Comments on: Garrido Blames United; Full Breakdown of Time Added

By: Zain Alvi

Zain Alvi — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:19:50 +0000

@Layi: Like I said, from a practical perspective, the ref. got it absolutely right. But from a technical standpoint, the goal was scored a second too late. Now that does not necessarily mean that those who are defending City in this argument wanted the whistle blown when Owen had just released his shot. It’s just that they want to point out how excess time was added on. With that being said, let me clarify that I have no problem with the referee’s call. It’s just that listening to what everyone here has to say, it makes sense for City to protest as the clock kept ticking with no heads up given as to when it will stop ticking.

By: Layi

Layi — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:06:40 +0000

The whistle should have been blown between the second after it left michael owen’s foot to enter the goal and then entered the goal… RIGHT

By: Layi

Layi — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:51:26 +0000

I love it! lol beat a high caliber team like man city and its “Added time” that helped us. there’s always something when it comes to the great ones winning, always something…

By: Zain Alvi

Zain Alvi — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:46:10 +0000

After hearing out what most of the City supporters have to say, we have to concede that there is certainly an argument to be made if we’re judging strictly on a technical basis. Michael Owen’s goal came a second too late and even though that’s not too significant in the bigger scheme of things, it is technically not a correct call so the whistle should have effectively blown a second before the goal was scored. Patrice Evra claims that Owen saved United from Fergie’s backlash but it’s extremely hard to deny that the whole added time controversy also played quite a huge role in keeping the United dressing room calm and composed.

By: Zain Alvi

Zain Alvi — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:42:32 +0000

@ Happy To Be Blue: It’s pretty clear actually that the punching incident, regardless of how severe the punch itself was, actually occured right after the final whistle. A repeated watch of the replays also shows this clearly along with all other media sources so I am not sure why you’re in disagreement over the timing of the incident.

By: Zain Alvi

Zain Alvi — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:22:15 +0000

I won’t be responding to every single comment as this incident is way too controversial but @ the guy who thinks Bellamy’s punch did NOT come AFTER the final whistle, go check out the game again mate – and if you’re too lazy, read the first sentence of this article from Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/manchester_united/article6842260.ece

Cheers!

By: Thomas O'Loughlin

Thomas O'Loughlin — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:27:11 +0000

Brian, you know your football and that’s a fact.

By: Bluenose

Bluenose — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:47:34 +0000

@brian:

There shouldn’t have been 4 minutes to begin with and you don’t add on the full time from crossing the line to kick off. The rules as laid down on paper by the FA (and confirmed by former ref Dermot Gallagher as being standard since Euro ‘96) state 30 seconds a sub and 30 seconds for excessive goal celebrations. I

n a half with no injuries, no timewasting and no excessive goal celebrations how do you get 4 minutes? Before the Owen goal there was 4 subs and 4 goals…. even if you assume all were excessively celebrated (which they weren’t) that’s 4 minutes maximum (and that includes Bellamy’s goal and the injury time sub).

Honestly how people can try and justify 7 minutes injury time in a game with no unnatural stoppages is beyond me.

By: dave@shepton

dave@shepton — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:46:46 +0000

The board did not show a minimum of 4 minutes. What it showed was that there would be 4 minutes of extra time. Every single fan before this game, whoever you supported, would believe that this meant 4 minutes of extra time, NOT A MINIMUM OF 4 MINUTES.

If your adding up is correct, why did the whistle go 16 seconds after Owen finished celebrating. Did he not take more than 16 seconds to run around OT twice.

At Spurs v Chelsea, 2 potentially serious injuries occurred in the second half. Result 7 mins of extra time. Understandable. At OT, no serious injury, at any time during the match. Result 7 mins of extra time. Absolutely beggars belief. So now, every game where say, five goals are scored, plus 3 subs each, plus 45 seconds for each celebration. Total length of game Just over 99 minutes. God the fans get good value. NOW.

How often do you see a manager, before this match, put on a substitute in order to waste a few extra seconds. Only now do we learn that this has all been a con all along and it actually adds seconds to the game. I bet all the stupid managers who believed otherwise are now looking at the rule book.

Finally, yes United played well in the 2nd half, but considering City were the away team, scored 3 goals, almost unheard of at OT, came from behind 3 times and were the better team in the 1st half, a draw would have been a FAIRER result that City earning absolutely nothing.

By: OxfordBlue

OxfordBlue — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:32:56 +0000

If 56 seconds were added on for the celebration after Bellamy’s goal why then were only 16 seconds played following the kick off after Owen’s goal? The Manchester Utd players celebrated for just over one minute and yet this additional time was NOT added on by the match official. Seems to be a case of double standards.
Now do not get me wrong I strongly suspect that Utd would not have been as profligate as City in giving the ball away and the likelyhood would have been that the result would not have altered. But if the arguments for adding time for one goal celebration are accepted, the failure to add them for a celebration by the other team is the issue that bears explanation.