Surely time for Sean Dyche

Tottenham manager gone.

Paddington - thanks. That makes a little bit more sense. I think.

TS - are you saying it could be true at times when people say "the referee seemed determined to play on until X equalised"?

REPD - if you're still here or read back - in your latest SW19 piece you write about being uncertain about the need to vote a second time. It's the usual crap writing from the club. You could choose to do votes one *and* two before the first AGM, or you could choose to do the first vote only and wait until the second AGM to do the second one. I hope that makes sense.

I think rugby has definitely got it right regarding blowing for ht/ft.

Alan, yellow card is an option in that case, in which case time would be added. The end of your posting is spot on and us common sense refereeing.

Rugby Union allows for 80 plus minutes as long as the ball is in play.

But the referee is (or was) the sole arbiter of time, it's not bending any rules. The wording of LOAF used to have the rider "if in the opinion of the referee". I seem to recall a game at Selhurst where we were awarded a corner "on 90 minutes". The taker (NA) asked the ref how.much time we had and was told that he time for the corner. No sooner had he kicked the ball than the ref blew for time. There was a great deal of "debate" from our players on that lack of common sense decision.

In that case I would have blown the whistle and not given the corner. Time can only be added for a oenalty to be taken. If I was due to blow the whistle while the corner was to be taken, I'd allow it to be taken and unless a goal was scored immediately I would blow for time.

Happy Palm Sunday to all those celebrating 🍾

Rugby union does allow for a game to continue after 80 minutes when a penalty is awarded which seems right. I wouldn't oppose changing the laws of football to something similar but I don't agree with bending the existing laws.

What if the free kick happens in the 88th minute and the team taking it piss around to gerrymander a result? Blowing up a soon as the ball is kicked is down to them pissing around. But do really agree with the notion that if you give a kick, then it should play out, either by becoming dead, ball moves away from goal or that the phase, such as a goal mouth scramble end.

What if time is up just as a shot is in flight and a defending player then handles the ball? You allow extra seconds for the penalty but the keeper save it. Do you blow up just as the penalty taker is about to score from the rebound?

So a football match shouldn't be 90 minutes, it should be as long as one person thinks fulfills the spirit of the game? That is similar to saying don't whistle if someone is only a bit offside and they weren't offside a little earlier.

I wouldn't allow the corner nor and "secondaries" from a FK but the ref should tell the teams exp the one attacking

What if time is up just as the keeper tips the ball for a corner? If you allow the corner to be taken you have to wait to see if it results in a goal or else you're back to blowing the whistle when a shot is in flight.

When I was training to be a ref my trainer, John Crook (ex-League referee) told us to never blow for time if a shot was in flight. If a goal was scored, we should restart the game and blow the whistle for time seconds later. If it wasn't scored, blow for time as the goal kick was taken. There used to be a degree of "the spirit of the law" with some noteable exceptions.

JG definitely adds something to our discussions on here and we definitely shouldn't seek to suppress his participation. I really have three aspects where I disagree with him (1) he thinks that a football club can and should be a normal profitable business, paying a return to shareholders - this doesn't happen anywhere else in football and if you try to run an operation on a different basis from the rest of an industry it is probably you out of step, not everyone else (2) whenever he quotes figures they are almost always at least a bit inaccurate, distorted or unrepresentative - to be fair he has said before that he comes from a background in sales and that is basically how sales people approach things in my experience (a good example - his quoting an American tourist paying £23 for a prime seat, when almost all adult match day tickets are significantly more expensive than this) (3) he has a tendency to use childish insults rather than using the normal terms to describe things (eg calling ticket concessions "bursaries" or referring to the DT as an "industrial and provident society"), whether or not these terms are accurate (and sometimes they are) using insulting terms to describe things is the sort of thing that Trump does and really serves to detract from his arguments rather than strengthen them. As I say, each to their own - while I am happy to give my views it's not for me to tell people what they can and can't say. I do think that his ideas are often sensible, or at least worth considering, but his tone and approach on here probably means that his ideas get less attention than they merit.

WIJG, if you have an unjustified pop at someone (me) don't be surprised when they reciprocate. Your many monologue do not explain why you support AFCW. You only talk about money. It is so dull. Many of us bought shares in 2003 (when you claim you had never heard of us yet now say you have shares). You never join in or contribute to other discussions on here and only post what you want to talk about (money). It is tedious. If you have been going to games for 37 years surely you have some memories to contribute beyond the price of everything? After a 3-0 defeat most normal people would comment on the game, missed chances, poor defending, etc. Literally minutes after the final whistle you were comparing admission prices. No mention of what happened on the pitch or an opinion on player performances. That is peculiar to say the least. You don't like The Dons Trust and routinely refer to them by an obsolete term as some sort of insult, you don't like ticket price discounts (which all clubs offer) which you constantly go on about, etc. You go quiet when challenged on one of your flakey points, only to repeat it again later. You view money as some way of keeping score and a measure of success. You are entitled to your extreme opinions but don't complain when more balanced posters on here take umbrage to it. I don't use social media because I am not interested in communicating with a wider network of supporters but if you really want to test your frankly bonkers suggestions with a wider and more representative cross section of AFCW supporters then why not share them there? See what reaction you get.

CW - yes good shout. Sepp Maier was probably one of the first

Sepp Maier the German keeper always wore massive gloves 74 World Cup was the first time I remember seeing him

Ah yes had peter Bonetti gloves too, use to cycle my chopper to the park,back in the days you didn't have to padlock your bikes up,.happy days

Just seeing the stuff on goalkeeping gloves. As a boy in 70scI never wore gloves on hard pitches which was pretty normal (goalies spat on their hands!). Only in real wet weather, used to wear Peter Bonetti very thin green gloves. I would say first used gloves in all matches around 79 and only did in honesty because it started being a norm

Yes Alan those classic old goalkeeper gloves were the stuff of legend. Got a pair for Christmas one year and wore them all day even through Christmas dinner. I remember looking at the “new fangled” ones when they came out and looked like sausage fingers how on Earth can anyone hold a football in those? But having spent plenty of time as a “proper keeper hasn’t turned up” keeper they’re very good. Get them a little bit wet and they grip like mad.