Referees and Timekeeping (Added Time)

[Sheltons Army]

Yesterday evening I watched the conclusion of the Italian Serie A season and the relegation fight involving Cagliari

The final relegation place was hanging on a winner for Cagliari who needed to win but were 0-0

The referee indicated a minimum of 8 minutes added on time.

He blew his whistle at 6 1/2 mins.

 

Ive just watched back the Man City v Villa game

We all know the scenario , late equaliser for Villa and Liverpool take the title

At 90 mins Michael Oliver indicates a minimum of 4 added mins to be played

At this point (90.08 to be precise) both Foden and Ederson go down injured.

The game is restarted at 91.58

So pretty straightforward , nearly 2 mins , 1 m 50s to be added on so Final whistle should be somewhere between 95.50 and 96.50

Michael Oliver blows the final whistle at 94.24

 

How can either of these be so in games , especially at Man City , where millions and millions and titles are at stake 

No good anyone saying oh it’s only a couple of mins but we all know what can happen on those late moments.

With all the regulation , and spotlight on ,and resources in , the game quite incredible that Referees can’t even get the fairly straightforward timing of even added on time right

 

 

[frenchred]

I can't believe in this day and age with the pace of the game refs are still in charge of timekeeping

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

You could as just as easily ask where the 8 minutes (Cagliari) , or 4 minutes (Man City) came from in the first place. I've always been of the opinion that if you haven't won the game in the alloted 90 minutes you shouldn't necessarily expect to win it in time added on. I don't have a problem with the referee being the timekeeper, after all he should be in charge. Personally I'd rather get rid of the 4th official and his silly little board that does nothing else than incite managers and supporters alike. 

[Sheltons Army]

5 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

You could as just as easily ask where the 8 minutes (Cagliari) , or 4 minutes (Man City) came from in the first place. I've always been of the opinion that if you haven't won the game in the alloted 90 minutes you shouldn't necessarily expect to win it in time added on. I don't have a problem with the referee being the timekeeper, after all he should be in charge. Personally I'd rather get rid of the 4th official and his silly little board that does nothing else than incite managers and supporters alike. 

Not sure what you’re saying tbh 

Forget added on time for injuries , substitutions , time wasting ?

or 

Hide the amount of minutes to be added on / awarded ? (If so why the lack of transparency ?)

[Midred]

Years ago it was either 3 minutes or whenever Manure scored the golden goal!

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

2 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

Not sure what you’re saying tbh 

Forget added on time for injuries , substitutions , time wasting ?

or 

Hide the amount of minutes to be added on / awarded ? (If so why the lack of transparency ?)

The second. Its not about hiding or transparency but playing the game to the whistle. The silly little board makes it easier for teams to waste time and run down the clock. The game was played for years without the 4th official and his board and could do so again. 

[A Horse With No Name]

If Villa had been timewasting when they were 2-0 up, which they probably did, why should they then benefit from added on time for their own timewasting when they are losing at the end ? I have always believed that in these instances the ref should be allowed to cancel the extra minutes so that the guilty team can't get their minutes back. 

[TheReds]

6 minutes ago, The Horse With No Name said:

If Villa had been timewasting when they were 2-0 up, which they probably did, why should they then benefit from added on time for their own timewasting when they are losing at the end ? I have always believed that in these instances the ref should be allowed to cancel the extra minutes so that the guilty team can't get their minutes back. 

This 100%. Villa were time wasting (as they all do), yet once a comeback has happened they strangely want to hurry up, they shouldn't even have any chance to then benefit whatsoever with added time because they have wasted time, stopped the game flowing etc etc. 

[Sheltons Army]

37 minutes ago, The Horse With No Name said:

If Villa had been timewasting when they were 2-0 up, which they probably did, why should they then benefit from added on time for their own timewasting when they are losing at the end ? I have always believed that in these instances the ref should be allowed to cancel the extra minutes so that the guilty team can't get their minutes back. 

It’s a nice idea

But My point being they can’t even cope with basic implementatiin of the added on time that they have decreed let alone anything more complicated ! 

[22A]

58 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

I've always been of the opinion that if you haven't won the game in the alloted 90 minutes you shouldn't necessarily expect to win it in time added on.

So City should have won several more games last season then? Damned stoppage time goals.