Referee?

[Stewartd7]

Explain Kalou hits post gonna equalize off rebound then whistle goes absolutely gutted

[Backbiter]

It was a very controversial final whistle. I understand refs are meant to wait for moments when the ball is in mid air or out before blowing up. I also thought he said there were 60 secs to go after the two yellows for time wasting, but I may be wrong. He could have blown after Zakora put it in the stands, and he could have blown when Cech launched it forward. He waited till we won the flick-on and Kalou was clear in the box. I don't think I've ever seen a ref do that before, certainly since Clive Thomas blew up with a Brazil corner in mid air as they were about to score, and he was crucified for that (and FIFA told refs not to blow up in controversial moments).

For those who haven't seen a replay, he blew BEFORE Kalou got his shot in and the Spuds defence did stop then. It wasn't after the ball hit the post.

This doesn't excuse our seriously crap display, of course. The better team won on the day. No one played well for us, although JT and RC weren't bad.

[The Moos]

The ref made several decisions what wasn't good. Too bad they can't get a good ref for a big game like this.

[Alan]

The ref was a

Simple as.

[The Brit]

not having it...we were cr*p, no excuses...spurs deserved it as much as it pains me to say it

[The Moos]

not having it...we were cr*p, no excuses...spurs deserved it as much as it pains me to say it

Agree, but it doesn't mean that the ref wasn't crap. So this isn't an excuse. We were crap but so was the ref.

[fester]

I think...

1. The ref had a decent game.

2. Tottenham were the better side.

3. We played terribly, no shape, no hunger. I was expecting it to change in the second half, it didn't. I was expecting it to change in extra-time it didn't.

Well done Spuds, come on you blues!!!

Fester

[The Moos]

I think...

1. The ref had a decent game.

2. Tottenham were the better side.

3. We played terribly, no shape, no hunger. I was expecting it to change in the second half, it didn't. I was expecting it to change in extra-time it didn't.

Well done Spuds, come on you blues!!!

Fester

Apart from #1 I totally agree with you

[Phillip]

I did see the replay of Bridge's handball on Sky Sports News last night, and I must admit it was a clear-cut decision in my book.

[Backbiter]

David Lacey in the Guardian has commented on the timing of the final whistle, which was unusual to say the least:

In fact much of the speculation of the last few days might not have materialised had Mark Halsey ended the Carling Cup final a few seconds later than he did. The final whistle went as Salomon Kalou broke clear of Tottenham's defence and was preparing to shoot and, although Kalou hit a post as the opposition were starting to celebrate, there is no knowing what might have happened to the rebound had play continued.

Grant had a go at Halsey for finishing at that point. "How can the referee decide whether there should be one or two seconds more?" he demanded to know. Easy: the ref checks his watch and blows his whistle. Naturally Halsey was surrounded by the usual throng of Chelsea dissidents at the end, adding to the feeling that Tottenham had not only won a football match; they had also slain the jabberwock.

However, and without wishing to defend Chelsea's behaviour, it has to be said that referees seldom end games when it looks as if a goal might be scored, especially one that could have a considerable bearing on the result. A famous exception involved Clive Thomas, never one to bow to convention, who during the 1978 World Cup denied Brazil a winner against Sweden, ruling that by the time Zico headed in from a corner the match was over.

"Zico was too late," Thomas recalled, "possibly only four-tenths of a second too late but too late nevertheless ... My watch told me time was completed. To have blown before the corner was taken would have been dishonest, to have waited until the ball went dead would have been dishonest."

As the Fifa report noted, some of the Swedish team had stopped playing on hearing the whistle but on Sunday there was a nanosecond separating Tottenham's joy from Kalou's parting shot. Yet Halsey did nothing wrong and perhaps it was just as well he blew when he did. Chelsea had not played well enough to deserve a penalty shoot-out which they could easily have won, denying Spurs a piece of silverware that meant far more to White Hart Lane than it would have done staying at Stamford Bridge.

To me, the fact that both Lacey and I (see my post above on the day of the match) cannot remember a similarly-timed whistle in the past 30 years suggests Halsey was at odds with what refs are supposed to do. I'd love to know if there are any reasons why 99% of games end when the ball is in mid-air over the middle of the park. Coincidence? Hardly.

This isn't a whinge as we had played sh*t and deserved to lose but I am very suspicious that he blew up at an unconventional moment purely to deny us a goal-scoring chance.

How many other articles on the game have even mentioned this issue?

[Backbiter]

Just did a search and found this:

Additional Time Allowance for Time Lost

Many stoppages in play are entirely natural (e.g. throw-ins, goal kicks).

An allowance is to be made only when these delays are excessive.

The fourth offi cial indicates the minimum additional time decided by

the referee at the end of the fi nal minute of each period of play.

The announcement of the additional time does not indicate the exact

amount of time left in the match. The time may be increased if the

referee considers it appropriate but never reduced.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affeder ... f10565.pdf

Spuds had 2 players booked in the final minutes for timewasting. He definitely added some time onto the 3 added minutes but obviously couldn't possibly have added 2 seconds more once Kalou was clear in the box....

[The Moos]

All this about added time confuses me

What are the rules regarding the added time?

Usually when a ref add a few minutes they say "atleast [insert number] minutes of added time". To me that sounds as if the match will play on for atleast the number of minutes the ref adds. However, sometimes the ref blow his whistle before the minutes have been played. 3 minutes might just be 2½ or something. Is that right or are the ref wrong?

And can a ref blow his whistle whenever he wants?

Also, it happens sometimes that the ref adds a few minutes and they are played without stops and he still adds almost a minute or so on that added time. Can he do that? Well, of course he can as he's the bloody ref, but is it right? And what if a team scores an important goal during that extra minute that shouldn't have been?

Honestly, wouldn't it be so much easier just to do like in hockey? Stop the clock everytime the game is stopped. Then the game would go on for exactly 90 minutes (or close to it anyway). There wouldn't be any arguments about the ref adding to much or too little time. It would make things easier.

Only downside is that we wont have those few extra seconds that might be added if a team is on the attack (though, as we have now seen, some refs end the game anyway).

[Enrico]

Honestly, wouldn't it be so much easier just to do like in hockey? Stop the clock everytime the game is stopped. Then the game would go on for exactly 90 minutes (or close to it anyway). There wouldn't be any arguments about the ref adding to much or too little time. It would make things easier.

And eliminate time-wasting? That's no fun.

[The Moos]

Honestly, wouldn't it be so much easier just to do like in hockey? Stop the clock everytime the game is stopped. Then the game would go on for exactly 90 minutes (or close to it anyway). There wouldn't be any arguments about the ref adding to much or too little time. It would make things easier.

And eliminate time-wasting? That's no fun.

You can still waste alot of time. But not as much as before