Time added on

[Stephen230]

Everyone forgetting the time lost when some nob chucked the smoke bomb. We only had a 1 goal advantage with that goal. Last thing we needed was more time added.

Didn’t have any advantage then. Was after the equaliser.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

You didn't take into account the fannying around by the scum goalie.
The ref did.

Doh! The screamingly obvious eluded me I’m afraid! There were only 2 stoppages in the 1st half, totalling 45 secs (a 15 secs VAR handball check and a 30 secs injury to Mainoo when Foden’s shot hit him in the chops), so it looks like the ref added 2m 15 secs for time wasting by Onana. Assuming he (the ref) did the same again in the 2nd half that would then pretty much give us the full 8 minutes

 

[Silva&Silva]

Would love know what they're like for the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal.

 

[trublue55]

do they not add 30s a goal? i might be mis-remembering.

also, just general faffing by Onana hopefully got taken into account, it really is time we got some time back for all that farting around by the opposition. And it needs to be added, regardless of whether we're winning by one or five come the 90.

They are supposed to add the exact time lost, from goal being scored until play re-starting.
8 minutes was fair enough really, its just you can absolutely guarantee, if the score was still 1 - 1, the most we'd have got was 3 or 4

 

[Chris in London]

Most of the games where we've had lots of time added on, were ones where we weren't ahead till late, so the opposition spent more of the game trying to waste time.

I don't think this is right. The longest times we've had added on have been 11 minutes away at Chelsea, 10 minutes at home to Everton, 9 minutes home to Liverpool and 8 minutes home to Spurs and Palace alike. Only against Everton did we take the lead late. In each of the other three games we were ahead for most of the second half (and even against Everton we were ahead for almost half the second half.

Don't forget, time wasting in the first half is (at least theoretically) rectified with time added on at the end of that half. So if (say) City take the lead after (say) 70 minutes you would expect the time added at the end of the half to reflect only time wasting that occurred before we went ahead (plus of course any time we waste afterwards).

In the 15 games I looked at in the OP, I can only see 2 where it was 0 - 0 until about 70 minutes - Brentford (h) and Everton (h). Some of our games have been real to-and-fro affairs with very little timewasting - eg Spurs at home, Liverpool (h) or Chelsea where the opposition spent a lot of the game behind. Some, like Bournemouth (a) and Palace (h) we were ahead for the whole of the second half right up to the 90 minute mark, so you can't imagine that any time was added on in those games for opposition time wasting.

What simply doesn't make sense is that is a game like Chelsea (h) where they were ahead from half time through to 83 minutes when we equalised, at the end of 90 minutes an additional 4 minutes was added on (including 4 substitutions and a yellow card for timewasting for Chelsea's goalkeeper) at the end of 90 minutes. In contrast away at Bournemouth where we were ahead for the whole of the second half an additional 8 minutes were added.

One side or another always has an incentive for wasting time, so you would imagine that the amount of time wasted is more or less as broad as it is long across the board. Yet we see games where we are winning by a single goal at 90 minutes featuring 30% more added time than games where we are drawing or losing.

We also see City averaging 6.25 minutes of additional time when they are chasing a game when Liverpool average 9. What is it about teams playing Liverpool that means they waste more time than when they are playing the Champions of England, Europe and the World?

 

[bluenova]

I don't think this is right. The longest times we've had added on have been 11 minutes away at Chelsea, 10 minutes at home to Everton, 9 minutes home to Liverpool and 8 minutes home to Spurs and Palace alike. Only against Everton did we take the lead late. In each of the other three games we were ahead for most of the second half (and even against Everton we were ahead for almost half the second half.

Don't forget, time wasting in the first half is (at least theoretically) rectified with time added on at the end of that half. So if (say) City take the lead after (say) 70 minutes you would expect the time added at the end of the half to reflect only time wasting that occurred before we went ahead (plus of course any time we waste afterwards).

In the 15 games I looked at in the OP, I can only see 2 where it was 0 - 0 until about 70 minutes - Brentford (h) and Everton (h). Some of our games have been real to-and-fro affairs with very little timewasting - eg Spurs at home, Liverpool (h) or Chelsea where the opposition spent a lot of the game behind. Some, like Bournemouth (a) and Palace (h) we were ahead for the whole of the second half right up to the 90 minute mark, so you can't imagine that any time was added on in those games for opposition time wasting.

What simply doesn't make sense is that is a game like Chelsea (h) where they were ahead from half time through to 83 minutes when we equalised, at the end of 90 minutes an additional 4 minutes was added on (including 4 substitutions and a yellow card for timewasting for Chelsea's goalkeeper) at the end of 90 minutes. In contrast away at Bournemouth where we were ahead for the whole of the second half an additional 8 minutes were added.

One side or another always has an incentive for wasting time, so you would imagine that the amount of time wasted is more or less as broad as it is long across the board. Yet we see games where we are winning by a single goal at 90 minutes featuring 30% more added time than games where we are drawing or losing.

We also see City averaging 6.25 minutes of additional time when they are chasing a game when Liverpool average 9. What is it about teams playing Liverpool that means they waste more time than when they are playing the Champions of England, Europe and the World?

I understand what you're saying about the overall time we were behind, but they were still games where late in the match we actually wanted lots of injury time. Didn't we go ahead in the 81st minute against Spurs? In the 86th minute at Chelsea. Yesterday we had lots of injury time, but only went ahead in the 80th minute. Liverpool was 1-1 at 90 minutes, so isn't that one where we wanted lots of extra time?

Apart from the Palace game, nearly every one of the games we had a lot of extra time in were ones where we would have jumped at the chance at 80 minutes.

And perhaps the reason we don't get as much added time when we're ahead is simply because we don't waste time? How many times a season would you see City settling for a draw? And if they want to hold a narrow lead, do City players fake injuries?

Could the magic extra seventy seconds* that our opponents are getting simply be because, when City want to protect a lead, their preferred method is passing the ball around for ten minutes?

*ps realise that it was a pain to put together, and I appreciate your regularly thoughtful posts, but games we were losing is a sample of one, and games we were were drawing is a sample of 3. I struggle to see how we can draw any statistically significant conclusions when so many factors are involved.

 

[Chris in London]

I understand what you're saying about the overall time we were behind, but they were still games where late in the match we actually wanted lots of injury time. Didn't we go ahead in the 81st minute against Spurs? In the 86th minute at Chelsea. Yesterday we had lots of injury time, but only went ahead in the 80th minute. Liverpool was 1-1 at 90 minutes, so isn't that one where we wanted lots of extra time?

Apart from the Palace game, nearly every one of the games we had a lot of extra time in were ones where we would have jumped at the chance at 80 minutes.

And perhaps the reason we don't get as much added time when we're ahead is simply because we don't waste time? How many times a season would you see City settling for a draw? And if they want to hold a narrow lead, do City players fake injuries?

Could the magic extra seventy seconds* that our opponents are getting simply be because, when City want to protect a lead, their preferred method is passing the ball around for ten minutes?

*ps realise that it was a pain to put together, and I appreciate your regularly thoughtful posts, but games we were losing is a sample of one, and games we were were drawing is a sample of 3. I struggle to see how we can draw any statistically significant conclusions when so many factors are involved.

There are all sorts of reasons why it might be the case it seems we have to defend a narrow lead for significantly longer - 30% - than we have to chase a result. One of them might be conscious or unconscious bias in terms of making decisions about how much additional time there should be.

The only thing that the statistics confirm is that over the last 15 games on average we have been given less time to pursue a game where we need a goal than where we do not, and conversely the statistics show that for Liverpool over a similar period of time the position is precisely the opposite.

To my mind, the only thing that this is conclusive of is that the issue warrants greater analysis and thought. I get as annoyed by the point of view that assumes, without more, that the numbers amount to proof of bias as I do with the point blank refusal that it could in any way even be suggestive of bias. The numbers are consistent with bias: nothing more, nothing less. Statistical evidence can corroborate, or be consistent with many things but it will rarely be proof in and of itself. That said, the numbers for both City and Liverpool do appear to suggest a trend.

I think that trend is worth investigating further. If I had time I would look at other data points on refereeing decisions, such as yellow cards and such. I don't recall for instance a single occasion on which an opposition player has received a red card, which I think might be unusual at this stage of the season. (But maybe I'm forgetting one.) Likewise, I have a perception that we tend to be awarded a lot more free kicks later in the match when the contest has effectively been decided than in earlier parts of the game when the result is in doubt. I think it was Brentford at home for instance when the opposition didn't - according to the referee - commit a single foul in the first hour of the game and then committed about 10 in the next 30 mins. Whether there is anything in that, I don't know, perhaps it just feels like that.

It wasn't, by the way, a pain to put together. There had been some perception that we get less time added on but no real evidence of it. I shared that perception but wasn't really able to say whether it was based on anything more than gut instinct. So putting the data together, which took about half an hour, was a way of satisfying my own curiosity as much as anything.

And, as I say, the numbers don't lie. We can all interpret the data according to our own opinions, and I don't challenge anyone's right to come to their own conclusions. What I do say is that the feeling some had that we were being short-changed in this respect is backed up by the numbers.

 

[bluenova]

There are all sorts of reasons why it might be the case it seems we have to defend a narrow lead for significantly longer - 30% - than we have to chase a result. One of them might be conscious or unconscious bias in terms of making decisions about how much additional time there should be.

The only thing that the statistics confirm is that over the last 15 games on average we have been given less time to pursue a game where we need a goal than where we do not, and conversely the statistics show that for Liverpool over a similar period of time the position is precisely the opposite.

To my mind, the only thing that this is conclusive of is that the issue warrants greater analysis and thought. I get as annoyed by the point of view that assumes, without more, that the numbers amount to proof of bias as I do with the point blank refusal that it could in any way even be suggestive of bias. The numbers are consistent with bias: nothing more, nothing less. Statistical evidence can corroborate, or be consistent with many things but it will rarely be proof in and of itself. That said, the numbers for both City and Liverpool do appear to suggest a trend.

I think that trend is worth investigating further. If I had time I would look at other data points on refereeing decisions, such as yellow cards and such. I don't recall for instance a single occasion on which an opposition player has received a red card, which I think might be unusual at this stage of the season. (But maybe I'm forgetting one.) Likewise, I have a perception that we tend to be awarded a lot more free kicks later in the match when the contest has effectively been decided than in earlier parts of the game when the result is in doubt. I think it was Brentford at home for instance when the opposition didn't - according to the referee - commit a single foul in the first hour of the game and then committed about 10 in the next 30 mins. Whether there is anything in that, I don't know, perhaps it just feels like that.

It wasn't, by the way, a pain to put together. There had been some perception that we get less time added on but no real evidence of it. I shared that perception but wasn't really able to say whether it was based on anything more than gut instinct. So putting the data together, which took about half an hour, was a way of satisfying my own curiosity as much as anything.

And, as I say, the numbers don't lie. We can all interpret the data according to our own opinions, and I don't challenge anyone's right to come to their own conclusions. What I do say is that the feeling some had that we were being short-changed in this respect is backed up by the numbers.

I'll give one example why it's not statistically significant.

All things being equal if Rodri hadn't scored in the 86th minute of the Chelsea 4-4 draw, then the stats would be turned on their head, and the losing/drawing added time would actually be higher than the winning.

Due to that one 86th minute goal.

So, would we have got all that added time if Rodri hadn't scored?

I'm pretty sure we would. It was actually only 8 minutes of added time was announced, which was in fact too low due to some extended breaks in the game.

Just the VAR check on Haaland's goal, and the treatment for Gusto and Ederson/Walker added up to approx 8 mins. Those breaks were all so long that they would always be added on. There were four goals, and multiple subs, so you'd expect 10 minimum. So, not an excessive amount, and also not as much as Chelsea should have had.

Chelsea got a pen in the 92nd minute. The penalty VAR check took a couple of minutes, and that was added on to end to make 100 minutes, which was to City's advantage. (Note it was also 100mins and 2 seconds, which got reported as 111 minutes, suggesting a further margin of error).

That one goal, in one match, cancels out the whole trend, and changes the conclusion.

 

[Chris in London]

I'll give one example why it's not statistically significant.

All things being equal if Rodri hadn't scored in the 86th minute of the Chelsea 4-4 draw, then the stats would be turned on their head, and the losing/drawing added time would actually be higher than the winning.

Due to that one 86th minute goal.

So, would we have got all that added time if Rodri hadn't scored?

I'm pretty sure we would. It was actually only 8 minutes of added time was announced, which was in fact too low due to some extended breaks in the game.

Just the VAR check on Haaland's goal, and the treatment for Gusto and Ederson/Walker added up to approx 8 mins. Those breaks were all so long that they would always be added on. There were four goals, and multiple subs, so you'd expect 10 minimum. So, not an excessive amount, and also not as much as Chelsea should have had.

Chelsea got a pen in the 92nd minute. The penalty VAR check took a couple of minutes, and that was added on to end to make 100 minutes, which was to City's advantage. (Note it was also 100mins and 2 seconds, which got reported as 111 minutes, suggesting a further margin of error).

That one goal, in one match, cancels out the whole trend, and changes the conclusion.

The average has been taken over 15 games which is a reasonable enough proportion of a 38 game season to allow a judgment to be formed provided you don't view things out of context and you are appropriately cautious about what conclusions you draw from the raw data alone.

Within those 15 games there are some outliers, some plus points and minus points across the board. Yes 10 minutes and 2 seconds will be recorded as 11 minutes, but that is true whether we are chasing the game or defending a lead so that point is as broad as it is long. Yes sometimes we will only have been leading for a few minutes at the 90 minute mark, but in others we have been winning since the first half.

This is why an average is taken, and as I say around 40% of the entire season is a reasonably representative sample. What matters is that the comparators are consistently applied. So for instance I chose the additional time as being the whole of the additional time played rather than the 'minimum' time notified at the end of the 90 minutes. At home against Chelsea the on-pitch decision was that there would be an additional 4 minutes whereas in fact we played a further six. That extra two minutes eases the discrepancy between the games where we are needing a goal and those where we are defending a lead. Additional time for VAR checks is the same for both teams and the same either way no matter what the match condition.

It would have been inconsistent and intellectually dishonest to mix and match the data points in order to confirm an impression and that is not what I was trying to do. I was not trying to prove a point either way, simply to show whether or not a consistently applied analysis of the additional time allowed when we are either chasing a goal/ defending a one goal lead shows a marked discrepancy between the two, and the answer is that it does.

A 30% discrepancy.

Before I started that task, a lot of posters said that we seem to get less time to chase a game than the opposition gets when we are defending a lead. Turns out, they were right. If, by contrast, in your own mind you can reject what the statistics say, good for you. If you think that taking a view over the entire season so far would produce a different figure, fill your boots, I'd be interested to see what the position was averaged out over the entire season. If you have in your own mind some innocent explanation why Liverpool, when they aren't winning after 90 minutes, get almost 50% more time to chase a game than we do in the same circumstances, that's fine and dandy.

The numbers don't lie. Your interpretation of them, and the weight you personally place upon them are matters for you.

 

[Fordyboy46]

So 8 minutes yesterday when it was still 2-1, what if it had been 3-1 you bent bastards. Probably been 3 or 4. Total stitch up this added on time bs