rastus said:Because its a billion £ industry the less regulation the better to manipulate.Chris in London said:Neil McNab said:The 6 minutes 45 seconds was fair, the subs and a bit of rolling around we did justified that, we'd want it if the boot was on the other foot, looks very silly and predictable to moan about it to be honest!
Except when the boot is on the other foot we don't get it. during the 4 additional minutes played during the derby the ball was not actually in play for about 3 minutes and 10 seconds of that time. Whenever we score an injury time winner, the additional time is inevitably added on to the end of the game - don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself, against West Brom and Reading in particular. The only time we have conceded an injury time loser was against United when IIRC no additional time was added at all. And that by the ref who gave the world 'fergie time'.
Why is it that there are no clear guidlines pronounced by the FA so we can all see where we stand? Is it just too difficult for this multi billion pound indistry to put together some guidelines as to how much time to add on to the time that you add on? Is the ball supposed to be in play for every second of the time you have added on? If not, how much additional time do you add?
Its a shame really but will never happen. The big fuss over goal line technology which is a minimal advance to enhance the games technology over human error is dead in the water.
The reason for this is that it may open the doors for a Rugby type scenario where important decisions are replayed instantly to a panel to peruse and judge the action.
A billion £ industry cannot be held to that as they will lose the power to manipulate.
Pity Vinny wasn't a couple of seconds quicker with his push, stupid by Nasri though. He's looked a lot better since the derby too.Hamann Pineapple said:Leave poor Fred Eyre alone, miserable is his style. Deadpan humour I like to call it.
Nasri's red was soft
blue12 said:Shocking performance by mr jones tody absolutely woeful,this lot we have at the moment are without doubt the worst set of incompetent buffoons i can ever remember,we seem to be talking about refs more than the actual games at the which is not good.
mancity1 said:rastus said:Because its a billion £ industry the less regulation the better to manipulate.Chris in London said:Except when the boot is on the other foot we don't get it. during the 4 additional minutes played during the derby the ball was not actually in play for about 3 minutes and 10 seconds of that time. Whenever we score an injury time winner, the additional time is inevitably added on to the end of the game - don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself, against West Brom and Reading in particular. The only time we have conceded an injury time loser was against United when IIRC no additional time was added at all. And that by the ref who gave the world 'fergie time'.
Why is it that there are no clear guidlines pronounced by the FA so we can all see where we stand? Is it just too difficult for this multi billion pound indistry to put together some guidelines as to how much time to add on to the time that you add on? Is the ball supposed to be in play for every second of the time you have added on? If not, how much additional time do you add?
Its a shame really but will never happen. The big fuss over goal line technology which is a minimal advance to enhance the games technology over human error is dead in the water.
The reason for this is that it may open the doors for a Rugby type scenario where important decisions are replayed instantly to a panel to peruse and judge the action.
A billion £ industry cannot be held to that as they will lose the power to manipulate.
Fanciful post Rastus.
Heard of that multi billion dollar industry known as NFL.
I think its 5 miilion per second of advertising at this years Superbowl.
Perhaps Mick Jagger and the Stones can determine which side wins it this year.