Page 1 of 1

The Proof: Not That We Needed Any!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:34 am
by Fish111
From the Guardian:

Sir Alex Ferguson likes to boast that his Manchester United team score more late goals than any other side in the world. Others argue that they get a bit of extra help from referees. It has now emerged that the Premier League champions do, as suspected, benefit from an imbalance in the amount of stoppage time that is added to their matches.

After the controversy over Michael Owen's winning goal in Sunday's Manchester derby, the Guardian has looked at all of United's league matches at Old Trafford since the start of the 2006-07 season and discovered that, on average, there has been over a minute extra added by referees when United do not have the lead after 90 minutes, compared to when they are in front. In 48 games when United were ahead, the average amount of stoppage time was 191.35 seconds. In 12 matches when United were drawing or losing there was an average of 257.17sec.

The average stoppage time added at Old Trafford in the period in question is below that given at Anfield, the Emirates Stadium and Stamford Bridge. United's is 205 seconds, compared to Liverpool's 210sec, Arsenal's 224sec and Chelsea's 229sec. But there is also evidence to support the suspicions of many managers, players and supporters that United get preferential treatment at home. When Owen made it 4-3 on Sunday the game was five minutes and 26 seconds into stoppage time. In total, the referee, Martin Atkinson, allowed almost seven minutes, even though the fourth official had signalled a minimum of four. Mark Hughes, the City manager, spoke of feeling "robbed". His sense of grievance will not be helped if he analyses the last three seasons.

In 2006-07, for example, United were winning 15 times on entering stoppage time and referees added an average 194.53sec. In the four games when United were not winning there was an average of 217.25sec. The following year the disparity was greater, Opta's figures showing an average 178.29sec added when United were winning and 254.5sec when they were not. Last season it was 187.71sec compared to 258.6sec.

The pattern has continued in the first three games of the season. In the two games United have led they have played an average 304sec of injury time. On Sunday, Atkinson allowed the game to go on for 415sec.

Re: The Proof: Not That We Needed Any!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:59 am
by mcfc1632
This issue also flushed some proof over the bias of SKY towards the scum

They were pushing out 'facts' that this concern that the scum get extra time is unfounded - demonstrating that in fact less 'extra time' is played at the swamp than anywhere else

Now they might think that the average viewer is thick - but I suspect that I am not the only one to see straight through it - of course they are using every game - not when the scum are not in front.

So put together this proves that the scum benefit both ways - the ref blows early when they are in front and adds extra when they are not!!

Re: The Proof: Not That We Needed Any!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:06 am
by david yearsley
And people say it´s all conspiracy bollox - the fact is the refs know what Baconface is like and they ARE intimidated by his touchline antics and constant cajouling of the 4th official. They know their future as prem refs could be jeapordised by incurring the chagrin of the almighty one .Anyone who says Ferguscum doesn´t hold sway at the F.A and P.L. really does have his head up his own sphincter - most refs are very aware of this.
Can you imagine had WE scored after 96 mins? Atkinson would now be a dead man walking - end of

Re: The Proof: Not That We Needed Any!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:10 am
by Vhero
david yearsley wrote:And people say it´s all conspiracy bollox - the fact is the refs know what Baconface is like and they ARE intimidated by his touchline antics and constant cajouling of the 4th official. They know their future as prem refs could be jeapordised by incurring the chagrin of the almighty one .Anyone who says Ferguscum doesn´t hold sway at the F.A and P.L. really does have his head up his own sphincter - most refs are very aware of this.
Can you imagine had WE scored after 96 mins? Atkinson would now be a dead man walking - end of

I agree the guy would be working in the championship for the rest of his career.

Re: The Proof: Not That We Needed Any!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:25 am
by david yearsley
For "Championship" re "Unibond" !

Re: The Proof: Not That We Needed Any!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:21 am
by Guy Debord
Referees make mistakes. We can accept that, but they must be unbiased.

This article is clear proof of bias in favour of the home team at Old Trafford. That bias results in points won for the home team and enables them to proper in the league and consequently to benefit financially.

For the FA to retain any credibilty it needs to review all aspects of refereeing in games involving United, and the big teams in general, to ensure that we are all playing the same game. If we're not, the competition is valueless.

Re: The Proof: Not That We Needed Any!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:32 am
by Fidel Castro
The sooner that alcoholic paedo cunt Fergiescum dies, the better.

Re: The Proof: Not That We Needed Any!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:48 am
by Beefymcfc
david yearsley wrote:Can you imagine had WE scored after 96 mins? Atkinson would now be a dead man walking - end of

That's a bit of a Dream isn't it Dave! If we or any other team were anywhere near their half into injury time, the ref would most certainly pull the play back and give them a freekick/penalty. Tevez' getting a freekick against him in the 94th minute was a prime example, or am I being bitter and cynical? Let's face it, if Owen had tripped over an extraordinary long blade of grass, he would've almost certainly got a penalty and the nearest player to him would've got sent off!

Is it any wonder why some of our players get eat-up and frustrated on the pitch when things like this happen?

Re: The Proof: Not That We Needed Any!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:44 am
by ronk
It's a pyrrhic victory for the rags.

They're celebrating more because they deserved it less. Their extra time trick was only worthwhile when it was a mere rumour. Now, it's notorious, Bacon Face can celebrate a great example of it helping save the day but they've also drawn a lot of attention to it.

Next time you can be damn sure the ref will blow the whistle on time. This was worth more to them when they could use it regularly.

Re: The Proof: Not That We Needed Any!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:39 pm
by john68
I really wish I had your faith Ronk. I don't agree. Football, as with other sports will continue to do its own thing, in full public view with utter contempt for the fans.
It happens weekly in rugby league and even when slo-mo videos of tries etc are shown on the big screen, they give the descision that suits them.

Re: The Proof: Not That We Needed Any!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:43 pm
by Robinho_Is_GOD
david yearsley wrote:And people say it´s all conspiracy bollox - the fact is the refs know what Baconface is like and they ARE intimidated by his touchline antics and constant cajouling of the 4th official. They know their future as prem refs could be jeapordised by incurring the chagrin of the almighty one .Anyone who says Ferguscum doesn´t hold sway at the F.A and P.L. really does have his head up his own sphincter - most refs are very aware of this.
Can you imagine had WE scored after 96 mins? Atkinson would now be a dead man walking - end of


Not a chance Dave, we would have gone on all night and day after until united got the lead back, and then the whistle would have blown, our players obviously realised this, and just thought they might as well get it over with, as they promised their wives and children they would meet them later that night.

Re: The Proof: Not That We Needed Any!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:46 pm
by Robinho_Is_GOD
ronk wrote:Next time you can be damn sure the ref will blow the whistle on time. This was worth more to them when they could use it regularly.


I have a feeling that if City get that Atkinson twat as ref again this season, then we might accompany his "time added on" with a chorus of "ARE YOU FUCKING SURE THIS TIME"

Re: The Proof: Not That We Needed Any!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:49 pm
by Slim
I am absolutely gutted about this guys, but WE HAVE TO GET OVER IT.

If we dwell on being the victim then we will lose focus on the bigger picture, cementing a top 4 place and winning the league (and both cups). Have your bitchin, it's probably fitting, but come Wednesday we are done and it's Fulham.

Re: The Proof: Not That We Needed Any!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:57 pm
by ronk
john68 wrote:I really wish I had your faith Ronk. I don't agree. Football, as with other sports will continue to do its own thing, in full public view with utter contempt for the fans.
It happens weekly in rugby league and even when slo-mo videos of tries etc are shown on the big screen, they give the descision that suits them.


Football is as bent as an s-hook. We both know that and that it has been for a long time. The powers that be know that they won't fool some fans very often, but as long as the majority are happy then they'll keep coming back. You just think it's full public view because it's more obvious to you than the usual clueless fan.

That limits their brazenness. If they go too far then the naive fans who miss all the little things will realise and will be more tuned to future transgressions. Part of cheating is changing the rules and the way you cheat to use more effective strategies.

Future instances of extra long extra time will be scrutinized closely and commentators worldwide will pick up on it sooner when it happens again. At that point it goes out of the control of the cosy cartel of sports journalists who revel in the power they've been given and since they can't stop it from becoming a story, they use it.

Re: The Proof: Not That We Needed Any!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:17 pm
by Robinho_Is_GOD
Slim wrote:I am absolutely gutted about this guys, but WE HAVE TO GET OVER IT.

If we dwell on being the victim then we will lose focus on the bigger picture, cementing a top 4 place and winning the league (and both cups). Have your bitchin, it's probably fitting, but come Wednesday we are done and it's Fulham.


True, but it isn't Wednesday until tomorrow, and I have a lot to get out of my system Slim.

Re: The Proof: Not That We Needed Any!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:25 pm
by robinho1025
IMO we mostly have ourselves to blame for losing on sunday. In the last 30 seconds, Tevez gives up a free kick then he heads the ball to a U****d player when he could have headed it down and booted it. Then Ireland comes running in from f**k knows where just in time to see the ball passed to a wide open Owen who no one has marked. We really were just standing around and I don't care how many extra seconds were allotted, YOU PLAY UNTIL THE FINAL WHISTLE. And we did not.

Re: The Proof: Not That We Needed Any!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:43 pm
by david yearsley
[quote]Not a chance Dave, we would have gone on all night and day after until U***d got the lead back, and then the whistle would have blown, our players obviously realised this, and just thought they might as well get it over with, as they promised their wives and children they would meet them later that night

and
That's a bit of a Dream isn't it Dave! If we or any other team were anywhere near their half into injury time, the ref would most certainly pull the play back and give them a freekick/penalty. Tevez' getting a freekick against him in the 94th minute was a prime example, or am I being bitter and cynical? Let's face it, if Owen had tripped over an extraordinary long blade of grass, he would've almost certainly got a penalty and the nearest player to him would've got sent off![quote]

Derrrr.. how could I ever have been so dumb!;)

Re: The Proof: Not That We Needed Any!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:51 pm
by Beefymcfc
david yearsley wrote:
Not a chance Dave, we would have gone on all night and day after until U***d got the lead back, and then the whistle would have blown, our players obviously realised this, and just thought they might as well get it over with, as they promised their wives and children they would meet them later that night

and
That's a bit of a Dream isn't it Dave! If we or any other team were anywhere near their half into injury time, the ref would most certainly pull the play back and give them a freekick/penalty. Tevez' getting a freekick against him in the 94th minute was a prime example, or am I being bitter and cynical? Let's face it, if Owen had tripped over an extraordinary long blade of grass, he would've almost certainly got a penalty and the nearest player to him would've got sent off!

Derrrr.. how could I ever have been so dumb!;)

Ha ha ha, you know it ;-)

Re: The Proof: Not That We Needed Any!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:35 pm
by shawzy
robinho1025 wrote:IMO we mostly have ourselves to blame for losing on sunday. In the last 30 seconds, Tevez gives up a free kick then he heads the ball to a U****d player when he could have headed it down and booted it. Then Ireland comes running in from f**k knows where just in time to see the ball passed to a wide open Owen who no one has marked. We really were just standing around and I don't care how many extra seconds were allotted, YOU PLAY UNTIL THE FINAL WHISTLE. And we did not.


Yes its all our fault we lost..I am annoyed about the biased added time but im not goin to bitch about it...The game was lost far before that and we need to defend as a unit better.Fletcher had 2 identical headed goals and we just left him unmarked.The clunt hardly ever score goals and we just left him 2 it.No excuses.

Re: The Proof: Not That We Needed Any!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:45 pm
by Bloke
Sky Sports Breaking News: Giggs has just scored to make it 5-3