comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
Devon sums it up better than me.

But lets say a game has lots of corners/goal kicks/throw ins/ slow goal kicks where the keeper delays every time by 30 seconds. Balls in play 30 mins but been no actual time added on for injury etc. There will be a few mins added on.


Now lets say, like yesterday, city dominate the ball, take fast corners etc. Balls in play for 35 mins. But The opposition time waste for 10. There should still be 10 mins added on.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Its mad how many stupid fans there are on social media that don’t understand that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of the goooners on here are so 'tin hat' about the fairness of the officiating that they're beginning to become irrational and stepping into the realms of conspiracy theorists.

IMO Arteta sets the tone and the rest just follow..

Arsenal are just the modern day Stoke City under Pulis, with more talent.

as far as I can recall we haven't shawcrossed anyone

Some of the goooners on here are so 'tin hat' about the fairness of the officiating that they're beginning to become irrational and stepping into the realms of conspiracy theorists.
____________________________________________

everyone is tin hat until it affects them directly.
We've had refereeing scandals in spain italy and germany to name but a few. We've had players betting on games, getting deliberately booked and owners bribing officials but the mere idea this could happen over here and people start losing their minds

Seen a lot of shocking calls this weekend. The West Ham penalty not given because holding a player for 5 seconds to stop him getting the ball isn't long enough
Lisandro Martinez with an absolutely cowardly tackle that is an obvious red not given.
Vicario deliberately handling outside the box with the ref looking directly at it.

Yet people are crying because the ball was in play more than any other at City Tin foil? Nah, just absolutely shocked at how idiotic the argument is. The ref added more than enough time to both halves, both halves went well over the original added time too, so really struggling to see what the moan is.

Martinez wasn't a red card because he didn't make any contact whatsoever. Had he made the slightest touch of the player he'd have gone immediately and there could have been no complaints.

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 11 minutes ago
Seen a lot of shocking calls this weekend. The West Ham penalty not given because holding a player for 5 seconds to stop him getting the ball isn't long enough
Lisandro Martinez with an absolutely cowardly tackle that is an obvious red not given.
Vicario deliberately handling outside the box with the ref looking directly at it.

Yet people are crying because the ball was in play more than any other at CityTin foil? Nah, just absolutely shocked at how idiotic the argument is. The ref added more than enough time to both halves, both halves went well over the original added time too, so really struggling to see what the moan is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
seen one person on here who thinks stoppage time is worked out by how much time the ball spends in play...... its not

The Palace player pulled out, and you don't have to make contact.

Serious foul play
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

"Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."

comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 11 minutes ago
Seen a lot of shocking calls this weekend. The West Ham penalty not given because holding a player for 5 seconds to stop him getting the ball isn't long enough
Lisandro Martinez with an absolutely cowardly tackle that is an obvious red not given.
Vicario deliberately handling outside the box with the ref looking directly at it.

Yet people are crying because the ball was in play more than any other at CityTin foil? Nah, just absolutely shocked at how idiotic the argument is. The ref added more than enough time to both halves, both halves went well over the original added time too, so really struggling to see what the moan is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
seen one person on here who thinks stoppage time is worked out by how much time the ball spends in play...... its not
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The daft thing is the guidance is there for everyone to see themselves.

No-one has said stoppage time is worked out by how much the ball spends in play you daft little snidey caaant. But if the ball is in play for 8 minutes above average then you can be sure the ref has added enough time on. 7 minutes in the second half, then a further 4 on top of that. First half the stoppage time went on for 3 minutes beyond what was originally added.

But I guess there were no corners, free-kicks and all the other things used to justify other games shorter in-play time.

DJ's point is that if Arsenal were wasting lots of time then there would generally be a lower than average ball in play time. There was a higher than average ball in play time. His point is valid.

comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 3 seconds ago
DJ's point is that if Arsenal were wasting lots of time then there would generally be a lower than average ball in play time. There was a higher than average ball in play time. His point is valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That completely ignores the context of the game though. It was one team cycling the ball in front of another sitting in a low block. The time the ball was out of play for usual reasons was significantly lower than a usual game, ditto the stoppages for those under the criteria for adding more time on were much higher.

It’s not a meaningful stat unless you apply that context.

comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
DJ's point is that if Arsenal were wasting lots of time then there would generally be a lower than average ball in play time. There was a higher than average ball in play time. His point is valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no DJ's point was that the second half the ball was in play loads, which has zero to do with the time added on. Its not valid.

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 9 minutes ago
No-one has said stoppage time is worked out by how much the ball spends in play you daft little snidey caaant. But if the ball is in play for 8 minutes above average then you can be sure the ref has added enough time on.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope ball in play time has zero to do with time added on therefore you cannot be sure as the two are not related.

Context of the game The ref was meant to add more on because City passed it sideways for 35 minutes???
The ref added a lot of time on for both halves, more than covering the "lost" time.

comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
DJ's point is that if Arsenal were wasting lots of time then there would generally be a lower than average ball in play time. There was a higher than average ball in play time. His point is valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no DJ's point was that the second half the ball was in play loads, which has zero to do with the time added on. Its not valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If Arsenal were time wasting a lot then the ball wouldn't be in play so much would it? You cannot time waste whilst the ball is in play. (ball in play doesn't mean on the pitch, means active).

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 4 minutes ago
Context of the gameThe ref was meant to add more on because City passed it sideways for 35 minutes???
The ref added a lot of time on for both halves, more than covering the "lost" time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can’t be that stupid to think that’s a sequitur surely?

The ball is in play from the moment the referee blows the whistle to start the game until it is declared dead. This can happen due to various reasons, including:

The ball goes out of bounds: If the ball crosses the sidelines or end lines, it is declared dead.

A goal is scored: When the ball crosses the goal line between the posts, the play is over.

A foul is committed: If a player commits a foul, the referee stops the play.

A player is injured: If a player is injured, the referee may temporarily stop the game.

Therefore, Arsenal taking long to take free kicks etc would be reflected in the amount of time the ball was in play. If Arsenal were taking 5 minutes each time they were taking a freekick, 5 minutes would come off the ball in play time.

It's not difficult.

comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
DJ's point is that if Arsenal were wasting lots of time then there would generally be a lower than average ball in play time. There was a higher than average ball in play time. His point is valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no DJ's point was that the second half the ball was in play loads, which has zero to do with the time added on. Its not valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If Arsenal were time wasting a lot then the ball wouldn't be in play so much would it? You cannot time waste whilst the ball is in play. (ball in play doesn't mean on the pitch, means active).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you can, if you waste time at every opportunity compared to a team that never do it then its possible to waste more time in a game that the ball is in play more..... there is more than one factor involved in adding on time, not just time wasting. If the game last longer then there is more chance of the ball being in play for longer.

And time spent with the ball in play or out of play is not one of them.

did think this one through as much today Barry ?

That is literally the context of the game you are talking about. There were loads of corners, free-kicks, throw-ins across the half that easily accounts for the 10 minutes lost playing time so I am not sure where you are getting even more than the 10+ extra the ref added on.

There was 8-10 minutes in-play more than average, the ref added a lot of time on.

comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
DJ's point is that if Arsenal were wasting lots of time then there would generally be a lower than average ball in play time. There was a higher than average ball in play time. His point is valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no DJ's point was that the second half the ball was in play loads, which has zero to do with the time added on. Its not valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If Arsenal were time wasting a lot then the ball wouldn't be in play so much would it? You cannot time waste whilst the ball is in play. (ball in play doesn't mean on the pitch, means active).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you can, if you waste time at every opportunity compared to a team that never do it then its possible to waste more time in a game that the ball is in play more..... there is more than one factor involved in adding on time, not just time wasting. If the game last longer then there is more chance of the ball being in play for longer.

And time spent with the ball in play or out of play is not one of them.

did think this one through as much today Barry ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you time waste when the ball is in play? Apart from holding on to possession of the ball? Which isn't time wasting, it's just part of the game?

Give me one example of how you can time waste whilst the ball is in play, meaning the ref should add more stoppage time on?

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 10 seconds ago
That is literally the context of the game you are talking about. There were loads of corners, free-kicks, throw-ins across the half that easily accounts for the 10 minutes lost playing time so I am not sure where you are getting even more than the 10+ extra the ref added on.

There was 8-10 minutes in-play more than average, the ref added a lot of time on.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

And every single one of them was taken quickly and for the whole duration of the half too. I can’t think of a comparable game at all.

Either way though, that doesn’t change what time added on is added on for. In terms of in stoppage time, there were easily three minutes to be added on given the Timber injury and the goal celebration.

And over 3 minutes were added on.

comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Scott Fraser (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
DJ's point is that if Arsenal were wasting lots of time then there would generally be a lower than average ball in play time. There was a higher than average ball in play time. His point is valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no DJ's point was that the second half the ball was in play loads, which has zero to do with the time added on. Its not valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If Arsenal were time wasting a lot then the ball wouldn't be in play so much would it? You cannot time waste whilst the ball is in play. (ball in play doesn't mean on the pitch, means active).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you can, if you waste time at every opportunity compared to a team that never do it then its possible to waste more time in a game that the ball is in play more..... there is more than one factor involved in adding on time, not just time wasting. If the game last longer then there is more chance of the ball being in play for longer.

And time spent with the ball in play or out of play is not one of them.

did think this one through as much today Barry ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you time waste when the ball is in play? Apart from holding on to possession of the ball? Which isn't time wasting, it's just part of the game?

Give me one example of how you can time waste whilst the ball is in play, meaning the ref should add more stoppage time on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you cant but thats irrelvant.

If a team have the ball in play for 35mins in one half and the other 10 mins is all spent by time wasting , then more time is added on in comparison to a team that has the ball in play for 30 mins and only 1 min of that is spent time wasting.

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
And over 3 minutes were added on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Finished in the 100th minute didn’t it? If it was 7 minutes, then two mins added on for Timber and then 1 minute for the goal celebration, what’s the issue?