The mancityfans.net football forum

According to the Guardian.
Very interesting figures.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009 ... ppage-time

The link ain't working for me...?

this was on Sky.
It started the day after the derby with SSN saying on average they get less added time than most teams, so Hughsey was wrong.
Then someone on here (I'm a big believer that Journo's trawl forums) pointed out that they would get less extra time on average cos they are usually leading at 90 minutes.
Sky did the maths and showed that they get something like 25% MORE extra time if they are behind than if they're winning.
Bastards.

Old news, we had a good moan about this the other day, we're all over it now.

viewtopic.php?f=119&t=27163

The guy on SSN who responds to the papers said Atkinson was right because of some article written by another ref (a ref backing up another ref? there's a headline for ya). He went on to say the only hard and fast rule with time on was 30 seconds for a substitution, 30 seconds for a goal.

So (and the funny bit) there was 3 substitutions and 3 goals, so 4 minutes was right.(all before bellamy's was added) I love pundits who are so fucking stupid they can't even get the basics right.

Couldn't you argue that if a team is leading in the swamp they'll try and waste a bit more time than the case if united was leading?

Moonchesteri wrote:The link ain't working for me...?

Reason the link isn't working is because the word Un1ted is in the url. As you know that is changed to U****d when posted (as it should be). Just click the link and amend in the address bar.
All a bit pointless really because the text is shown in full here viewtopic.php?f=119&t=27163 where it has been discussed to death.

A song to sing to them bastards when they visit Manchester this season..........

"U-N-I. T-E-D.
United fans are from Surrey,
With a nick-nack paddy whack,
give a dog a bone,
Manchester is not your home!".

Fish111 wrote:Old news, we had a good moan about this the other day, we're all over it now.

viewtopic.php?f=119&t=27163

Apologies. It seems I missed that topic, probably because the title wasn't very clear. Are we really over it ? I still feel cheated every time I remember that match which is hard to forget.

Abu Dhabi wrote:Couldn't you argue that if a team is leading in the swamp they'll try and waste a bit more time than the case if U***d was leading?

Hi AD, still in Newcastle or back home?
I'm not sure what yr point is but there is no time added for legetimate time wasting such as playing the ball back to yr GK or taking the ball to the corner flag and try to get a throw in or foul against the opposing team. Unfortunately we did not do that in injury time and kept giving th ball back to the Scum.

Dubaimancityfan wrote:

Abu Dhabi wrote:Couldn't you argue that if a team is leading in the swamp they'll try and waste a bit more time than the case if U***d was leading?

Hi AD, still in Newcastle or back home?
I'm not sure what yr point is but there is no time added for legetimate time wasting such as playing the ball back to yr GK or taking the ball to the corner flag and try to get a throw in or foul against the opposing team. Unfortunately we did not do that in injury time and kept giving th ball back to the Scum.

Hi Dubai, I've been back home all summer, just currently in Newcastle untill tomorrow, finishing some matters, then back home.

I know there is no added time for legetimate time wasting but I meant things like slow goal kicks/throw ins , pretending injury etc..
Lesser teams would do a bit of it if they were leading in the swamp eventually, meaning the average extra 60 seconds rags get are understandble. Thats regarding the logic of the study though. They do get extratime sometimes no doubt about it .

Abu Dhabi wrote:

Dubaimancityfan wrote:

Abu Dhabi wrote:Couldn't you argue that if a team is leading in the swamp they'll try and waste a bit more time than the case if U***d was leading?

Hi AD, still in Newcastle or back home?
I'm not sure what yr point is but there is no time added for legetimate time wasting such as playing the ball back to yr GK or taking the ball to the corner flag and try to get a throw in or foul against the opposing team. Unfortunately we did not do that in injury time and kept giving th ball back to the Scum.

Hi Dubai, I've been back home all summer, just currently in Newcastle untill tomorrow, finishing some matters, then back home.

I know there is no added time for legetimate time wasting but I meant things like slow goal kicks/throw ins , pretending injury etc..
Lesser teams would do a bit of it if they were leading in the swamp eventually, meaning the average extra 60 seconds rags get are understandble. Thats regarding the logic of the study though. They do get extratime sometimes no doubt about it .

Teams are just as likely to time-waste against Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal. The figures support the scum getting more time when they need a goal. I don't think that's an adequate explanation (to assume that other teams are time wasting).

Apparently United have complained to the FA about Mark Hughes' suggestion of a 4th official being timekeeper, and have come up with an alternative, which the FA are sure to approve......however, TOP SECRET pictures have emerged as to how they plan to get around this plan.