Official 2009/2010 Premiership Thread - Page 10 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

The Special One · 09-20-2009, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bagor

There's lots to explain.

4 minutes added time was shown when city was 3-2 down. If anything the surplus time was to their benefit and United's disadvantage. Can't be any arguments from opposition fans there.

City scores. 3-3. Another minute added on to allow for the time eaten up by their celebration = total of 5 minutes added time. Ref thought he had won with his "let's play until city equalises" move.

Carrick comes on for Anderson so another 30 seconds is added to the clock as per the norm for substitutions = total time added on: 5:30.

Giggs says screw you ref, I seen you lot do this before, splits the defence to Owen who scores at 95:28 with an astonishing 2 perfectly legitimate seconds left on the clock to leave city and the ref gobsmacked.

Refute.

I PVR'd this match. From the moment the ball went in the net to make the score 3-3 to the moment the match kicked off again, it was 51 seconds, not one minute. Subtract nine seconds, the match should have been called at 95:21, not 95:30.

Bagor · 09-20-2009, 10:06 PM

Double post.

Bagor · 09-20-2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Special One

I PVR'd this match. From the moment the ball went in the net to make the score 3-3 to the moment the match kicked off again, it was 51 seconds, not one minute. Subtract nine seconds, the match should have been called at 95:21, not 95:30.

Irrelevant.

These things are rounded off to the nearest minute/half minute.

Do substitutions take exactly 30 seconds? Sometimes more, sometimes less?

Goal scored at 95:28. Time added on after that 1:30 (ref decided to screw United out of another 30 seconds

). Game finished at 96:58.

The Special One · 09-21-2009, 05:48 AM

No, they are not rounded off to the nearest minute/half minute. There is nothing in The Laws of the Game to support this. It is one of my biggest pet peeves in football. The Scholes substitution took about ten seconds, not thirty. There is nothing in the Laws to support this "thirty seconds per substitution" theory. It just doesn't exist.

Bagor · 09-21-2009, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Special One

No, they are not rounded off to the nearest minute/half minute. There is nothing in The Laws of the Game to support this. It is one of my biggest pet peeves in football. The Scholes substitution took about ten seconds, not thirty. There is nothing in the Laws to support this "thirty seconds per substitution" theory. It just doesn't exist.

You miss the point.
The point is every team gets the same treatment.
The point is it is widely accepted by ALL managers that substitutions = 30 seconds added onto the clock. That goal celebrations/ stoppages for goals are rounded up to the nearest 30 seconds.
Nothing to get peeved about. In fact the opposite. it allows for consistancy, fairness and prevents the anoraks that actually time these things from complaining about the game.

JohnnyFlame · 09-21-2009, 08:21 AM

I'm admittedly a Manchester United fan but what's the difference how long they play? Both teams could have scored. Both teams had already shown that they could score this very game. Don't see how extra minutes favors one team over the other.

SeoulFire · 09-21-2009, 09:07 AM

Managers and fans will always find something to complain about when on the wrong side of the score. Hell, if City had scored the winner beyond the 4 (or even another equalizer) I would probably be complaining too.

It's just the way it is.

The Special One · 09-21-2009, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

I'm admittedly a Manchester United fan but what's the difference how long they play? Both teams could have scored. Both teams had already shown that they could score this very game. Don't see how extra minutes favors one team over the other.

No no no. It may have been 3-3 but Manchester City were under the kosh for the entire second half and if not for Shay Given's heroics it would have been a hockey scoreline. The longer they play, the more beneficial it is for the superior team, in this case, clearly United.

mike_2325 · 09-22-2009, 12:20 AM

I was really surprise the ref actually gave over 6 minutes of stoppage time for that game. But I was rooting for United and I am glad they took the 3 points. Really wanted to know how the match would end up had Adebayor played.

Addick · 09-22-2009, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Special One

I PVR'd this match. From the moment the ball went in the net to make the score 3-3 to the moment the match kicked off again, it was 51 seconds, not one minute. Subtract nine seconds, the match should have been called at 95:21, not 95:30.

Real life isn't like FIFA, they don't count the exact seconds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike_2325

Really wanted to know how the match would end up had Adebayor played.

Considering he's gotten something like 4 in 4, I'm sure he would have been due for one of his invisible spells.

united · 09-22-2009, 11:39 AM

Great win in what I hear was a great match. Unfortunately there was no way I could watch it so I'll have to get a replay before I can comment. Rooney is still on fire!

mike_2325 · 09-22-2009, 04:33 PM

I think Man City has a chance to push themselves into the top 4....not that I want them to....

Locke · 09-22-2009, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike_2325

I think Man City has a chance to push themselves into the top 4....not that I want them to....

I dont know, they dont seem to have any direction. It looks like they're following the old Real Madrid model, buy a ton of quality, throw it on the field and hope for the best. That only tends to work for so long and likely wont withstand the grind of the EPL season.

The Special One · 09-22-2009, 04:47 PM

"Football is a simple game. You buy the best eleven players you can and let them sort it out on the pitch."

Nicolas Anelka

The Special One · 09-22-2009, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont know, they dont seem to have any direction. It looks like they're following the old Real Madrid model, buy a ton of quality, throw it on the field and hope for the best. That only tends to work for so long and likely wont withstand the grind of the EPL season.

I agree with you to a certain extent Locke, I'm not sure that Mark Hughes is the man they should have hired. Imagine what Wenger could do with the kind of money Hughes has been given to splash out.

mike_2325 · 09-22-2009, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Special One

I agree with you to a certain extent Locke, I'm not sure that Mark Hughes is the man they should have hired. Imagine what Wenger could do with the kind of money Hughes has been given to splash out.

Hughes is clearly not a good manager.....but what I am worry about is with all those new fire power added in the front line, chemistry doesn't seem to be taking a factor at all.....i mean look at Adebayor...hes got 4 goals in 4 games already....seemed to me he fit in perfectly....i hope the side effects of the Madrid model will play out....but then if they decided to replace Hughes with a quality manager like Roberto Mancini, Mourinho or buyout Wenger's contract....who knows....

Pagal4321 · 09-22-2009, 05:08 PM

Mike...please stop quoting Special posts.....thank you in advance.

I agree with Locke, in that Man City is following a model that we've seen fail already. But who knows, maybe the EPL is the perfect place for an individual all-star team to thrive. I think they have an edge over the previous top 4 becuase they don't have to deal with anything Champions League related, which will allow them to see more "backups" on the bigger teams.

temple5 · 09-22-2009, 08:17 PM

I cant believe how well ManCity has played - I guess money does buy wins - although I am in agreement, I doubt it will last for long.

mike_2325 · 09-22-2009, 09:17 PM

I cant wait till ManCity starts to stumble!~

GirlySports · 09-23-2009, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

I'm admittedly a Manchester United fan but what's the difference how long they play? Both teams could have scored. Both teams had already shown that they could score this very game. Don't see how extra minutes favors one team over the other.

I would think that more time favours the home team or the better team.

But anyways, I always thought that the prawn sandwich criticism of the fans is unfair. The atmosphere usually seems to be good at Old Traford. It seems a little inconsistent for United to be criticized on the one hand for quiet fans and on the other for refs being intimidated (penalties at the Stretford end, injury time when United is trailing, etc.)