Can any referees out there explain the rules regarding the calculation of added/injury time for this season?
It may seem trivial, but I was surprised that Phil Dowd only added two minutes at the end of Saturday's game. Three subs each were used; Anichebe, Forshaw and Vellios for us and Milijas, Kightly and Hammill for Wolves all within the 90 minutes. Bily was down for treatment as was Fletcher for Wolves. Is he saying the full amount doesn't matter due to the scoreline ?
It would be interesting to know the Premier League viewpoint, but they just send you a standard "fob off" reply.
Karl Jones, Posted 12/04/2011 at 21:52:54
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 13/04/2011 at 04:53:22
2 Posted 13/04/2011 at 08:08:48
3 Posted 13/04/2011 at 08:37:50
4 Posted 13/04/2011 at 08:59:12
5 Posted 13/04/2011 at 09:03:05
The one thing that absolutely pisses me off is referees taking liberties with added time to allow an attack to finish. If the time is up, the time is up, like in rugby, the hooter sounds and the game ends. How many goals do you see scored when time should have been over... we have scored these goals too but it should not be allowed to happen.
For instance, on Saturday, time was clearly up yet the ref gave them a dangerous free kick just outside our box, giving them an opportunity to have a dig "outside of time". The foul was committed 25 seconds after time should have been up.
If time is up, blow your whistle, don't wait for a shot on goal or an interception, blow your effing whistle... Whoah... flashbacks to the Quad in the 80s!!
6 Posted 13/04/2011 at 09:26:22
I agree with you're saying in principle but that could lead to a goal being disallowed as the ball crosses the line (has happened twice in my years of following football - once in the World Cup and once in a game between Liverpool and Leeds at Anfield. Also penalties awarded during normal time, can be taken after the regulation time is up.
So there is no clear cut answer really.
7 Posted 13/04/2011 at 09:43:48
8 Posted 13/04/2011 at 09:36:12
If the ref blows exactly on the moment that added time has ended and a team has the opportunity to score, even just a consolation goal, the potential ramifications are great. Imagine if Arsenal had not been allowed to score a (hypothetical) goal in added time in 1989 in a match in the run-in to the finalé at Anfield. They may not have won the league that wonderful night at Anfield....
Either the rule should allow a goalscoring opportunity to take place or the ref should blow up EXACTLY to the second when time is up; one rule, for all teams. When we played Man Utd at Goodison, wasn't there a goalsoring chance at the end which the ref didn't allow? And what about Mr Arsehole Thomas in the World Cup, blowing his whistle as the ball was in flight towards the back of the net and disallowing Brazil a goal against Sweden in 1978?
9 Posted 13/04/2011 at 09:53:23
Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2mNAk-M0XU
10 Posted 13/04/2011 at 10:26:16
It's different for ManUre though, they are the Champions and Jags would have missed anyway.
11 Posted 13/04/2011 at 10:38:33
12 Posted 13/04/2011 at 10:43:42
13 Posted 13/04/2011 at 10:52:15
14 Posted 13/04/2011 at 10:59:08
I think we're both trying to open the same door here, correct, the rules should be made clear and adhered to by all referees or, better still, take the onus off refs all together and have a timed whistle with a clock that can be seen by everyone... even Fergie. And just as importantly, put an end to all time-wasting. (Don't get me going on that one!)
15 Posted 13/04/2011 at 11:35:41
16 Posted 13/04/2011 at 12:51:44
17 Posted 13/04/2011 at 13:49:49
18 Posted 13/04/2011 at 14:59:50
Not sure about the rules on that, but pretty sure if the ball is active it continues.
The thing I disliked most about Thomas was he never, ever, thought he got a decision wrong. At least Poll admitted he got that Westerveld / Hutchison decision wrong... eventually.
19 Posted 13/04/2011 at 17:28:23
20 Posted 13/04/2011 at 17:40:26
If play has been disrupted for 3 minutes, then there should be precisely 3 minutes of stoppage time. End of. I don't care who is on the attack, who is 7-0 down etc.
The fans paid to see 90 minutes of football, not 87 or 93 or 100 if Man U are playing.
What frustrates me is that surely this is something that realistically CAN be achieved? if any refs are egomaniacs who like to give teams "one last attack" or whatever then they should be replaced with more sensible ones.
21 Posted 13/04/2011 at 22:01:25
22 Posted 14/04/2011 at 03:07:55
No need for the referee to worry about how much extra time should be added and, more importantly, the supporters get to see a full 90 minutes of play.
23 Posted 14/04/2011 at 16:07:05
24 Posted 14/04/2011 at 17:29:03
The game would end up being about three hours long.
25 Posted 15/04/2011 at 08:19:13
They only stop the clock for the type of thing football referees do so.
An Aussie Rules game has a total of 12 match officials comprising of 2 time keepers, 3 field umpires, 4 linesmen called boundary umpires and 1 goal judge behind each goal plus 1 fourth official who regulates substitutions.
It is rare that a game exceeds it normal finishing time by more than 5 minutes.
26 Posted 15/04/2011 at 08:35:50
27 Posted 15/04/2011 at 13:37:10
28 Posted 18/04/2011 at 09:05:40
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.