Time added on

[Chris in London]

I understand that it may come across as rude when I'm correcting something you've put together, but I repeatedly said that I wasn't suggesting that it was anything to do with your work - just the source you used.


Indeed. There wasn't actually a long VAR check, but it did take until 91.10 to kick off, which is then recorded in some places as a goal at 90+2 (as 91.10 is in the 92nd minute). That's no big deal normally, except that it makes the Google stats unsuitable for this analysis, because the whole point of the argument is that the ref signals less time when City need a goal. The match might not restart till 91.10 due to typical last minute goal celebrations, but when the extra time is signalled the goal has been given.

It's similar with the Newcastle match. The ref signals 3 minutes, and it's correct that City are actually behind at the 90 min mark. However, watch the match, and because City are attacking throughout the last minute, the extra time isn't signalled until the kick off after the goal.

If I had started this thread, I'd probably have used a similar source to Google, as it's easy to see all the games listed, and work it out quickly. But it turns out that the reality is different.


I did that yesterday - it's in bold in one of my posts that you replied to. Changing those four matches actually flipped the whole thing on it's head, but it's still statistically insignificant, despite the result suggesting referees favour City.

I'm happy to discuss how this analysis could do this in a more robust/accurate way, but I honestly don't think that even watching every match and recording to the second is enough. There are just too many variables to draw any accurate conclusions.

You weren’t correcting anything, you were wrong, you got shown up and now you can’t let it go.

Don’t be patronising and people won’t think you are being rude.

Now fuck off

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

You weren’t correcting anything, you were wrong, you got shown up and now you can’t let it go.

Don’t be patronising and people won’t think you are being rude.

Now fuck off

There’s only one bloke being rude in here.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Aye and a nominal 60 minutes match can take three hours to complete!

I realize that’s tongue in cheek and a dig, or at least I hope it is.

 

[Oystercatcher28]

Penalty + Ederson + Walker and subs... could have been a smidgen over 8. Accurate reflection of time lost to stoppage? Hard to argue against it.

 

[JGL07]

Penalty + Ederson + Walker and subs... could have been a smidgen over 8. Accurate reflection of time lost to stoppage? Hard to argue against it.

Very true. There were two stops for Ederson’s injury before and after the penalty. The first stop must have been three to four minutes. I was expecting more than eight minutes.

 

[kaz7]

Eight but played ten so they could keep attacking and taking corners

 

[Betterdeedthan red]

Eight but played ten so they could keep attacking and taking corners

It does mean more I suppose so should get a bit longer

 

[Stephen230]

Eight but played ten so they could keep attacking and taking corners

Or played 10 because two of the original eight were taken up reviewing the Doku incident.

 

[Chris in London]

Or played 10 because two of the original eight were taken up reviewing the Doku incident.

This Means More time added on?

 

[blueste41]

There’s going to be a Guiness world record smashed on Sunday for amount of ET if they need a goal

The reality is 8 minutes were added with the score 1-1, not sure who needed the goal but it's irrelevant really as 8 minutes seemed appropriate given the stoppages.