It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Anybody think he would have made the same decision for the home club or a big club like Plymouth or Portsmouth.
I remember the same thing happening in The World Cup in the 1970's,surely common sense should prevail here.
I'd always assumed the whistle went when the ball headed to or over the half way line as that was nearly always what happened.
A truly astonishing decision that you wouldn't expect to see happen even at Under-9 sunday league level.
I like how rugby operates - extra time stops only when there is a proper stoppage in play e.g. being kicked out of play, foul, etc.
everybody loves Trevor Kettle.
the reactions in the Wimbledon crowd say it all, they love it!
That ref definitely needs to be demoted down some local combination next week,
Or on The Rye on a Sunday morning.
"Irregular" was the comment I got from an FA referee.
To be fair, Trevor Kettle was very much our friend last season at AFC Wimbledon when every single one of our players mysteriously fell over if Akinfenwa so much as looked at them. Great coaching by GA to make the most of a bad ref, some might say, others might think our play that day utterly cynical.
Personally, the approach many ref.'s seem to take of waiting until the ball goes out for a goal kick, then waiting for the keeper to get the ball back, then waiting for him to kick it and only then blowing the whistle for time winds me up. If time's up, it's up. It doesn't matter if the ball is in the centre circle, in the corner, off the pitch or in the air heading goalward.
Last time I checked the rules they said the only situation that play should continue beyond time (45/90 + added on) is to allow the taking of a penalty kick which has been awarded for an infringement that occurred within time. Well done to Mr Kettle for applying the rules correctly.
I'm fairly sure that when the fourth official holds up the board, that is the minimum time the referee adds on. Not the maximum as this case seems to be.
Not sure @Gary 's point has any relevance at all in this instance but he is correct. It's a mathematical headache when four minutes goes up on the board and someone is then injured for three and we all bay for the whistle after four minutes.
I just can't believe any football referee can keep added time logged to the second with all the other stuff he has to mess up. He had absolutely no idea if he had it right when that shot was taken and simply worked to the nearest minute on his watch.
Trevor Kettle is a poor ref in a sea of poor refs. He can, quite rightly, state it was the right thing to do by the letter of the law. He has though let the game down with this decision and the media should highlight it so it doesn't happen again.It's nearly the football equivelent of the mankadding in cricket.
Bet that last sentence is lost on most @Right_in_the_Middle.
I disagree with @Right_in_the_Middle on the ability of a referee to keep track of the exact amount of time added. Stopwatches have exised for many years, as have normal watches that feature stopwatch functionality. It is common to see a referee pressing a button on his watch at the start of a stoppage in play for which time will be added on, then pressing a button again when he decides that the stoppage is over and playing time has resumed. That seems a pretty simple way of tracking the exact amount of time to be added on.
I would actually support having timekeepers and a clock, visible to all, that clearly displays the time remaining (yes, I know the clock at Adams Park struggles on occasion already). I attend a few basketball matches a year, during which the clock is stopped and restarted whenever incidents that should result in time being added on occur. This means that everyone - officials, players, crowd - can see exactly how much time is left to play and totally avoids the potential that exists in football for referees to be accused of bad sportsmanship or bias in the event that they blow their whistle when a particular team is on the attack. It also leads to some exciting finales, with teams trying to shoot quickly in order to beat the clock.
Refereeing, umpiring etc is a rotten job and small wonder that there is a shortage. In football referees are often accused of "not knowing the game" There seems no effort made to "fast track" ex players to become referees but perhaps they have earned too much to want the hassle that goes with the job. So it seems that everyone needs to stop complaining. After all the average ref makes far fewer mistakes in the course of a game than the players.
A clock is a good idea to take one problem out of the equation.
This argument that refs make less mistakes than players is absolute garbage. It gets trotted out time and time again by those who've reffed and those who want to be fair.
It is quite simply not true.
The argument that holds more water is that players put refs under far more pressure with cheating.
Why not do the rugby league thing with an official off field time keeper?
The trouble is there are pretty awful refs out there and we all know who they are. (That is the one thing I'd change about the vital previews - i used to have to wait until I bought a programme before my heart sunk...)
But then it's always been like that ever since I can remember (Underwood anyone?). Main difference is we only ever thought refs were crap. Now TV can prove it.
But then some refs are - and always have been - just dickheads. Step forward Mr Kettle
Andy Woolmer is a very good official and he will take charge v Stevenage and Paul Tierney will be in charge at Accrington and he was in the Premier League on Saturday.
Probably best to keep it down to the ref's secret little mind regarding time added on.
Otherwise, people might start saying the watch should be stopped when the ball goes off the pitch, or every time a player is holding the ball for a throw, or every goal kick.
We'd end up playing about 30mins extra every week
@Malone or perhaps you do that and make each half of 30 min ball in play. Means time play acting, delayed goal kick and substitutions to run clock down at end of game have no effect on overall time paid.
We seem to coming to a consensus that football is just about the only "time sensitive" team sport where the crowd are unaware of time elapsed and how long there is left to play; and, of course, football crowds fork out more money, collectively, than spectators of any other sport. Or am I seeing it all wrong?
All adds to the excitement and gives us something to question the referee's sanity, intelligence, independence, paternity, onanistic habits etc. about
Would take a certain amount of the suspense out it I suppose....
@bookertease - advance knowledge of who's going to referee our next game(s) is perhaps a candidate for room 101 or indeed the current "things to ban" thread. On the other hand I personally enjoy telling friends without access to the internet who we've got and I don't think anyone decides whether to go to the match on that basis.
But you're right, it does sometimes cause the heart to sink sooner than it needs to!
@tom_doust I think you're bang on with that. if every decision from time, to replays of load of things came in, it'd make the game an incredibly tedious sport.
I was against any sort of interference, but can now see that goalline tech in the big league and internationals IS a good thing.
Nothing else though please.
Some stuff comes in and is sh!t. Like the extra linesmen, who loiter on the goal line and never do anything
Powered by Vanilla
Hosting courtesy of Hactar