Six minutes of injury time!!

[thejuggernaut]

... six minutes of injury time.

[onefineesq]

I don't have a team in England and really couldn't care less who won the game. But that was an absolute RIP by the ref. Plain and simple. If United had lost possession of the ball, he would have immediately blown the whistle and not allowed a counter, but he passed up 2 or 3 clearances by City where he could have (and should have) blown the whistle. Absolutely nonsense.

[MLSn00b]

In a match with no injuries and very few stops. One wonders if refs know their numbers because I'm pretty sure 6 does not equal 4.

[juanca]

What a rip off. You guys certainly deserved a point, but hey, its Yanited time after all so yes, 4 = 6:rolleyes:

[Numquam Moribimur]

The Keyword is Minimum

[onefineesq]

The Keyword is Minimum Yeah, because I'm sure if another team scored a minute and 30 seconds past the minimum against United, you wouldn't be complaining and would point out that it was a minimum. :rolleyes: That wasn't even close to the alloted "minimum" time.

[juanca]

The Keyword is Minimum

True.

I guess it depends on whether or not ferguson rings the FA for more time right?

[thejuggernaut]

The Keyword is Minimum
Minimum... in the event of a City score.


i seem to think the key word is Fixed.

Numquam mabwom or what ever the ******** your name is.... you must be very proud. You rags have been benefiting from this manipulation for so long, I'm sure you no longer think it evens exists.

[chaoslord08]

Minimum... in the event of a City score.


Yes, EXACTLY. If a team scores, MORE time is supposed to be added. Same with a SUBSTITUTION.

Hey, look at that, *both* of those happened in stoppage time.

I wanted to see Utd get their comeuppance, and I was happy City was about to get a point, but I'm not going to try to pretend there is a conspiracy where basic logic can explain what happen. As a side note, see Occam's razor.

[thejuggernaut]

Yes, EXACTLY. If a team scores, MORE time is supposed to be added. Same with a SUBSTITUTION.

Hey, look at that, *both* of those happened in stoppage time.

I wanted to see Utd get their comeuppance, and I was happy City was about to get a point, but I'm not going to try to pretend there is a conspiracy where basic logic can explain what happen. As a side note, see Occam's razor.

It's all at the REF's descresion.

If your adding time for goals... which 99% of referees (some feel the same for SUBS) is part of the game. You can then justify adding time...


for throw ins
trash on the field,
wall set-up
offsides,
free kick arguing,
corner kick walking over,
penalty organization,
penalty kick taking,
divot replacing

and, of course,

the national anthem

every single game would run for 120 minutes.

Also, if goals should be considered for INJURY time, no games would end in the center circle after a goal with a one or two final kicks.

WHICH HAPPENS ALL THE F*CKIN TIME!!

[Manchester City]

Yes, EXACTLY. If a team scores, MORE time is supposed to be added. Same with a SUBSTITUTION.

Hey, look at that, *both* of those happened in stoppage time.

I wanted to see Utd get their comeuppance, and I was happy City was about to get a point, but I'm not going to try to pretend there is a conspiracy where basic logic can explain what happen. As a side note, see Occam's razor.

Our celebration took 40 seconds (I just rewatched the match). Two and half were added to the stoppage time. And referees 99% of the time do not add time in stoppage based on substitutions for the very reason that they could be used intentionally and unsportsmanly to extend the game.

By the way, Ockham's Razor would support the most basic of mathematical assumptions. Which would include a like for like extension, 40 seconds for 40 seconds.

It would also support the most likely outcome based on previous findings when conditions are generally the same, thus including the actions of thousands of previous referees in thousands of previous matches. The fourth official allowed for stoppage to go well beyond like for like, after multiple clearances that I have seen, over my many years of watching and playing, would almost certainly have stopped the match.

Not to even mention that if the same time had been then added to stoppage because of Owen's goal based on the time added for Bellamy's, why did the Referee end the match 16 or so seconds after the last kickoff? So you are implying one set of rules should be applied for United and another for City?

Basic analysis of the incident would provide a conclusion that it was extraordinary at the very least, and suspect at most.

[thejuggernaut]

Be Happy Owen scored ... the game would still be going on.

And I had sh*t I had to do today.

[JayBoy]

last week's Winners&Losers column remarked that 'it appears as if the league's whistle-blowers are under instruction this season to play a greater amount of injury time at the end of each half'. Yet it was the time that referee Martin Atkinson added on to added-on time that City will rage against: having signalled a modest four minutes of injury time, United's winner was scored in the 96th.

Dubious? Fertile ground for a A paranoid frenzy? Not really.

City scored in the very final seconds of the ninety. The game did not restart until over 91 minutes had elapsed. Every substitution should result in another thirty seconds being played and United replaced Anderson with Michael Carrick in the 93rd. The four minutes of injury time signalled is a minimum period, not a maximum.

So even if Owen scored after an outrageous-sounding 95 minutes and 28 seconds, it was legitimate for the the game still to have been in play at that time.

Perfectly legit goal.

[Manchester City]

Perfectly legit goal.

Again, I ask, if this is so, why was the match whistled final a mere 16 seconds after the Owen goal? If goals and celebrations, as Bellamy's did, should add equal, if not greater, amount of seconds to that of the act itself, then we should have had another minute or more to go at United. We did not. This is bit that no matter who and how it is being covered everyone seems to be overlooking.

Substitutions also rarely, despite rules, lead to additional minutes in substitution. I could present hundreds of other matches as evidence.

They called the matched almost immediately after the last score after adding minutes apparently because of Bellamy's goal and substitutions. This is inconsistency in application, in a very suspect manner.

Anyone that has watched more than ten years of English football could see this was at the very least extraordinary.

I maintain this was a manipulation to favour one side.

[lanman]

Again, I ask, if this is so, why was the match whistled final a mere 16 seconds after the Owen goal? If goals and celebrations, as Bellamy's did, should add equal, if not greater, amount of seconds to that of the act itself, then we should have had another minute or more to go at United. We did not. This is bit that no matter who and how it is being covered everyone seems to be overlooking.

It can be explained. If the referee was going to blow for full time 16 seconds after Owen scored, he would then play on for 16 seconds after the game restarted regardless of whether it took 30 seconds or 2 minutes to kick off again.

Overall, officials tend to stop the clock more in stoppage time than during the game. A goal scored in the 60th minute is less likely to see the full stoppage added on than after the additional time has been shown. Whether that's correct or not is certainly open for debate, but it's how it tends to happen.

[Manchester City]

It can be explained. If the referee was going to blow for full time 16 seconds after Owen scored, he would then play on for 16 seconds after the game restarted regardless of whether it took 30 seconds or 2 minutes to kick off again.

Overall, officials tend to stop the clock more in stoppage time than during the game. A goal scored in the 60th minute is less likely to see the full stoppage added on than after the additional time has been shown. Whether that's correct or not is certainly open for debate, but it's how it tends to happen.

That would make sense if Owen had not used time in the additional minutes that had apparently been given previously based on celebration and substitution to celebrate his goal. And according to this theory and based on the implied official assessment that would be quite a bit more than 16 seconds after Owen scored. Most likely around 45 seconds to a minute. He called dead as soon as possible after the kickoff, when really Owen and United had used nearly a minute of the time that was to be additionally played to celebrate. Again, it is inconsistent application, and seems, from many perspectives, a manipulation.

It is interesting to see the methods being used to explain it away and how, upon further inspection, they do not make much sense.

[Red Jeph]

That would make sense if Owen had not used time in the additional minutes that had apparently been given previously based on celebration and substitution to celebrate his goal. And according to this theory and based on the implied official assessment that would be quite a bit more than 16 seconds after Owen scored. Most likely around 45 seconds to a minute. He called dead as soon as possible after the kickoff, when really Owen and United had used nearly a minute of the time that was to be additionally played to celebrate. Again, it is inconsistent application, and seems, from many perspectives, a manipulation.

It is interesting to see the methods being used to explain it away and how, upon further inspection, they do not make much sense.

I really don't see how it is inconsistent:

Original injury time: 4:00. Goal scored right at 90:00, game restarted at ~91:00, which means the 4:00 original minutes start at 91:00. Substitution at 92:00 adds :30, which means when the game is restarted at 92:30 there are still 3:00 minutes of the original injury time left. Owen's goal is scored at 95:26, which means there is :04 of original injury time left. Which means when the game is restarted, no matter how long United's celebration, there should be :04 left. The time left after celebration is just how much of the original time was left, i.e., there were still 3:00 left after City's celebration, so 3:00 (plus the :30 for the sub) were played. After United's celebration, there was :16 (or whatever) left, so that is what was played. So how is it inconsistent?

[EricCantona'sCollar]

Yeah, because I'm sure if another team scored a minute and 30 seconds past the minimum against United, you wouldn't be complaining and would point out that it was a minimum. :rolleyes: That wasn't even close to the alloted "minimum" time.
You're upset because you got beaten right at the end.

The MINUMUM extra time was four minutes. Add at least a minute for City's goal celebration, add an extra 30 seconds for Carrick coming on and we are past the point where Owen scored. Nothing dodgy about it.

Plus don't forget that extra time gives both teams the opportunity to score. Why couldn't your lot score?

[thejuggernaut]

You're upset because you got beaten right at the end.

The MINUMUM extra time was four minutes. Add at least a minute for City's goal celebration, add an extra 30 seconds for Carrick coming on and we are past the point where Owen scored. Nothing dodgy about it.

Plus don't forget that extra time gives both teams the opportunity to score. Why couldn't your lot score?

I really don't see how it is inconsistent:

Original injury time: 4:00. Goal scored right at 90:00, game restarted at ~91:00, which means the 4:00 original minutes start at 91:00. Substitution at 92:00 adds :30, which means when the game is restarted at 92:30 there are still 3:00 minutes of the original injury time left. Owen's goal is scored at 95:26, which means there is :04 of original injury time left. Which means when the game is restarted, no matter how long United's celebration, there should be :04 left. The time left after celebration is just how much of the original time was left, i.e., there were still 3:00 left after City's celebration, so 3:00 (plus the :30 for the sub) were played. After United's celebration, there was :16 (or whatever) left, so that is what was played. So how is it inconsistent?

Perfectly legit goal.
The fact that you rags are even over here trying to explain the reason why a match with No injuries lasted for 97 minutes...

speaks volumes on how shit your team has really become.

We all know your best days are behind you. Move On... or buy a City jersey if your so concerned about us.

[CityBlues]

Guys,

What a gut wrenching match, especially to get sucker punched like that right at the end.

But, it's Monday morning, and we lost the match, nothing we say or do is going to change the fact that Owen was open on the far post to score. Was it controversial? Darn right it was, no one can legitimately say that there wasn't anything controversial about 6-7 minutes of stoppage time. I've seen matches with 3 injuries that get 5 mins of stoppage. From my personal perspective, we got hosed.

What can we do? The win goes to United. Unfortunately, we have to expect some form of injustice is going to occur when we play a team like them.

It is awfully telling, however, that United fans feel it irresistable to come over here and prove to us how innocent and fair that victory was for United. Please, spare me your explanations. I know what I saw and I will not let you formulate my opinion for me. I'm sorry but a subsititution in stoppage time does not equate to 6 minutes. I have no interest at all in arguing with you, in fact I think we would all appreciate it if you would go back to your own teams board and leave us be in our misery.

It takes a lot of gall to come over here after a game like that and irritate us even further. Is it not enough you got the 3 points? What ever happened to "hey guys, that was a really great match, good luck this season." You know what? Screw you guys, really, and I don't care if that's not PC. This is derby day and we got screwed and your going to come over here and argue???? Please, go away.