Fierce_LiNk Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 I was flying back from Belfast so missed it all. Last I heard it was 1-1 at half time. Then when I landed quickly hit up BBC sport on the phone and was like WOAH! Now seen the highlights and man what a game. Great Derby match. Rio was probably the most relieved player on the pitch when Owen scored. I heard Berba was the most unluckiest player on the pitch and should have scored about 4 or so? Yeah, Berba is probably kicking himself that he didn't score. Given made some excellent saves to keep him out. I was actually saying noooo when he got taken off for Owen, haha. You don't add the exact time the celebrations took after a goal man, if you were that anal about it every time the match stopped then the matches would last about 3 hours, the ball's only usually in play about 55 minutes over the course of a 90 minute match. You don't need to add the exact time maybe, but the celebration did take place just into the 90th minute. What's really stopping teams for celebrating for a good two minutes or so then? In a post-match interview, Mark Hughes also did state that the fourth official told him he was including another minute because of the celebration. Whether or not it is the correct decision is very debatable. To be honest, I wish the match were still going now, as I didn't particularly want it to end.
Noodleman Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 I dont even really think Given made any great saves against Berbatov though. Every shot Berbs had was straight at him, I would've expected any half decent keeper to save them.
Fierce_LiNk Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 I dont even really think Given made any great saves against Berbatov though. Every shot Berbs had was straight at him, I would've expected any half decent keeper to save them. That's true, they were at him, but I do think Given did well to at least react quickly enough to block these attempts. Also, he didn't just knock the ball back into play, but knocked them away from danger. What about the Berbatov header from the corner? He was only a few feet out and I thought it was a good reflex save? Looking back on it, he should've probably buried those in the corner. But, that's only looking at it in hindsight.
BlueStar Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) You don't need to add the exact time maybe, but the celebration did take place just into the 90th minute. Where was the minute for Owen's celebration? There were four goals in the second half before injury time and I'd wager it was about a minute after each before the next kick off, so that means it should have been four minutes extra time just for goal celebrations, before you add subs, injuries etc. If that's really why there was so much added time then every game should have about 8 minutes added at the end of each half. If Man U had taken the lead in the 90th minute and city were pressing, after 4 minutes of stoppage time Fergie would have been going fucking apeshit tapping his watch in the fourth official's face. Edited September 20, 2009 by BlueStar
Fierce_LiNk Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Where was the minute for Owen's celebration? I couldn't remember the exact times from the game, so I visited the BBC website: 90:00+5:28 GOAL - Michael Owen 90:00+6:58 The final whistle is blown by the referee. They don't state how long was spent celebrating, but there is a minute and a half between Owen scoring and the whistle blowing. There were four goals in the second half before injury time and I'd wager it was about a minute after each before the next kick off, so that means it should have been four minutes extra time just for goal celebrations, before you add subs, injuries etc. If that's really why there was so much added time then every game should have about 8 minutes added at the end of each half. We're never going to know the exact reason unless a referee or official comes out and states exactly the reasoning behind it. Watching Match of the Day, the presenters said that a minute was added because of Bellamy's goal celebration. Also, 30 seconds was added for the Carrick/Anderson substitution. So, a minute and a half. 90 minutes + the 4 minutes + the minute and a half...pretty much comes at 95:30.
BlueStar Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 We're never going to know the exact reason unless a referee or official comes out and states exactly the reasoning behind it. Gerraway man, everyone knows the exact reason behind it - it was Man United. You can do all the calculations you want but no team outside the top four would have been afforded that much time to get a winner. Week in, week out teams score in the 90th minute and don't have their celebration time added to stoppage time.
DuD Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Why is the time added on such a big deal??? The referee made the decision to do it. You play to the referees whistle. Its not like the ref himself scored the goal either, Man City's woefull defending was the main contributer to that. United deserved to win, and thankfully they did. Also: i'm not saying that i don't think some of the bigger teams are favoured by refs, just in this case i can't understand the complaint..? Spurs fans on ther otherhand, they have a legitamate reason to feel agreived.
Fierce_LiNk Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 If Man U had taken the lead in the 90th minute and city were pressing, after 4 minutes of stoppage time Fergie would have been going fucking apeshit tapping his watch in the fourth official's face. If that is the case, then the officials need to grow a back-bone and just get on with it. No managers or players are above the game, so if they are interfering then the officials should do something about it. If they did, then maybe all this talk of United having it easy would die down. All the players on the field can do is play until the whistle blows. I mean, you're taught that at the most basic level. It pisses me off when players stop running for example because they think they're offside and squander a good goal-scoring chance. So, you play to the whistle. Whether it's the 1st minute of injury time or the 101st, leaving Michael Owen unmarked in the box is a very risky thing to do, and they paid the price. Gerraway man, everyone knows the exact reason behind it - it was Man United. You can do all the calculations you want but no team outside the top four would have been afforded that much time to get a winner. Week in, week out teams score in the 90th minute and don't have their celebration time added to stoppage time. Like I mentioned earlier, the added on time was there for City, too. They had just scored the equaliser so they were in the ascendancy. Why didn't they go for the winner? And, you can't safely say for sure that no other team would have been afforded such time. If you are right, then surely this is the fault of the officials and not the players or the team. How exactly are the big four to blame for what the officials do?
DuD Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 The referee made the decision to do it. You play to the referees whistle. Its not like the ref himself scored the goal either, Man City's woefull defending was the main contributer to that. All the players on the field can do is play until the whistle blows. I mean, you're taught that at the most basic level. It pisses me off when players stop running for example because they think they're offside and squander a good goal-scoring chance. So, you play to the whistle. Whether it's the 1st minute of injury time or the 101st, leaving Michael Owen unmarked in the box is a very risky thing to do, and they paid the price. I swear you say what I think. I don't need to post half the time where you've already added my opinion.
BlueStar Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) Actually, hang on - your calculations are bollocks are well. The times you quote include the time Owen was celebrating. 90:00+5:28 GOAL - Michael Owen 90:00+6:58 The final whistle is blown by the referee. If Owen scored at 95:30, spent about a minute celebrating, then there should have been yet another minute added on at the end. You know as well as I do that if Man U had taken the lead in the 90th minute, 4 minutes of stoppage time had been added, Man U were on the defensive and the ref didn't blow till 97 minutes that Ferguson would have spent the last 4 minutes of stoppage time screaming blue murder into the face of the fourth official in a manner that would get most managers a touchline ban. How exactly are the big four to blame for what the officials do? If the FA cave to pressure from the big four it just encourages them, you're right. Edited September 20, 2009 by BlueStar
Dyson Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 All this calculations talk is bollocks. It's pretty obvious it was the wrong decision by the ref but going down to each second...really?
Fierce_LiNk Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 I swear you say what I think. I don't need to post half the time where you've already added my opinion. Thanks, dude. Actually, hang on - your calculations are bollocks are well. The times you quote include the time Owen was celebrating. *big sigh* They don't state how long was spent celebrating, but there is a minute and a half between Owen scoring and the whistle blowing. - from my above post. You know as well as I do that if Man U had taken the lead in the 90th minute, 4 minutes of stoppage time had been added, Man U were on the defensive and the ref didn't blow till 97 minutes that Ferguson would have spent the last 4 minutes of stoppage time screaming blue murder into the face of the fourth official in a manner that would get most managers a touchline ban. Again, you cannot say any of that because you're talking "What ifs." Also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/8223417.stm United vs Arsenal. Arsenal losing 2-1. At Old Trafford. Oh wait... 90:00+7:16 The match has reached full-time. Arsenal also had a goal rightly ruled out for Off-side. United were defending for their lives. So, I have given you EXACTLY the scenario that you described. No whistle blown until 97 minutes. United scored wellllll before the end of the game.
MadDog Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 4 mins was added on. 1 min added on for Bellamys goal. 30 seconds for a sub. = 5mins 30 seconds added on. Owen scored 90+5mins30seconds. So it was infact the correct decision to add on that amount of time. You can't argue against the facts, and i support Liverpool....
Portlett Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 In the end of the day United deserved to win, City did no attacking at all 2nd half really.......and if they are a team that really want to break into the top 4 then surely they will aim to win away from home so that time added on was as much an incentive for them to score as it was United surely?
Fresh Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 I wonder if Giggs will market his Elixir of Life? hummm.
BlueStar Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 (edited) It's as simple as this - if all of the stoppages, all the goals, celebrations, corners, yellow cards, injuries, talking-tos by the referee, the ball going into the crowd, substitutions and free kicks of the whole 45 minutes of the second half add up to only four minutes then how on earth can there be enough stoppages in those four minutes alone to add another three minutes? Arsenal also had a goal rightly ruled out for Off-side. United were defending for their lives. So, I have given you EXACTLY the scenario that you described. No whistle blown until 97 minutes. United scored wellllll before the end of the game. So you can give me another example of a top four club being afforded an inordinate amount of time to equalise? How many minutes were actually put up on the board? There's many ways in which the systems are set up to maintain the status quo as concerns the top clubs which have a large foreign following - the premier league gets four champions league spots, and those teams get a huge amount of prize money even if they have a poor run, they get seeded so they only face poor teams, they get byes in other competitions... It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that this goes down to officiating level as well. What's really stopping teams for celebrating for a good two minutes or so then? The same thing that stops someone taking two minutes for a goal kick. If the referee thinks you're taking too long to get the game started again he tells you to get going, if you fail to do that then you get booked. That doesn't mean 20 seconds gets added on for every goal kick, 30 if takes a bit longer because the ball went into the crowd etc. It was a good game, but as a neutral it seems a bit of a tainted victory seeing as the whole country are collectively eye-rolling at the manner of the winner. Edited September 21, 2009 by BlueStar
Gizmo Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 There's many ways in which the systems are set up to maintain the status quo as concerns the top clubs which have a large foreign following - the premier league gets four champions league spots, and those teams get a huge amount of prize money even if they have a poor run, they get seeded so they only face poor teams, they get byes in other competitions... It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that this goes down to officiating level as well. The biggest league in the region gets the maximum allowed spaces for Champions League entry - big shock. Teams get paid for appearing in this competition - big shock. Good teams get seeded higher than less good teams - big shock.
Fierce_LiNk Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 It's as simple as this - if all of the stoppages, all the goals, celebrations, corners, yellow cards, injuries, talking-tos by the referee, the ball going into the crowd, substitutions and free kicks of the whole 45 minutes of the second half add up to only four minutes then how on earth can there be enough stoppages in those four minutes alone to add another three minutes? So, are you infact saying that more time should have been added? I'll say this and I'll say this for the last time: One minute of that stoppage time comprised of City celebrating their equaliser. One minute. Fergie also decided to swap Anderson for Carrick, which I might add is probably a defensive decision, in order to stop City going up and getting a winner. So, that one minute and time for that substitution were simply added on to the end. 90 minutes. 91 minutes was the time of kick off. 94 minutes would have been the end of the game had the delay because of the substitution and goal celebration had not taken place. So, 94 minutes plus the one minute that was taken away because of the celebration, and another 30 seconds that were as a result of the substitution. Owen scored at around 95 minutes and a half. Some places say 26 seconds, some say 24. But, the fact of the matter is that it was within the added on time designated by the referee. Why are you not getting this? It's pretty simple and very clear. When Owen puts the ball in the back of the net, there are merely a few seconds left before the allotted added on time by the ref would have expired. Or, are you now asking why there were 4 minutes of added on time? Maybe you should email a referee or the referee's association or something. So you can give me another example of a top four club being afforded an inordinate amount of time to equalise? How many minutes were actually put up on the board? No, I have given you an example of stoppage time added at Old Trafford, regardless if United are winning or losing. For your information, five minutes of time were on the board, but there was also a delay because of Wenger being sent into the stands. Guess what? That was added on at the end. The same thing that stops someone taking two minutes for a goal kick. If the referee thinks you're taking too long to get the game started again he tells you to get going, if you fail to do that then you get booked. That doesn't mean 20 seconds gets added on for every goal kick, 30 if takes a bit longer because the ball went into the crowd etc. What? So you would be happy if the player got booked and that was the end of it? The best thing the referee could do is say "waste all of the time that you want...I'll just add the time you have wasted at the end of the game." If a particular player deliberately continues to waste time, then the ref should book them as well as add on time at the end. There's many ways in which the systems are set up to maintain the status quo as concerns the top clubs which have a large foreign following - the premier league gets four champions league spots, and those teams get a huge amount of prize money even if they have a poor run, they get seeded so they only face poor teams, they get byes in other competitions... It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that this goes down to officiating level as well. The biggest league in the region gets the maximum allowed spaces for Champions League entry - big shock. Teams get paid for appearing in this competition - big shock. Good teams get seeded higher than less good teams - big shock. I think Gizmo answered your point well.
BlueStar Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 (edited) So, are you infact saying that more time should have been added? I'll say this and I'll say this for the last time: One minute of that stoppage time comprised of City celebrating their equaliser. One minute. Fergie also decided to swap Anderson for Carrick, which I might add is probably a defensive decision, in order to stop City going up and getting a winner. So, that one minute and time for that substitution were simply added on to the end. 90 minutes. 91 minutes was the time of kick off. 94 minutes would have been the end of the game had the delay because of the substitution and goal celebration had not taken place. So, 94 minutes plus the one minute that was taken away because of the celebration, and another 30 seconds that were as a result of the substitution. Owen scored at around 95 minutes and a half. Some places say 26 seconds, some say 24. But, the fact of the matter is that it was within the added on time designated by the referee. Why are you not getting this? It's pretty simple and very clear. When Owen puts the ball in the back of the net, there are merely a few seconds left before the allotted added on time by the ref would have expired. You've already said all this. You simply cannot say that there were nearly as many stoppages in those last 4 minutes as in the entire 45 minutes beforehand. It's absurd. No, I have given you an example of stoppage time added at Old Trafford, regardless if United are winning or losing. For your information, five minutes of time were on the board, but there was also a delay because of Wenger being sent into the stands. Guess what? That was added on at the end. Yes, there was a very unusal event occuring - things like managers getting sent to the stands, pitch invasions, serious injuries, these are things that result in time being added on, not the usual flow of the game, ie goal kicks and returning the ball the the centre after a goal. What? So you would be happy if the player got booked and that was the end of it? The best thing the referee could do is say "waste all of the time that you want...I'll just add the time you have wasted at the end of the game." If a particular player deliberately continues to waste time, then the ref should book them as well as add on time at the end. But no-one 'deliberately wasted time" in this case, a minute from a team scoring to the time of the kick off is in no way unusual, it's pretty much standard and normally incorporated into the normal time of the game (unless 've missed particularly high scoring games ending up with a full 10 minutes of added time). Even if there are no goals, subs or long injuries in a second half there are ALWAYS at least two minutes added on, so all those goals and subs in normal time only added up to two minutes? Really? I'm not saying there should have been more than four minutes "official" stoppage time, I'm saying there's an undeniable descrepancy between how much was added on for your common or garden expected hold ups during normal time and how much was added on for the same hold-ups in added time, ie after the 90 minute mark when Bellamy's goal went in. And let me ask you this - if bringing on subs lengthens the amount of stoppage time by such a high percentage, why do managers, including Fergie, bring on subs late in the game to run down the clock when they're holding onto a lead? I'm willing to bet that it's really not going to take long to see either a) A goal scored by Man United in stoppage time with a minute long celebration that doesn't result in a whole extra minute of stoppage time. or b) Fergie complaining that the whistle hasn't gone wexactly when the announced time finishes, no matter what subs, goals or injuries have happened during that period. Edited September 21, 2009 by BlueStar
Platty Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 Didn't the ref say he only added Bellamy's on and not the other goal celebrations because he deemed Bellamy's last celebration "excessive". Think that's the key word and the get out of jail card for the ref. He is in charge and can add whatever he likes. The time held up by the 4th official (in this case 4 minutes) is not the required stoppages. It's the minimum time the ref should play. He can play just that 4 minutes or add more time for whatever reasons he deems fit. In this case he played the 4 minutes plus added on extra stoppage for Bellamy's excessive goal celebration and the united substitution. If it was round the other way, as a United fan I would also be pissed off. But just because the ref added an extra 2 minutes or so doesn't mean City's defence should pack up. The way a lot of people are talking is that the ref not only added extra minutes but went and put the ball in the net himself. Jeez. United play to the final whistle and never stop attacking, not their fault the ref added extra minutes and City's defence didn't mark Owen.
BlueStar Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 So if you celebrate for 45 seconds 0 time gets added on, if you celebrate for another 15 seconds a whole minute gets added on? It's not that I don't understand the maths, it's just that I watch football every week and I don't see those kind of additions, for those kinds of events, in other games. The referee can justify it however he wants, but if games involving other teams aren't having the same formulas applied people are going to feel agrieved.
Gizmo Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 I'd say it's a fairly common thing. The ref announces an amount to be added on, but then during those minutes it's far more rigorous in what they play to. A minute stoppage in added time is different to a minutes stoppage in normal time, just because the referee is under more pressure to stick to the time he said. Don't know why it is, but it just is. I've seen it countless times before, just so happens that on this occassion it made a difference compared to the thousands of other times when it didn't.
Platty Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 So if you celebrate for 45 seconds 0 time gets added on, if you celebrate for another 15 seconds a whole minute gets added on? No I'm not saying that. I personally think it's all bollocks. my previous post was simply stating what sky sports report which was that the ref added on stoppages for Bellamy's celebration as he felt it was excessive.
DuD Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 So we've got Arsenal in the cup tonight... I wonder how we'll fair against their reserves..?
BlueStar Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 Well done on twatting the smoggies 5-0 btw DuD, rounded off a nice day for me. We're getting Marlon Harewood on loan from Villa apparently, although we've been "about" to seal the deal forever seemingly. Reckon he could do a decent job for us in the championship, plus we need strikers with Shola out injured.
Recommended Posts