I might be wrong but I think the time held up on the board is purely a suggestion ... if the ref feels there should be more and can justify it they can. I remember watching Brighton, Burnley, Watford and WBA consistently waste time for the whole match and was incensed that not enough time was added on. West Brom got away with it 3 times and Burnley once...we also beat Brighton and Burnley in the final seconds on other occasions. Guess that's why I don't have a problem with the added time yesterday.
The time on the board is the rough amount that the ref feels should be added at that point. He somehow found another 3 minutes in the five that was "right" when the 90 ended. I'd have no issue with it if this was a common thing that happened in every game. It doesn't. It's rather selective. That's why they brought the board in in the first place. ****ing Fergie time.
The amount of time wasting that went on in the rest of the match is what (should) account for the minimum added extra time. The amount added on in extra time should only result from time lost during extra time itself. Clearly they didn't lose nearly three minutes in five minutes of extra time and hence why it's wrong. Yes we've scored in "overtime" in extra time, but you can account for all that extra by way of things that happened in extra time. Having said that, I think extra time if often not extended at all, regardless of circumstances, let alone for three minutes. It's also wrong because we all know the same criteria isn't applied to all teams. The only way to stop this is to have an on screen clock that stops when play stops, and play ends at 45 minutes. This means no extra time, because all the time is accounted for. It may have a few problems, but nowhere near as many as having as many different ways of accounting for time as number of refs x number of teams.
In rugby (one or both codes?) doesn’t the ref signal to stop the clock for a stoppage and then re-start, so the crowd can see how how is left and the game ends when it should? Why not in football?
Rugby is much more start/stop in its nature than football and lends itself to this style of time management. They also don’t stop the clock for everything (scrums and conversions for example) and there’s been plenty written in the last few years about the amount of time the ball is actually in play in that sport, too. I don’t see it as the right solution for football. I think the main source of timewasting in football is at restarts, mainly goalkicks, and it shouldn’t be difficult to get refs to clam down on it. There’s a case for having the VAR for each match monitor it and get in the ref’s ear to remind them to book when it gets egregious. Personally, and I’ll say it again, what I’d take from rugby officiating is to broadcast the ref’s mike feed and their communications with other officials live.
Gary Neville has been referred to the Attorney General: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/62756971 What is it with all of these Fergie era Manyoo players thinking that the rules don't apply to them? Oh, wait...
Simon Jordan hates Gary Neville. He makes me laugh when he refers to him as the “self appointed mayor of Manchester”
