Re: Man City . . . . .

by The Wednesday Mon 21 Sep - 3:46:55

Playing 6 minutes of added time when 4 was indicated is disgraceful.

United didn't snatch the game late into injury time, they snatched it over a minute after the game should have finished.

It was a great game, but has now been ruined by a pathetic decision from the referee not to end the game at full-time.

Look at it this way, imagine Doncaster have just scored in the last minute to level the game against Wednesday, the scheduled injury time is then played with no further stoppages, and we then score a minute later. Wouldn't you be slightly annoyed?

by pkt_drfc Mon 21 Sep - 3:49:50

hoolahoop wrote:
yorkie64red wrote:Yep i bet Hughs is seething though, who you going for in the Chelsea match Pete, i'm going for Spurs, only in that i can't stand Chelsea.
Would Hughes have been seething if City had snatched the game late into injury time.?
Listening to the whingeing on Talk Sport made me want to phone up and point this out............Jeez some folk in our game are pathetic. Ferguson time would have become Hughes' time if the score had gone the othe way wouldn't it or am I missing something here ? I was at work sounds like a great game though.

You are back thought you was under house arrest and banned from computer. was a cracking game man u deserved it in the end taped it and watched it again at the end to see where the extra mins came from. Man city scored in the 90th min and celebrated for 1 min 29 secs so the ref was within his right to add the time on

by **hoolahoop** Mon 21 Sep - 6:55:45

The Wednesday wrote:Playing 6 minutes of added time when 4 was indicated is disgraceful.

United didn't snatch the game late into injury time, they snatched it over a minute after the game should have finished.

It was a great game, but has now been ruined by a pathetic decision from the referee not to end the game at full-time.

Look at it this way, imagine Doncaster have just scored in the last minute to level the game against Wednesday, the scheduled injury time is then played with no further stoppages, and we then score a minute later. Wouldn't you be slightly annoyed?

Bollox The Wednesday, if you had snatched a draw against the Blades in injury time you would still be crowing about it now. Football has never been an exact sport and the result could have gone the other way. I don't happen to be over keen on Manure with virtually every other member of my family both dead and alive being City supporters. The score could just have easily been reversed, would that have been ok ?
I was the one consoling my young nephews of 12 and 14 , who were at the game today wearing blue and white!! Sad

That's football my friend , like it or lump it.

by d1889t Mon 21 Sep - 8:18:25

The Wednesday wrote:Playing 6 minutes of added time when 4 was indicated is disgraceful.

United didn't snatch the game late into injury time, they snatched it over a minute after the game should have finished.

It was a great game, but has now been ruined by a pathetic decision from the referee not to end the game at full-time.

Look at it this way, imagine Doncaster have just scored in the last minute to level the game against Wednesday, the scheduled injury time is then played with no further stoppages, and we then score a minute later. Wouldn't you be slightly annoyed?

When Bellamy scored he was pissing about for at least 2 mins, then there was a substitution as well during injury time.
So I think the time was just about right.

by **hoolahoop** Mon 21 Sep - 8:22:14

d1889t wrote:
The Wednesday wrote:Playing 6 minutes of added time when 4 was indicated is disgraceful.

United didn't snatch the game late into injury time, they snatched it over a minute after the game should have finished.

It was a great game, but has now been ruined by a pathetic decision from the referee not to end the game at full-time.

Look at it this way, imagine Doncaster have just scored in the last minute to level the game against Wednesday, the scheduled injury time is then played with no further stoppages, and we then score a minute later. Wouldn't you be slightly annoyed?

When Bellamy scored he was pissing about for at least 2 mins, then there was a substitution as well during injury time.
So I think the time was just about right.

That's how I saw it but apparently Bellamy was timed exactly by Hughes at exactly 45 secs. doh Sour grapes I'm surprised at Sparky!
Just added up on Match of the day, seems it was a second too late. lol!

by VixDRFC Mon 21 Sep - 8:53:23

Just glad that didn't happen to us yesterday and it could have easily

by The Wednesday Tue 22 Sep - 22:06:59

hoolahoop wrote:
Bollox The Wednesday, if you had snatched a draw against the Blades in injury time you would still be crowing about it now. Football has never been an exact sport and the result could have gone the other way. I don't happen to be over keen on Manure with virtually every other member of my family both dead and alive being City supporters. The score could just have easily been reversed, would that have been ok ?
I was the one consoling my young nephews of 12 and 14 , who were at the game today wearing blue and white!!
That's football my friend , like it or lump it.

Of course I wouldn't mind it if we (or City) had scored a goal in injury time. It's the same with any refereeing decision, if it goes for you either don't mention it or you try to find (or make up) justification. If it goes against you, you complain about it. That's how it's always been, as you say that's football.

For example, Tottenham v Liverpool, Liverpool feel they should've had a penalty. In the post match interview Benitez complains saying it should have been a penalty because... Harry Redknapp says it wasn't a penalty because...

In this case i'm with City, I can't see where six minutes came from (if you're going to include that Bellamy goal celebration then you include every goal celebration). You're with United, i'm guessing you think the time was justified.

No doubt we'll be having a similar arguement if there's controversy in our games.

by **hoolahoop** Wed 23 Sep - 9:08:01

The Wednesday wrote:
hoolahoop wrote:
Bollox The Wednesday, if you had snatched a draw against the Blades in injury time you would still be crowing about it now. Football has never been an exact sport and the result could have gone the other way. I don't happen to be over keen on Manure with virtually every other member of my family both dead and alive being City supporters. The score could just have easily been reversed, would that have been ok ?
I was the one consoling my young nephews of 12 and 14 , who were at the game today wearing blue and white!!
That's football my friend , like it or lump it.

Of course I wouldn't mind it if we (or City) had scored a goal in injury time. It's the same with any refereeing decision, if it goes for you either don't mention it or you try to find (or make up) justification. If it goes against you, you complain about it. That's how it's always been, as you say that's football.

For example, Tottenham v Liverpool, Liverpool feel they should've had a penalty. In the post match interview Benitez complains saying it should have been a penalty because... Harry Redknapp says it wasn't a penalty because...

In this case i'm with City, I can't see where six minutes came from (if you're going to include that Bellamy goal celebration then you include every goal celebration). You're with United, i'm guessing you think the time was justified.

No doubt we'll be having a similar arguement if there's controversy in our games.

Where is the argument 'extra time is extra time' and usually the team with the impetus i.e. City in this case would usually have been more likely of the two teams to score. the moaning implies that there was only one team i.e. Manure was left on the pitch to contest those extra couple of minutes..........this patently was not the case. Incidentally M.O.T.D. timed it as only one second out, has footy now got to be more accurate than 1 second out.
We all want a change in the so-called 'big 4' but please don't let that cloud your logic of the situation. silent