david in sweden Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 ...is perhaps something that Yeovil must feel like after Saturday, but as (most people) seem to agree that one or both our pens. were valid,they have little to complain about ...as they didn't score ANY. It certainly makes up some for the way we've been " mistreated " by some in the recent past, when refs have done us no favours. However, I can't help but sympathise with Mark Hughes after yesterdays travesty at Old Trafford. " Sparky's " lads did really well to come back to 3-3 after going behind 3 times, and then losing the game after..97 minutes. I think Hughes has a good point when he said that they ran way overtime. According to interviews / reports I have seen, it seems Bellamy scored the third equaliser on 89.56secs, whilst the fourth official had already indicated 4 mins. extra. According to FIFA rules, 2 mins. of that would have been for the 4 subs. that were used in the game, and the City goal / celebrations lasted 45 secs. ...so there was no reason for the additional time which allowed Michael Owen to score MU's fourth goal. One can talk about home advanatage, and MU at Old Trafford but it's a clear injustice when refs. allows the game to continue for their own entertainment, and play on waiting for a golden goal ! How on earth do FIFA expect refs to retain respect when a senior man does such a thing? I'd be really feel sick if I was a City player / fan today. Criminal, I call it ! - but then again ..it's Man. Utd at home :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toomer Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 You should know by now that games at Old Trafford end when Fergy calls time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cat Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 I always thought the amount of time added on was a MINIMUM, ie "the referee has signalled a minimum of 4 minutes stoppage time". Therefore he could conceivably have been going to play an extra 4 mins 45 seconds. Add on the time taken for City's goal celebration and Owen's winner is fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skintsaint Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 Both teams had the opportunity to score in the time added on and I bet Man City wouldnt have minded nicking a winner. Concrentrate to the final whistle, Man City should be looking at their marking on Owen rather than finding excuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 21 September, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 September, 2009 I always thought the amount of time added on was a MINIMUM, ie "the referee has signalled a minimum of 4 minutes stoppage time". Therefore he could conceivably have been going to play an extra 4 mins 45 seconds. Add on the time taken for City's goal celebration and Owen's winner is fine. ....except that the " reported time " of Owens goal was... 95' 26" ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skintsaint Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 Bellamys celebration - 55 seconds Uniteds substitution - 30 seconds Owens goal - 95:26 so you're talking about one second? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sydney_saint Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 For goodness sake if people are so sick of the standard of reffing will you walk down to your local association and become a ref, hence increasing the pool of refs and resulting in a better standard in the upper leagues. Why oh why oh why are you using a match that doesn't involve saints to have a blast at refs, don't you think they get enough **** as it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDARMY79 Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 Who cares??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Le Shearer Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 ....except that the " reported time " of Owens goal was... 95' 26" ! the sign from the fourth official came up before City equalized. that said 4 minutes. after that,they celebrated AND there was another substitution-Carrick came on in the 92 minute. now,following your logic,the game should have lasted until 95.15. Besides,there was some deadball situations right at the end,and they always take a very long time to execute at that stage of the game. also,it is common practise to see out a dangerous situation before blowing the whistle. in other words:the ref was in his full rights,and you are just splitting hairs ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 The referee is the sole timekeeper. Having said that, he has a responsibility to be fair to both teams and I am sure that most observers would say that nearly 6 minutes of added time was excessive where there had been no significant injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corky morris Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 Ask a Gillingham fan about time keeping & Man City. In the pay off final years ago City benefited from too much added time. What goes around - comes around! But ManUre are a bunch of cheating tossers! Always have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bentley Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 Can't stand Man City buying the best players from other lower premiership teams and the whole Lescott saga, so I was delighted that they lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 We all know that certain refs are complete pussies and just can't handle the pressure at places like Old Trafford. If it was City pushing for the winner and 70,000 plastic reds calling for the whistle the spineless **** would have blown on the dot of 94mins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warsash saint Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 Roger Milford in disguise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport_Monkey Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 There were 5 goals in the second half, so if each goal celebration was allowed for at 55seconds than you are talking nearly 5 minutes extra on top of the 4 minutes stated, so the points that the BBC were trying to justify do not make sense! Also I have never heard of a referee ever adding extra time for a goal celebration! It just does not add up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastcowzer Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 For goodness sake if people are so sick of the standard of reffing will you walk down to your local association and become a ref, hence increasing the pool of refs and resulting in a better standard in the upper leagues. Why oh why oh why are you using a match that doesn't involve saints to have a blast at refs, don't you think they get enough **** as it is? In a word. NO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 We all know that certain refs are complete pussies and just can't handle the pressure at places like Old Trafford. If it was City pushing for the winner and 70,000 plastic reds calling for the whistle the spineless **** would have blown on the dot of 94mins. Ain't that the truth. Mind you, I did have a laugh last night at Lescott's defending - christ on a bike - £20M +? - somebody added some extra 000's for a laugh surely? Richard Dunne's a far better player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St_Tel49 Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 ....except that the " reported time " of Owens goal was... 95' 26" ! MoTD showed that the celebration lasted 56 seconds + 1 minute for 2 subs - added to the 4 minutes was 5 mins 26 seconds!!! The real point was made above - criminally bad defending at a set piece. The ref was not responsible for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokingFun Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 MoTD showed that the celebration lasted 56 seconds + 1 minute for 2 subs - added to the 4 minutes was 5 mins 26 seconds!!! The real point was made above - criminally bad defending at a set piece. The ref was not responsible for that. Absolutely correct! Hughes would not have complained had his team broke and scored a winner in the 96th minute. City sat deep, played for the draw and conceded from woefully inadequate defending and a fantastic finish under pressure. End of story and the whole thing is being blown way out of proportion by the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenilworthy Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 Mark Hughes sems to have forgotten how many times he benefitted from refereeing decisions when he was playing for United. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
positivepete Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 From the same site as the pompey story yesterday http://newsarse.com/2009/09/21/scientists-to-investigate-rift-in-old-trafford-time-continuum/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 Takes me back to our game at Highbury......I swear the ref would of played all night, whilst waiting for the Ase enal to score.......9 minutes extra time if I remember!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 the sign from the fourth official came up before City equalized. that said 4 minutes. after that,they celebrated AND there was another substitution-Carrick came on in the 92 minute. now,following your logic,the game should have lasted until 95.15. Besides,there was some deadball situations right at the end,and they always take a very long time to execute at that stage of the game. also,it is common practise to see out a dangerous situation before blowing the whistle. in other words:the ref was in his full rights,and you are just splitting hairs ! I thought the ref was having a laugh with the added time to be honest, even considering the calculations above (not all of Bellamy's celebration needed to be added on, none of the other regulation time goal celebrations constituted part of the added time) and he was stretching it even within the parameters of FIFA's directive that the game should be in a neutral area of the field when the whistle is blown, which actually allows the "minimum of 4 minutes" to go on indefinitely, basically as long as the ball stays in one of the attacking thirds - and is something that not a single person on Sky, BBC or this thread has mentioned yet. As for both Saints pens on Saturday, I am comfortable that neither was remotely near to being a penalty. Saga dived and was going down long before the tackle, and only the linesman appears to have seen the (accidental) handball which isn't easy to spot even on repeated replay viewings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 Mark Hughes sems to have forgotten how many times he benefitted from refereeing decisions when he was playing for United. He hasn't, he even mentioned it in his post-match comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 Can you imagine Fergie.....if that had been in favor of City........he'd want the ref sacked, and the FA to resign!!!!........he would of be livid!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandwichsaint Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 I'm not generally a ref-basher but I thought it was poor. Minimum of 4 mins presumably goes up to 4.50, if he had wanted to add Bellamy's celebration (and it's not clear why he did. Did he add 0.55 seconds for the other 3 goals in the second half? No.) why did they not adjust the board to 5.00 mins? When United were awarded their last free kick it was pretty much time up, why is he compelled to wait for them to load the box and take aeons placing the ball. What in the rules allows that free kicks at the end of time should be treated as 'time outs' and the clock stopped till the attacking team is organised? If there are 10 seconds left surely the attacking team needs to launch it asap? Once the ref had allowed the kick in what was virtually nil seconds remaining he had nowhere to go, as above he can't stop the game in an attacking area, though he probably could have stopped it once City repelled the initial free kick some 45 yds back towards the half way line? All very unsatisfactory IMHO and more questions than answers! Should we not have standard times for substitutions/goals and then add any stoppage time for injuries, bookings, timewasting? (I though that's what we did have!). Is the 'minimum of 4 minutes' board more trouble than it's worth? United also muddied the waters with a substitution on 92 mins ... their choice but why they should they (or anybody else!) get an extra 30 seconds for disrupting the natural finish to the game? Answer is fairly simple in this hi-tech, super-money age; an independent timekeeper sat in the stand; either controlled by the ref signalling when the clock is to be stopped/re-started, or by the timekeeper's independent judgement of when the ball is in play or otherwise. Either would be preferable to the farce we saw yesterday. And .... ban substitutions after 85 minutes (though AP might struggle with that one!)... is there anything more tedious than watching both sides eeking out 3 or 4 substitutions in the last couple of minutes? Great game! GGRRRR finish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandwichsaint Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 Forgot to add my other time-keeping pet-hate! Next time you watch a game with extra time in it see how long is added to the two extra 15 minute periods. I bet you it's never less than 2 minutes for each half and it can regularly be 3 or 4 minutes. You do the math; when did you last see 9 or 12 minutes overtime awarded in a regular 45minute half? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 (edited) As for both Saints pens on Saturday, I am comfortable that neither was remotely near to being a penalty. Saga dived and was going down long before the tackle, and only the linesman appears to have seen the (accidental) handball which isn't easy to spot even on repeated replay viewings. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but opinion is not fact. I had a clear view of the events for the second penalty and it was handball, with the ball hitting Nathan Jones' hand which he was holding across his body. To be a penalty the handball must be judged deliberate. It was certainly ball to hand, but the Lino must have decided that Jones could have moved his arm away and that by not doing so, the handball was deliberate. That was also a matter of opinion and a fine judgement, but it is not right to say that it was not 'remotely' near being a penalty. The Lino saw what he saw and as an officiating assistant ref, his opinion does matter! Edited 21 September, 2009 by Professor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 The worst thing about the Manchester derby injury time fiasco yesterday was Fergie sharing a joke with the 4th official when United scored. What did he do, tell him to get his mate to blow the final whistle ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 Can't stand Man City buying the best players from other lower premiership teams and the whole Lescott saga, so I was delighted that they lost. Devil's advocate here : Man Utd have never been shy in poaching players from lower premiership teams when it suits ie. Louis Saha and Van Der Sar from Fulham. Also wasn't the signing of Rooney from Everton a similar saga to the Lescott one ? Kinda works both ways methinks and many folks would be surprised to learn that the value of the Utd starting line up was more than that of City (Rooney, Berbatov and Ferdinand were £90 mil alone between them !). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Le Shearer Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 I thought the ref was having a laugh with the added time to be honest, even considering the calculations above (not all of Bellamy's celebration needed to be added on, none of the other regulation time goal celebrations constituted part of the added time). what normally happens when a goal is scored after 90 minutes,is that the team benefitting from the goal will celebrate for a looooong time just to get the clock running. (if City needed one more goal,they would have been at the mid-circle ten seconds later). the refs answer to this,is normally to hold one finger up- thats him saying "I`ll add one more minute since you are wasting time here". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 Not really interested in what happens between the two teams playing in Manchester but just wondered what Hughes would be saying to the press if it had been his team that had scored in stoppage time. Actually not wondering at all, he'd be saying that the extra minute or so was correct due to stoppages during the added time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 21 September, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 September, 2009 Not really interested in what happens between the two teams playing in Manchester but just wondered what Hughes would be saying to the press if it had been his team that had scored in stoppage time. Actually not wondering at all, he'd be saying that the extra minute or so was correct due to stoppages during the added time. At this level, the issue of time-keeping should be left to the fourth official - (as he seems to do little else) . Let the ref.on the pitch take care of controlling the game and the guy in the stand decides on the duration of the match ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareham saint phil Posted 22 September, 2009 Share Posted 22 September, 2009 Have to say I couldn't care less that our penalties were "dubious" If you had been up at stockport and seen their penalty against us maybe you would share my views. We got them won the game end of story. As for the manchester derby..who the **** cares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 22 September, 2009 Share Posted 22 September, 2009 I always thought the amount of time added on was a MINIMUM, ie "the referee has signalled a minimum of 4 minutes stoppage time". Therefore he could conceivably have been going to play an extra 4 mins 45 seconds. Add on the time taken for City's goal celebration and Owen's winner is fine. ....except that the " reported time " of Owens goal was... 95' 26" ! There were 5 goals in the second half, so if each goal celebration was allowed for at 55seconds than you are talking nearly 5 minutes extra on top of the 4 minutes stated, so the points that the BBC were trying to justify do not make sense! Also I have never heard of a referee ever adding extra time for a goal celebration! It just does not add up? MoTD showed that the celebration lasted 56 seconds + 1 minute for 2 subs - added to the 4 minutes was 5 mins 26 seconds!!! The real point was made above - criminally bad defending at a set piece. The ref was not responsible for that. The only thing criminal here is people's mental arithmetic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 22 September, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 September, 2009 (edited) There were 5 goals in the second half, so if each goal celebration was allowed for at 55seconds than you are talking nearly 5 minutes extra on top of the 4 minutes stated, so the points that the BBC were trying to justify do not make sense! Also I have never heard of a referee ever adding extra time for a goal celebration! It just does not add up? It does seem that everyone has their own interpretation of what... " playing time " really is. FIVE second half goals + celebrations may well have accounted for most of the FOUR minutes that the lino had indicated before Bellamy scored the 3-3 in 89 mins. Each sub.is (acc. FIFA allowed 30 secs for stoppage /changeover) ..I'm not sure when all the all subs.came on ..perhaps they were part of the designated FOUR minutes.(?) As I recall (any referees here please correct me), the watch is stopped / or the game deemed to have stopped - between the time a goal is scored and the new kick-off ..or (?) maybe that was part of the FOUR minutes (?) Most of the info. I wrote in the original thread came from ; the BBC site with the match timings and info. from the commentator and Mark Hughes in the after match interview. :confused: But as many of you have remarked MU seem to lead a " charmed life " at Old Trafford, or maybe it was that the ref. didn't want to take his car home... in small pieces after the game....who knows ? Edited 22 September, 2009 by david in sweden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 22 September, 2009 Share Posted 22 September, 2009 David: The lino held up 4 mins. This took into account everything that had happened up until then. This indicates 'minimum of 4 mins', which we can take to mean anything between 4 min 0 secs and 4min 59 secs. Then there was one goal, which someone said was about 55 secs to celebrate. Then one sub which is another 30 secs. This adds up to between 5min 25secs and 6min 24secs. The goal came in 5min 26secs, according to above. Anything else is just trying to cloud the issue. There is no conspiracy. Simples Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cricketphilly Posted 23 September, 2009 Share Posted 23 September, 2009 Giggs has just scored, 5-3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St_Tel49 Posted 23 September, 2009 Share Posted 23 September, 2009 It does seem that everyone has their own interpretation of what... " playing time " really is. FIVE second half goals + celebrations may well have accounted for most of the FOUR minutes that the lino had indicated before Bellamy scored the 3-3 in 89 mins. Each sub.is (acc. FIFA allowed 30 secs for stoppage /changeover) ..I'm not sure when all the all subs.came on ..perhaps they were part of the designated FOUR minutes.(?) As I recall (any referees here please correct me), the watch is stopped / or the game deemed to have stopped - between the time a goal is scored and the new kick-off ..or (?) maybe that was part of the FOUR minutes (?) Most of the info. I wrote in the original thread came from ; the BBC site with the match timings and info. from the commentator and Mark Hughes in the after match interview. :confused: But as many of you have remarked MU seem to lead a " charmed life " at Old Trafford, or maybe it was that the ref. didn't want to take his car home... in small pieces after the game....who knows ? Both teams were from Manchester so it was going to go home in small pieces whatever happened ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 23 September, 2009 Share Posted 23 September, 2009 Screwed by the ref? Maybe if it was Bibiana Steinhaus. Otherwise i'll pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 23 September, 2009 Share Posted 23 September, 2009 Or Pierluigi Collina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 24 September, 2009 Share Posted 24 September, 2009 Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but opinion is not fact. I had a clear view of the events for the second penalty and it was handball, with the ball hitting Nathan Jones' hand which he was holding across his body. To be a penalty the handball must be judged deliberate. It was certainly ball to hand, but the Lino must have decided that Jones could have moved his arm away and that by not doing so, the handball was deliberate. That was also a matter of opinion and a fine judgement, but it is not right to say that it was not 'remotely' near being a penalty. The Lino saw what he saw and as an officiating assistant ref, his opinion does matter! Yeah, but the lino was wrong, it was not remotely near being deliberate, as the bloke was half-turning around and facing the other way at the time. Fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 24 September, 2009 Share Posted 24 September, 2009 Or Pierluigi Collina Had him. Was a crushing disappointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le Tissier Posted 24 September, 2009 Share Posted 24 September, 2009 i would love to get screwed by the ref. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now