Injury time debate

[Mystic]

After United got given the rest of the decade to win the manchester derby yesterday alot of talk has been made about injury time and how it accumualates through goals and subtituions.

It brought up to point, are subtituions really needed in injury time? There often just made to waste time and have no strategic purpose(playing wise), to be fair if i was a played being subbed on in the last minute i'd be quite embarrassed, so to save against more blatent time wasting and destroying the flow of the game in the dying minutes, should subtituions in injury time, barring serious injury, be banned?

 

[Brizzle]

not banned, but I don't think that any time should be added on for them as it is clear they are a time wasting measure.

 

[Red Mullet]

How about having the refs watch synchronised to a clock in the stadium that everyone can see? Stops the ambiguity of when he's gonna blow.

 

[Piedro]

[quote author=Bristow link=topic=35960.msg947491#msg947491 date=1253524704]
not banned, but I don't think that any time should be added on for them as it is clear they are a time wasting measure.
[/quote]

So if subs are still allowed, but no time added on for them, arent the time wasters succeeding in wasting time?

 

[Loch Ness Monster]

Th injury time thing always makes me laugh. When you analyse how long the ball is in play for in any game, the average time seems to be around 65 minutes. Throw ins, corners, free kicks take off around 20-30 minutes of 'play'. So do we add it on at the end? Do we fuck. Although that prick yesterday decided to make up his own rules.
Bar injuries, no other time should be added on. Even the substitute thing is a joke, you are allowed to make subs so make them quickly. If you take the piss, have a card. Time wasting and over-celebrating should be punishable with yellow cards, and then red cards if the warning is not heeded.

 

[Squiggles]

As ever Rugby has it right.

Simply stop the game-clock until whatever business is carried out and continue when you're ready to resume. Then end the game exactly on 90 minutes.

It'd put the referee under more pressure to ensure things happened quickly.

 

[Insignificance]

The injury time is measured as at least the time the 4th official holds up. There have been plenty times I feel the ref should have added more time in our games to compensate for the 45 seconds the goalie used each time he had a goal kick i.e. The minutess added by 4th ref is only for subs and injruies and doesnt reflect what the ref sees as time wasting by one of the teams.

 

[Loch Ness Monster]

That would take about 2 and a half hours to complete a game. Fatigue would ruin the spectacle, more injuries would be picked up, and we would end up with 50 players in our squad. Rugby is bit of a stop-start game anyway so it is more do-able.

 

[Richey]

I would agree that subs during injury time make little sense and it would quite easy to ban them. However, teams wanting to waste time could just make their changes just before 90 minutes, or if subs were still allowed for injuries players could fake injury, which would be much more irritating and waste even more time (physios on, stretchers on, giving ball back from throw in, etc).

 

[Squiggles]

[quote author=Loch Ness Monster link=topic=35960.msg947501#msg947501 date=1253525655]
That would take about 2 and a half hours to complete a game. Fatigue would ruin the spectacle, more injuries would be picked up, and we would end up with 50 players in our squad. Rugby is bit of a stop-start game anyway so it is more do-able.
[/quote]

I don't think that's true. I'm not saying whenever the ball is out of play but simply for injuries and substitutions. I see no reason why it could not be implemented and think it would prevent cheating of the system.

 

[Loch Ness Monster]

[quote author=Insignificance link=topic=35960.msg947500#msg947500 date=1253525581]
The injury time is measured as at least the time the 4th official holds up. There have been plenty times I feel the ref should have added more time in our games to compensate for the 45 seconds the goalie used each time he had a goal kick i.e. The minutess added by 4th ref is only for subs and injruies and doesnt reflect what the ref sees as time wasting by one of the teams.


[/quote]

The referee should indicate to the 4th official if he wants an extra 8 minutes played due to time wasting, so the board would say 10 or 11 minutes extra including the subs. At least everyone knows where they stand, not like yesterday when 4 minutes became 7.

 

[Loch Ness Monster]

[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=35960.msg947503#msg947503 date=1253525750]
[quote author=Loch Ness Monster link=topic=35960.msg947501#msg947501 date=1253525655]
That would take about 2 and a half hours to complete a game. Fatigue would ruin the spectacle, more injuries would be picked up, and we would end up with 50 players in our squad. Rugby is bit of a stop-start game anyway so it is more do-able.
[/quote]

I don't think that's true. I'm not saying whenever the ball is out of play but simply for injuries and substitutions. I see no reason why it could not be implemented and think it would prevent cheating of the system.
[/quote]

Fair enough, that is what is almost happens TBF. The issue is the referee adding on extra time like yesterday because of 'time wasting'. 4 minutes became 7 because the time wasted during the goal celebration. Where does the time wasting thing end, with throws and goal kicks?

 

[spider-Neil]

what should be banned is the electronic board, it serves no purpose as the ref ignores it.

 

[Vlads Quiff]

I think Neil may have a point there, there was never any of this shit when they did not publicise how much time was left.
However there are one or two points in this. The time shown on the board is a minimum, not a maximum.

MOTD 2 worked out it was one second over the actual time taking into account the alloted thirty seconds and timing the City goal celebrations at 45 secs.

I think there is an argument for not allowing any subs when the 90 minutes is up, that is a piss take anyway.


regards

 

[gkmacca]

Refs are neurotic creatures of habit. Take when they always seem to wait until the next time a keeper boots the ball up the pitch to blow the final whistle. I sometimes wonder if they'd keep going for another minute or so if everyone made a point of keeping the ball in play and on the ground. Graham Poll said most refs he knew never actually stopped their watches for breaks, they just made generalised 'approximations' for things like substitutions etc. The fourth official could let them know about added time. Refs can't concentrate on other matters and still be accurate about that.

 

[Frogfish]

[quote author=Piedro link=topic=35960.msg947496#msg947496 date=1253525194]
[quote author=Bristow link=topic=35960.msg947491#msg947491 date=1253524704]
not banned, but I don't think that any time should be added on for them as it is clear they are a time wasting measure.
[/quote]

So if subs are still allowed, but no time added on for them, arent the time wasters succeeding in wasting time?
[/quote]

Ha Ha - beat me to it Pete. The time wasters would win !

However refs don't add on the full amount of time lost do they ? They know what it is and add on the 30 secs they are supposed to. No more, no less.

 

[gkmacca]

I agree that most late subs are just jokes, but surely we'd all go crazy if, after 90 minutes, we had four more minutes to hold on to a lead against the mancs and one of our defenders was injured and out of action? On the odd occasion a late substitution IS needed.

 

[Vlads Quiff]

[quote author=gkmacca link=topic=35960.msg947538#msg947538 date=1253530209]
I agree that most late subs are just jokes, but surely we'd all go crazy if, after 90 minutes, we had four more minutes to hold on to a lead against the mancs and one of our defenders was injured and out of action? On the odd occasion a late substitution IS needed.
[/quote]

but not if the mancs had a defender injured and they had to hold onto a lead 😉

regards

 

[Frogfish]

There is a strong case to be made for the time-keeping to be in other hands. The 4th official does sweet FA anyway - give it to him, he shoudl know what he's doing and leave the referee to actually ref the match and not have to keep checking his watch.

 

[Jack D Rips]

[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=35960.msg947532#msg947532 date=1253529605]
I think Neil may have a point there, there was never any of this shit when they did not publicise how much time was left.
However there are one or two points in this. The time shown on the board is a minimum, not a maximum.

MOTD 2 worked out it was one second over the actual time taking into account the alloted thirty seconds and timing the City goal celebrations at 45 secs.

I think there is an argument for not allowing any subs when the 90 minutes is up, that is a piss take anyway.


regards



[/quote]

Did they include the time wasted when the mancs celebrated their winner?

 

[Vlads Quiff]

[quote author=Jack D Rips link=topic=35960.msg947542#msg947542 date=1253530546]
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=35960.msg947532#msg947532 date=1253529605]
I think Neil may have a point there, there was never any of this shit when they did not publicise how much time was left.
However there are one or two points in this. The time shown on the board is a minimum, not a maximum.

MOTD 2 worked out it was one second over the actual time taking into account the alloted thirty seconds and timing the City goal celebrations at 45 secs.

I think there is an argument for not allowing any subs when the 90 minutes is up, that is a piss take anyway.


regards



[/quote]

Did they include the time wasted when the mancs celebrated their winner?
[/quote]

arf

 

[Roopy]

It was a minimum of 4 minutes.... 1 minute more, I'm not fussed about.

But to have 2 extra minutes... that's taking shit too far.

 

[gkmacca]

I do think it should be the fourth official's job. Take when a ref has to deal with a really chaotic scuffle between the players. All kinds of things are going on. He maybe has to talk to three or four players, deal with something an assistant has spotted, book someone, break up another argument and then re-start the game. Making sure he's got the stoppage time right is just a needless extra distraction. The fourth official could clear that up easily.

 

[Jack D Rips]

Strong rumours circulating that Bulmers/Magniers will sponsor the Mancs next season.

Nothing added but time

 

[SummerOnions]

the 5th and 6th officials should make it part iof their resumé to accumulate an accurate time.

 

[Frogfish]

[quote author=gkmacca link=topic=35960.msg947546#msg947546 date=1253530846]
I do think it should be the fourth official's job. Take when a ref has to deal with a really chaotic scuffle between the players. All kinds of things are going on. He maybe has to talk to three or four players, deal with something an assistant has spotted, book someone, break up another argument and then re-start the game. Making sure he's got the stoppage time right is just a needless extra distraction. The fourth official could clear that up easily.
[/quote]

Huh plagiarism :🙂

;D