Interesting re the time of the goal.

</p>

IfKettle'ssubmitted it as being the93rd minute and thousands of witnesses say it was in the 97th (3 minutes over the designated extra time)I wonderhow the FL response would go. Obviously they'd support the bent b4stard but I'd like to hear how they'd fiddle it.</p>

 

says on stoke website 98th min

 

I always thought that if a penalty was awarded then it didn't matter if it then over runs the stoppage time - it is allowed to be taken. awarded within stoppage time is the key

 

penalty was awarded in 96th minute

I start my stop watch when the score board ticks to zero.

there wasn;t time to take the free kick never mind award a pen!

 

I thought the official time of the goal gets entered as the 90th minute, because in essence there isn't a 93rd minute (or however long) - the additional time is, supposedly, to bring the time played up to 90 (although it would still be ball in play about 60 mins)

 

If it was in the 93rd minute and people are saying it was the 97th minute. Wouldn't that make it four minutes over the designated extra time and not three?

 

Why don't people realise the announcement is always "a minimum of" in yesterday's case " a minimum of 4 minutes" then if the manager tries to waste time, substitutions etc. or if his team starts time wasting, and I think Souza was lucky to get away without a sending off. then that is when the time drags on. injuries can also extend the time. When I say people I include blinkered managers. reporters and commentators.

 

I checked my watch when the free kick was taken and there was still 1 minute of that initial 4 to be played, given all the time over the sending off, Hassell coming on, the protests when penalty given etc - the ball in play was about 1 minute after.

Now had Howard fecking cleared that ball instead of playing it to their man..................! (banghead)

 

Same here. He was daft to think the time him and Muller were wasting would not be added on. Imagine the uproar if he had have been sent off for time wasting. The ref would have got it even more.

 

</p>

Jesus Christ.</p>

 

Listen to the announcment next time - "there will be a MINIMUM of....."

If there re hold ups within that time (which there was) then its obvious that the period of additional time will increase.

 

Like Souza For Example

Not the best afternoon he will ever have. Gets booked, does a clumsy challenge for the first penalty, handles it for the second penalty and lucky not to get a second booking for time wasting.

 

Three minutes stoppages? Aye oreight.

</p>

</p>

 

So you're saying that there were 4 minutes during normal play - and 75% as much again in those 4 min

Yep, that seems reasonable.

 

the well used phrase - a game of football lasts for 90 minutes or until

(insert team name) need to equalise or score the winner

the referee could have saved all this angst if he had found a reason to award the penalty earlier and in normal time. It was always going to happen - just a question of when

the shambles with Muller and de Souza and the free kick probably didnt help though