arthur8088

Bellamy Slapping incident~~




[ 本帖最後由 arthur8088 於 2009-9-21 05:15 PM 編輯 ]

shehboy

原帖由 filter-052fans 於 2009-9-21 12:42 PM 發表


嚴格講89:50幾秒入波, 91:05已經開番波, 再計埋30秒換人, 成場補到96分幾似乎係多左d....

.

你係呢度唯一肯講番句公道說話既曼聯躉.不過唔係補到96分, 而係96分55秒!

如果情況掉轉係曼城入第七球, 呢度啲人講既野一定好唔同!

shehboy

記得亞叔生前講過, 補時階段通常得幾分鐘, 所以除非有好特別既事(例如球員嚴重受傷或有人衝入球場生事), 否則唔應補上補, 唔係球賽只會沒完沒了, 我記得佢係講開加時比賽通常唔會點補時之後講開既.

足球唔同籃球, 唔係下下要噤停. 如果場外執波, 等踢12碼, 等開角球, 吹罰, 俾牌, 排人牆.... 都要補, 一場波120分鐘都唔得.

補時階段內換人, 除非搞得特別耐, 否則唔駛補, 所以啲領隊至咁中意用補時階段換人黎阻時間.

所謂慶祝入球的時間, 更加荒謬, 入球後執番個波去中圈, 然後對方11球員過番自己半場, 再由球證吹開波, 通常係要半分鐘至一分鐘, 呢啲係球賽正常程序, 除非搞得特別耐(例如球證要同旁證商議該入球是否有效), 否則無可能再補時.

曼聯換人用左30秒, 發生响90分鐘之後既話係可以唔補. 重新開波時間係用左一分鐘, 無論係唔係90分鐘以內發生, 都唔需要補.

根本個球證自己都覺得樣衰, 入波後都唔敢即刻吹完場, 仲要整多分幾鐘. 費事俾人話佢曼聯唔入波就死都唔吹, 一入就即吹.

Appreciated your discussion.
+4

[ 本帖最後由 brightlee 於 2009-9-22 04:52 PM 編輯 ]

eqhigh

原帖由 shehboy 於 2009-9-21 08:37 PM 發表


你係呢度唯一肯講番句公道說話既曼聯躉.不過唔係補到96分, 而係96分55秒!

如果情況掉轉係曼城入第七球, 呢度啲人講既野一定好唔同!

唔係話曼迷死忠或者乜野....但點可以用96:55黎講?
96:55係完場時間, 入波係95:27, 關96:55咩事呢?
如果奧雲冇入, 球證係95分30吹完場, 大家就覺得冇問題啦?

拎個完場時間黎講, 我覺得係絕對以偏蓋全既

P.S. 當我普通版友就可以了

brightlee

原帖由 shehboy 於 2009-9-21 10:58 PM 發表
記得亞叔生前講過, 補時階段通常得幾分鐘, 所以除非有好特別既事(例如球員嚴重受傷或有人衝入球場生事), 否則唔應補上補, 唔係球賽只會沒完沒了, 我記得佢係講開加時比賽通常唔會點補時之後講開既.

足球唔同籃球,  ...

Sorry, the Law of the games has been changed ages ago.

Managers normally don't make subsitution during injury time. It is because they couldn't use "time wasting" streagy. It won't work, referee will add every 30 seconds for each subsitution! That's why managers don't do it nowadays.

Referee, Mr Martin Atkinson was doing right for add in time yesterday, as I wrote here. Add in time is competely different than normal time. Referee will count out every "time wasting" moment, i.e. subsitution, goal celebration, etc. Also when he told the 4th official, about how many mins add in time, there should be MINIMUM time the game should be added in theory, so if that's 4mins add in time like that, it could be between 4 mins and 4 mins 30 seconds (except the situation like that yesterday)

I am saying this, is from referee's point of view. If you ask 10 professional referees, they will give you same answer.

[ 本帖最後由 brightlee 於 2009-9-22 12:04 AM 編輯 ]

brightlee

原帖由 shehboy 於 2009-9-21 10:58 PM 發表
記得亞叔生前講過, 補時階段通常得幾分鐘, 所以除非有好特別既事(例如球員嚴重受傷或有人衝入球場生事), 否則唔應補上補, 唔係球賽只會沒完沒了, 我記得佢係講開加時比賽通常唔會點補時之後講開既.

足球唔同籃球,  ...

I give you another referee to talk about this incident, that's ex-English referee, Graham Poll


Havingwatched a complete re-run of Sunday's Manchester derby, I have toconclude that Martin Atkinson was absolutely correct and highlycredible in his time-keeping.

Mystery and controversy often surround the amount of additional timeallowed, but this is covered in law seven, 'The duration of a match'.

It is wonderfully ambiguous in listing the reasons why allowance for time lost should be made.

There are five listed: substitutions; assessment of injury to players;removal of injured players from the field of play for treatment;wasting time: and any other cause.

The final point makes it easy to understand the lack of clarity when a law relies on so much subjectivity.

There is no need to add time on whenever the ball goes out of play forthrow-ins, goal kicks or free-kicks, as they are viewed as naturalstoppages.

Referees tend to follow guidelines, which are that for every goal orsubstitution you should allow 30 seconds and then add a minute or twofor injuries and/or time-wasting, if they have occurred.

When there is a lengthy delay for a serious injury, it is often timed and added to the calculated time.

There were three goals and three substitutions in the second half atOld Trafford, which means that a minimum of three minutes had to beadded, plus a minute due to other causes, hence the four minutes whichwere indicated.

Then, in stoppage time, there was another goal and a substitution,meaning that at least one more minute had to be added, with a fanrunning on to the pitch taking up further seconds.

So, well done Martin Atkinson for attention to detail and to Manchester United for playing right to the final whistle.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport ... med-just-right.html

shehboy

原帖由 eqhigh 於 2009-9-21 09:18 PM 發表


唔係話曼迷死忠或者乜野....但點可以用96:55黎講?
96:55係完場時間, 入波係95:27, 關96:55咩事呢?
如果奧雲冇入, 球證係95分30吹完場, 大家就覺得冇問題啦?

拎個完場時間黎講, 我覺得係絕對以偏蓋全既

P.S. 當我 ...

咪就係囉, 而家就係唔係講緊邊個入球, 總之係補左接近7分鐘, 唔係上面有人所講的6分鐘, 講緊補時時間, 關個入球乜事, 如果奧雲係响91分鐘入球, 場波補到99分鐘, 咁就覺得無問題? 唔攞完場時間黎講, 又點知補左幾多時?

shehboy

原帖由 brightlee 於 2009-9-22 10:30 AM 發表


I give you another referee to talk about this incident, that's ex-English referee, Graham Poll


Havingwatched a complete re-run of Sunday's Manchester derby, I have toconclude that Martin Atkinson  ...

算把啦, Graham Poll, 呢位球證當年可以响世界盃發明"三黃一紅"經典案例, 佢講既野又當權威?

佢自己講左啦: 補時內有一個入球補多半分鐘, 一個換人補多半分鐘, 合共補多一分鐘之嘛, 咁95:00,3:3應該吹完場啦! 大佬, 球迷衝入場係吹左完場後至發生架, 呢條三黃一紅到今日仲係咁蒙盛盛.

shehboy

原帖由 brightlee 於 2009-9-22 10:30 AM 發表


I give you another referee to talk about this incident, that's ex-English referee, Graham Poll


Havingwatched a complete re-run of Sunday's Manchester derby, I have toconclude that Martin Atkinson  ...

but he points out where the ambiguity is rather than proving the ref was right.

球例列出了可予補時的五個情況, 前四個都清楚講明係乜情形, 點解第五個係"any other cause"? 因為前四個都係球賽經常會出現的情況, 第五個係留番其他意外情況俾球證去做判斷. 但今次有無出現意外情況呢? 無. 如果, 斷章取義只睇第五個而照"any other cause"字面解, 指球證有權以任何理由補時, 咁球例中根本唔駛列出前四個情況, 有第五個已經講哂啦.

球例亦無話入球就要補時, 有啲國際賽有成十幾廿個入球, 亦不見得會補時十分鐘! 相反球證通常會大發慈悲, 免見弱旅俾人繼續蹂躪, 90分鐘即吹完場, 呢啲情況有睇開波都知.

ming8964

反曼人士,不滿賽果, 輸打贏要, 遷怒球証, 亂屈黑哨!!!