should add more stoppage time on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you cant but thats irrelvant.
If a team have the ball in play for 35mins in one half and the other 10 mins is all spent by time wasting , then more time is added on in comparison to a team that has the ball in play for 30 mins and only 1 min of that is spent time wasting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the other 14 minutes you have not accounted for then? Why is it longer than the 10 minutes in the game where someone was "time wasting" more?
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
And over 3 minutes were added on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finished in the 100th minute didn’t it? If it was 7 minutes, then two mins added on for Timber and then 1 minute for the goal celebration, what’s the issue?
======
Exactly.
It was comical when Martinelli dropped to the ground only to rise like a phoenix and chase after the ball once Oliver ignored him 😹
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/13220602/man-city-v-arsenal-was-leandro-trossard-hard-done-by
0.84 seconds between the whistle being blown and Trossard kicking it
If that's the rule then they should revise it but until then I just expect it to be applied to all clubs equally
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 4 minutes ago
Context of the gameThe ref was meant to add more on because City passed it sideways for 35 minutes???
The ref added a lot of time on for both halves, more than covering the "lost" time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t be that stupid to think that’s a sequitur surely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh i believe he can
Oooh "sequitur"
Check out Wordsworth over here
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 57 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
DJ's point is that if Arsenal were wasting lots of time then there would generally be a lower than average ball in play time. There was a higher than average ball in play time. His point is valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no DJ's point was that the second half the ball was in play loads, which has zero to do with the time added on. Its not valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If Arsenal were time wasting a lot then the ball wouldn't be in play so much would it? You cannot time waste whilst the ball is in play. (ball in play doesn't mean on the pitch, means active).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you can, if you waste time at every opportunity compared to a team that never do it then its possible to waste more time in a game that the ball is in play more..... there is more than one factor involved in adding on time, not just time wasting. If the game last longer then there is more chance of the ball being in play for longer.
And time spent with the ball in play or out of play is not one of them.
did think this one through as much today Barry ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you time waste when the ball is in play? Apart from holding on to possession of the ball? Which isn't time wasting, it's just part of the game?
Give me one example of how you can time waste whilst the ball is in play, meaning the ref should add more stoppage time on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you cant but thats irrelvant.
If a team have the ball in play for 35mins in one half and the other 10 mins is all spent by time wasting , then more time is added on in comparison to a team that has the ball in play for 30 mins and only 1 min of that is spent time wasting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the other 14 minutes you have not accounted for then? Why is it longer than the 10 minutes in the game where someone was "time wasting" more?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didnt account for anything . I said the amount of time the ball is in play is not a factor in determining added time. I dont care what tangent you try to take the argument down cos you failed in your WUM.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 57 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
DJ's point is that if Arsenal were wasting lots of time then there would generally be a lower than average ball in play time. There was a higher than average ball in play time. His point is valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no DJ's point was that the second half the ball was in play loads, which has zero to do with the time added on. Its not valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If Arsenal were time wasting a lot then the ball wouldn't be in play so much would it? You cannot time waste whilst the ball is in play. (ball in play doesn't mean on the pitch, means active).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you can, if you waste time at every opportunity compared to a team that never do it then its possible to waste more time in a game that the ball is in play more..... there is more than one factor involved in adding on time, not just time wasting. If the game last longer then there is more chance of the ball being in play for longer.
And time spent with the ball in play or out of play is not one of them.
did think this one through as much today Barry ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you time waste when the ball is in play? Apart from holding on to possession of the ball? Which isn't time wasting, it's just part of the game?
Give me one example of how you can time waste whilst the ball is in play, meaning the ref should add more stoppage time on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you cant but thats irrelvant.
If a team have the ball in play for 35mins in one half and the other 10 mins is all spent by time wasting , then more time is added on in comparison to a team that has the ball in play for 30 mins and only 1 min of that is spent time wasting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the other 14 minutes you have not accounted for then? Why is it longer than the 10 minutes in the game where someone was "time wasting" more?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didnt account for anything . I said the amount of time the ball is in play is not a factor in determining added time. I dont care what tangent you try to take the argument down cos you failed in your WUM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The amount of time the game is stopped does not determine stoppage time? Interesting
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 57 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
DJ's point is that if Arsenal were wasting lots of time then there would generally be a lower than average ball in play time. There was a higher than average ball in play time. His point is valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no DJ's point was that the second half the ball was in play loads, which has zero to do with the time added on. Its not valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If Arsenal were time wasting a lot then the ball wouldn't be in play so much would it? You cannot time waste whilst the ball is in play. (ball in play doesn't mean on the pitch, means active).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you can, if you waste time at every opportunity compared to a team that never do it then its possible to waste more time in a game that the ball is in play more..... there is more than one factor involved in adding on time, not just time wasting. If the game last longer then there is more chance of the ball being in play for longer.
And time spent with the ball in play or out of play is not one of them.
did think this one through as much today Barry ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you time waste when the ball is in play? Apart from holding on to possession of the ball? Which isn't time wasting, it's just part of the game?
Give me one example of how you can time waste whilst the ball is in play, meaning the ref should add more stoppage time on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you cant but thats irrelvant.
If a team have the ball in play for 35mins in one half and the other 10 mins is all spent by time wasting , then more time is added on in comparison to a team that has the ball in play for 30 mins and only 1 min of that is spent time wasting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the other 14 minutes you have not accounted for then? Why is it longer than the 10 minutes in the game where someone was "time wasting" more?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didnt account for anything . I said the amount of time the ball is in play is not a factor in determining added time. I dont care what tangent you try to take the argument down cos you failed in your WUM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The amount of time the game is stopped does not determine stoppage time? Interesting
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it might be to you, but no when the refs work out the time to be added on , the amount of time the ball is in play is never something they factor.
So the game gets stopped for an injury, therefore the ball isn't in play, the ref just ignores that amount of time that the ball isn't in play for? Nah sorry lads, that's just something we never factor in.
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 26 seconds ago
So the game gets stopped for an injury, therefore the ball isn't in play, the ref just ignores that amount of time that the ball isn't in play for? Nah sorry lads, that's just something we never factor in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
iv said it once, said it twice... when refs are working out the time to be added on, they never look at any info thats tells them the amount of time the ball has been in play.
I dont care what your feelings are on the subject, the above is not my opinion its the facts.
Listen pal, you're talking to Barry
But I'm intrigued now... So what do the refs do, how do they work it out?
And would the amount of time the ball is in play not be a good place to start
The ref doesn't work out stoppage time by measuring the amount of time that the game is stopped for, for certain incidents/delays? Is that what you are saying?
Obviously a ball going out for a throw is negligible time so the watch isn't stopped.
But for other more significant stoppages where the ball isn't in play, the ref doesn't use that time stopped as a measure of how much stoppage time there will be?
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 3 minutes ago
Listen pal, you're talking to Barry
But I'm intrigued now... So what do the refs do, how do they work it out?
And would the amount of time the ball is in play not be a good place to start
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know, its just a bad wum, his standards have dropped, he doesnt even try anymore
Technically there is no science to it ... there is a time keeping official that tallies up, stoppages due to subs, injuries and other incidents that occur.
They then suggest to the match day ref and he uses that as guidance, if he feels that it should be longer he makes it longer and vice versa. ultimately its decided by the ref and he uses his experience of that match and the time suggested to him to decide.
You would think its only a matter of time before they just have the time keeping official decide based on technology working it out.
Technically there is no science to it ... there is a time keeping official that tallies up, stoppages due to subs, injuries and other incidents that occur.
They then suggest to the match day ref and he uses that as guidance, if he feels that it should be longer he makes it longer and vice versa. ultimately its decided by the ref and he uses his experience of that match and the time suggested to him to decide.
========
What the fack is this mess???
The ref is the timekeeper. Time keeping official????
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 43 seconds ago
Technically there is no science to it ... there is a time keeping official that tallies up, stoppages due to subs, injuries and other incidents that occur.
They then suggest to the match day ref and he uses that as guidance, if he feels that it should be longer he makes it longer and vice versa. ultimately its decided by the ref and he uses his experience of that match and the time suggested to him to decide.
========
What the fack is this mess???
The ref is the timekeeper. Time keeping official????
----------------------------------------------------------------------
nice of you to unfilter me just to reply.....
No there is a timekeeping official and he suggests to the ref how much stoppage time should be added and the ref uses that as guidance. Ultimately the ref decides, like I said.
No there isn't. What are you going on about????
But they don't consider stoppages, when determining stoppage time?
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
No there isn't. What are you going on about????
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes there is , the ref doesnt tell his assistant what number to put up on the board for injury time. he uses that as a guide.
What are you going on about??? The ref is the official timekeeper, he keeps time, he stops his watch when he deems the ball to be dead. The ref literally tells the 4th official how much time he is adding on.
Didn't you also say that you can time waste when the ball is in play?
Sign in if you want to comment
Corruption
Page 4 of 6
6
posted on 23/9/24
And lets be honest, the ref would have probably played for another 20 or 30 seconds if not for Haalands headloss and the lack of intent from City to go for a winner.
posted on 23/9/24
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
DJ's point is that if Arsenal were wasting lots of time then there would generally be a lower than average ball in play time. There was a higher than average ball in play time. His point is valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no DJ's point was that the second half the ball was in play loads, which has zero to do with the time added on. Its not valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If Arsenal were time wasting a lot then the ball wouldn't be in play so much would it? You cannot time waste whilst the ball is in play. (ball in play doesn't mean on the pitch, means active).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you can, if you waste time at every opportunity compared to a team that never do it then its possible to waste more time in a game that the ball is in play more..... there is more than one factor involved in adding on time, not just time wasting. If the game last longer then there is more chance of the ball being in play for longer.
And time spent with the ball in play or out of play is not one of them.
did think this one through as much today Barry ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you time waste when the ball is in play? Apart from holding on to possession of the ball? Which isn't time wasting, it's just part of the game?
Give me one example of how you can time waste whilst the ball is in play, meaning the ref should add more stoppage time on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you cant but thats irrelvant.
If a team have the ball in play for 35mins in one half and the other 10 mins is all spent by time wasting , then more time is added on in comparison to a team that has the ball in play for 30 mins and only 1 min of that is spent time wasting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the other 14 minutes you have not accounted for then? Why is it longer than the 10 minutes in the game where someone was "time wasting" more?
posted on 23/9/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
And over 3 minutes were added on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finished in the 100th minute didn’t it? If it was 7 minutes, then two mins added on for Timber and then 1 minute for the goal celebration, what’s the issue?
======
Exactly.
posted on 23/9/24
It was comical when Martinelli dropped to the ground only to rise like a phoenix and chase after the ball once Oliver ignored him 😹
posted on 23/9/24
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/13220602/man-city-v-arsenal-was-leandro-trossard-hard-done-by
0.84 seconds between the whistle being blown and Trossard kicking it
If that's the rule then they should revise it but until then I just expect it to be applied to all clubs equally
posted on 23/9/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 4 minutes ago
Context of the gameThe ref was meant to add more on because City passed it sideways for 35 minutes???
The ref added a lot of time on for both halves, more than covering the "lost" time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t be that stupid to think that’s a sequitur surely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh i believe he can
posted on 23/9/24
Oooh "sequitur"
Check out Wordsworth over here
posted on 23/9/24
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 57 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
DJ's point is that if Arsenal were wasting lots of time then there would generally be a lower than average ball in play time. There was a higher than average ball in play time. His point is valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no DJ's point was that the second half the ball was in play loads, which has zero to do with the time added on. Its not valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If Arsenal were time wasting a lot then the ball wouldn't be in play so much would it? You cannot time waste whilst the ball is in play. (ball in play doesn't mean on the pitch, means active).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you can, if you waste time at every opportunity compared to a team that never do it then its possible to waste more time in a game that the ball is in play more..... there is more than one factor involved in adding on time, not just time wasting. If the game last longer then there is more chance of the ball being in play for longer.
And time spent with the ball in play or out of play is not one of them.
did think this one through as much today Barry ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you time waste when the ball is in play? Apart from holding on to possession of the ball? Which isn't time wasting, it's just part of the game?
Give me one example of how you can time waste whilst the ball is in play, meaning the ref should add more stoppage time on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you cant but thats irrelvant.
If a team have the ball in play for 35mins in one half and the other 10 mins is all spent by time wasting , then more time is added on in comparison to a team that has the ball in play for 30 mins and only 1 min of that is spent time wasting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the other 14 minutes you have not accounted for then? Why is it longer than the 10 minutes in the game where someone was "time wasting" more?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didnt account for anything . I said the amount of time the ball is in play is not a factor in determining added time. I dont care what tangent you try to take the argument down cos you failed in your WUM.
posted on 23/9/24
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 57 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
DJ's point is that if Arsenal were wasting lots of time then there would generally be a lower than average ball in play time. There was a higher than average ball in play time. His point is valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no DJ's point was that the second half the ball was in play loads, which has zero to do with the time added on. Its not valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If Arsenal were time wasting a lot then the ball wouldn't be in play so much would it? You cannot time waste whilst the ball is in play. (ball in play doesn't mean on the pitch, means active).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you can, if you waste time at every opportunity compared to a team that never do it then its possible to waste more time in a game that the ball is in play more..... there is more than one factor involved in adding on time, not just time wasting. If the game last longer then there is more chance of the ball being in play for longer.
And time spent with the ball in play or out of play is not one of them.
did think this one through as much today Barry ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you time waste when the ball is in play? Apart from holding on to possession of the ball? Which isn't time wasting, it's just part of the game?
Give me one example of how you can time waste whilst the ball is in play, meaning the ref should add more stoppage time on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you cant but thats irrelvant.
If a team have the ball in play for 35mins in one half and the other 10 mins is all spent by time wasting , then more time is added on in comparison to a team that has the ball in play for 30 mins and only 1 min of that is spent time wasting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the other 14 minutes you have not accounted for then? Why is it longer than the 10 minutes in the game where someone was "time wasting" more?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didnt account for anything . I said the amount of time the ball is in play is not a factor in determining added time. I dont care what tangent you try to take the argument down cos you failed in your WUM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The amount of time the game is stopped does not determine stoppage time? Interesting
posted on 23/9/24
Ball in play chats 😎👍
posted on 23/9/24
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 57 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
DJ's point is that if Arsenal were wasting lots of time then there would generally be a lower than average ball in play time. There was a higher than average ball in play time. His point is valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no DJ's point was that the second half the ball was in play loads, which has zero to do with the time added on. Its not valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If Arsenal were time wasting a lot then the ball wouldn't be in play so much would it? You cannot time waste whilst the ball is in play. (ball in play doesn't mean on the pitch, means active).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you can, if you waste time at every opportunity compared to a team that never do it then its possible to waste more time in a game that the ball is in play more..... there is more than one factor involved in adding on time, not just time wasting. If the game last longer then there is more chance of the ball being in play for longer.
And time spent with the ball in play or out of play is not one of them.
did think this one through as much today Barry ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you time waste when the ball is in play? Apart from holding on to possession of the ball? Which isn't time wasting, it's just part of the game?
Give me one example of how you can time waste whilst the ball is in play, meaning the ref should add more stoppage time on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you cant but thats irrelvant.
If a team have the ball in play for 35mins in one half and the other 10 mins is all spent by time wasting , then more time is added on in comparison to a team that has the ball in play for 30 mins and only 1 min of that is spent time wasting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the other 14 minutes you have not accounted for then? Why is it longer than the 10 minutes in the game where someone was "time wasting" more?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didnt account for anything . I said the amount of time the ball is in play is not a factor in determining added time. I dont care what tangent you try to take the argument down cos you failed in your WUM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The amount of time the game is stopped does not determine stoppage time? Interesting
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it might be to you, but no when the refs work out the time to be added on , the amount of time the ball is in play is never something they factor.
posted on 23/9/24
So the game gets stopped for an injury, therefore the ball isn't in play, the ref just ignores that amount of time that the ball isn't in play for? Nah sorry lads, that's just something we never factor in.
posted on 23/9/24
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 26 seconds ago
So the game gets stopped for an injury, therefore the ball isn't in play, the ref just ignores that amount of time that the ball isn't in play for? Nah sorry lads, that's just something we never factor in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
iv said it once, said it twice... when refs are working out the time to be added on, they never look at any info thats tells them the amount of time the ball has been in play.
I dont care what your feelings are on the subject, the above is not my opinion its the facts.
posted on 23/9/24
Listen pal, you're talking to Barry
But I'm intrigued now... So what do the refs do, how do they work it out?
And would the amount of time the ball is in play not be a good place to start
posted on 23/9/24
The ref doesn't work out stoppage time by measuring the amount of time that the game is stopped for, for certain incidents/delays? Is that what you are saying?
Obviously a ball going out for a throw is negligible time so the watch isn't stopped.
But for other more significant stoppages where the ball isn't in play, the ref doesn't use that time stopped as a measure of how much stoppage time there will be?
posted on 23/9/24
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 3 minutes ago
Listen pal, you're talking to Barry
But I'm intrigued now... So what do the refs do, how do they work it out?
And would the amount of time the ball is in play not be a good place to start
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know, its just a bad wum, his standards have dropped, he doesnt even try anymore
posted on 23/9/24
Technically there is no science to it ... there is a time keeping official that tallies up, stoppages due to subs, injuries and other incidents that occur.
They then suggest to the match day ref and he uses that as guidance, if he feels that it should be longer he makes it longer and vice versa. ultimately its decided by the ref and he uses his experience of that match and the time suggested to him to decide.
posted on 23/9/24
You would think its only a matter of time before they just have the time keeping official decide based on technology working it out.
posted on 23/9/24
Technically there is no science to it ... there is a time keeping official that tallies up, stoppages due to subs, injuries and other incidents that occur.
They then suggest to the match day ref and he uses that as guidance, if he feels that it should be longer he makes it longer and vice versa. ultimately its decided by the ref and he uses his experience of that match and the time suggested to him to decide.
========
What the fack is this mess???
The ref is the timekeeper. Time keeping official????
posted on 23/9/24
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 43 seconds ago
Technically there is no science to it ... there is a time keeping official that tallies up, stoppages due to subs, injuries and other incidents that occur.
They then suggest to the match day ref and he uses that as guidance, if he feels that it should be longer he makes it longer and vice versa. ultimately its decided by the ref and he uses his experience of that match and the time suggested to him to decide.
========
What the fack is this mess???
The ref is the timekeeper. Time keeping official????
----------------------------------------------------------------------
nice of you to unfilter me just to reply.....
No there is a timekeeping official and he suggests to the ref how much stoppage time should be added and the ref uses that as guidance. Ultimately the ref decides, like I said.
posted on 23/9/24
No there isn't. What are you going on about????
posted on 23/9/24
But they don't consider stoppages, when determining stoppage time?
posted on 23/9/24
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
No there isn't. What are you going on about????
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes there is , the ref doesnt tell his assistant what number to put up on the board for injury time. he uses that as a guide.
posted on 23/9/24
What are you going on about??? The ref is the official timekeeper, he keeps time, he stops his watch when he deems the ball to be dead. The ref literally tells the 4th official how much time he is adding on.
posted on 23/9/24
Didn't you also say that you can time waste when the ball is in play?
Page 4 of 6
6