marcengels wrote:Agreed MKG
safc - I dont have any problem with the timekeeping at the sunderland game - as you say, it says a minimum of, so... But for you to suggest that you would expect time added on for the reasons stated, is bollocks. It doesn't happen, and as MKG says, if it did, we'd have another half of football in every game.
Well, maybe not for the corner I suppose, but Arsenal were deliberately slowing play down when they had throw ins etc so I would expect a bit of time added on for that. It wasn't bad enough that any of the AFC players got booked for timewasting, but if the ref feels they are taking a bit too long to restart, he is perfectly entitled to add a bit of time on to cover it. I must admit, I knew time was pretty much up and when the corner was initially headed away I was a bit surprised (although at the game so didnt know the exact amount of time gone) that he let Zenden pump it back into the middle, but all I am saying is that if the ref gives 4 minutes and we score on 95:25 or something I could understand the feeling of being robbed, but he said a minimum of 4 and we scored about 94:20 (the sun says it was 94:10 but I'm pretty sure it was a bit later than that). We're talking twenty seconds, which is hardly a shit load extra to add on if he feels that the game has been getting slowed down in injury time. A minimum could mean he felt there was 4 and a half minutes anyway, but even if he thought it was bang on 4 minutes, an extra 20 seconds is hardly a criminal amount to add on for various things that have happened during the injury time (it is 8.3% over the 4 minutes, so over a half it would be like adding on 3 or 4 minutes a half, which would be hefty bearing in mind no subs were made, but again, hardly ridiculous)
Anyway, its ancient history I suppose, but where I do agree with you is the consistency. I seem to remember not long after our game there was a Man Utd (surprise, surprise) goal well after the alloted injury time was up, plus there is the issue of how much is added on in the first place- we (as in SAFC and Arsenal) seem to get 3 or 4 minutes, but United regularly seem to get 5 or 6 when chasing a game. As always, its the consistency that people need to see in these decisions- 20 seconds extra isn't much but I suppose if its the case that if we were playing Man United the ref would have blown bang on 94 minutes (which he probably would have done), then Arsenal have real cause to complain. I guess I just get touchy about it because whenever we get a good result against a big 4 side we seem to get no credit for it (against Arsenal, where we conceded a freak goal and then played very well and deserved an equaliser we get told its because of the referee giving too much added time, against chelsea where we win 3-0 at the bridge we're told its because of injuries and ray bloody wilkins leaving, last year against Liverpool it was because of a beachball which their fans threw on in a game we easily deserved the win etc)
Anyway, back to refs

, consistency is definitely needed, and it was very well highlighted in the Diaby/ Nolan incidents