Manchester Derby

[triniairman]

City take no action against Bellamy over fan furorAssociated Press
MANCHESTER, England (AP) - Manchester City's Craig Bellamy has escaped punishment from his club for pushing a fan in the face after he had invaded the field on Sunday, although the police and Football Association are still deciding whether to take action.
The Man United fan ran onto the field at Old Trafford and Bellamy was seen to push him in the face.

The police and FA have said they will investigate the incident but City manager Mark Hughes said Tuesday that Bellamy, who faces the possibility of police prosecution and a three-game ban by the FA if found guilty, was acting in self defense.

"We're still waiting for notification as to whether there will be anything from the FA in regard to that," Hughes said.

"He obviously wanted the guy to get off as quickly as possible and told him so. The guy's made an aggressive movement towards him and Craig has brought up a defensive hand and pushed the guy away. You can never be quite sure what is going to happen in those situations."

The incident happened at the end of a stormy but thrilling local derby between the two rivals in which Bellamy had scored twice for City in a 4-3 defeat.

Hughes' team came back three times after falling behind but eventually succumbed to a winner by Michael Owen in the sixth minute of injury time with the City manager furious at the amount of time added on by the referee.

http://msn.foxsports.com/soccer/story/10109056/City-take-no-action-against-Bellamy-over-fan-furor

[Bakes]

Bellamy went out of his way to walk over and confront the fan, it's not as if the fan ran up to him and spat on him. I could care less if the fan got smacked or not from my perspective, he's an idiot for running on the field (which carries an automatic 3 year stadium ban). But from the FA's perspective - I seriously doubt they're going to have much sympathy for Bellamy considering his history and even more doubtful that they're going to believe Hughes claim that it was 'self defense' considering the fan was being restrained by 3 stewards when Bellamy chose to have a go at him. He is supposed to be a professional at the end of the day - so unless the fan tried to physically harm him (which he didn't) - he has no real excuse for what he did.

"chose to have a go at him"... lol  The guy spat on him and he 'mushed' dude in the face... bad enough they're calling it a punch, now you're making it out to be that Bellamy was brawling with the guy.  Presumably there are more objective people on the disciplinary board... Bellamy will be issued a reprimand, if that.  The guy's actually lucky Bellamy didn't knock him out after he spat on him.

In terms of the added time:-

1. 4 mins were originally specified by the ref (which can't be claimed to have been to the benefit of Utd, seeing as they were ahead long before it was announced).

2. 56 extra seconds for Bellamy's celebration.

3. 30 extra seconds for the Carrick substitution.

= 5 mins 26 seconds.

Owen scored at 5 mins and 27 seconds.

Now unless you expected the ref to blow the full-time whistle the moment Owen touched the ball in the 6 yard box, I don't see how anyone (and no respected figure in the footballing world ultimately has) can refute whether the ref approached matters correctly.

City were given 4 mins to equalize with Utd and even go on to win the game (one of which occurred) - it's just too bad for them that they chose to sit back and gift possession and space to Utd to capitalize on. I'm fairly sure none of you would be saying anything if City had scored in this time - with the plain fact of the matter being that they didn't deserve anything from this game, and were in all honesty, flattered by the 4-3 scoreline.

Really?  Anything else the voices are telling you?  Your inaccurate claim that City sat back and "gift possession" to United aside, you still miss the point.  Hughes said they timed the Bellamy goal celebration at 45 seconds... the ref added 56, but let's look beyond that for now.  Assuming all that you say with the timing is correct... Owens scored with 95'26.  Total match time was what... 96'58?

Anyways... it's been fun, time to move on.

[GunnerStunner]

if in fact the time for the goal and substituion are valid rules

then how lucky united were that they were adhered to on sunday

because i have never seen or noticed refs giving and extra 30seconds in injury time due to substituions

[kicker]

I think the whole added time factor has been talked to death, and everyone (by now at least) understands why the time was added and accepts it.  

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm honestly not sure) but I think the time that was added to the originally scheduled 4 minutes (particularly the time factored in for the goal celebration)...is discretionary and allowed in the rules under a somewhat gray & generic description.... and the controversy really has to do with whether or not that discretionary time would have been added had it been the other way around, or is it a case of the big boys getting the rub of the green more so than the little guys... Old Trafford and other big team home grounds are notorious for being difficult to get any favors from the ref as an away team...so it just adds fuel to the fire.

Time to get over it though and move on- sounds like Man U on the run of play deserved to win the match....

[dinho]

if in fact the time for the goal and substituion are valid rules

then how lucky united were that they were adhered to on sunday

because i have never seen or noticed refs giving and extra 30seconds in injury time due to substituions

well that is the bottom line, at the end of the day all that mathematical calculations on the length of the injury time is worth nought...

the signal on the board for injury time is a guide, but the length of injury time is solely up to the discretion of the referee.. Like i said, there are times when a goal is scored in injury time with lengthy celebrations and the match is blown from the ensuing kick off... where is adherance to these rules then??

There are even more countless occasions where subs are made during injury time to kill time off the clock, and no additional time is afforded to compensate.

The moral of the story: Injury time is up to the discretion of the referee.. A discretion which is suspiciously swayed in the favor of Man United at Old Trafford far too often for my liking.

[acb]

The moral of the story: Injury time is up to the discretion of the referee.. A discretion which is suspiciously swayed in the favor of Man United at Old Trafford far too often for my liking.

That was also Joke of The Day ... didn't you see AF hamming it up with the 4th official? Very chummy indeed. Maybe Fergie let him in on what was the wine of the day in the officials dressing room.

Too bad MH wasn't let in on that intimate moment - but then again, maybe he was the butt of the joke.

Let the ManUre fans revel in their false glory - fate has a way of catching up - because diving, cheating and intimidation can only get you so far. Just ask them how was Rome.

[xixgon]

Clearly there's no reasoning with haters.

You can't claim to be objective when pretty much every neutral expert has backed up the ref's decision, yet you still continue to claim bias & cheating on Utd's part. Try and put your feelings towards Utd aside for once and focus on your own team's success instead of spending time trying to reason away Utd's at every given turn (especially given the fact that Utd's rivals receive more stoppage time than they do at home):-

"The average stoppage time added at Old Trafford in the period in question is below that given at Anfield, the Emirates Stadium and Stamford Bridge. United's is 205 seconds, compared to Liverpool's 210sec, Arsenal's 224sec and Chelsea's 229sec." - The Guardian

Everything the ref did was within the rules - Man City didn't deserve anything from the game - and Utd won within the legally allowed amount of time. City defended awfully in the dying seconds (especially Micah Richards and SWP) and paid the price.

I can't put it any more definitively than I have - these are not my facts.

Whilst I don't usually quote Graham Poll he was quite right in his assessment - as was Bobby Mcmahon about City's abject approach to the final sequences.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1215132/GRAHAM-POLL-Well-ref-timed-Manchester-derby-just-right--United-showed-City-play-whistle.html#ixzz0RpvxjfPL

http://community.foxsports.com/bobbymcmahon/blog/2009/09/20/the_best_and_some_of_the_restthis_week_with_a_minimum_of_two_hundred_added_words_


I'm done though haha - Believe what you will.

[sammy]

Clearly there's no reasoning with haters.

You can't claim to be objective when pretty much every neutral expert has backed up the ref's decision, yet you still continue to claim bias & cheating on Utd's part. Try and put your feelings towards Utd aside for once and focus on your own team's success instead of spending time trying to reason away Utd's at every given turn (especially given the fact that Utd's rivals receive more stoppage time than they do at home):-

dem cyah do that.........their team tooo boorrring, so they rather talk/dream bout Utd .
Have to give the arsenal fans on this site some credit, them men does real follow and talk bout everything going on with their team.

[JDB]

Forgive the long post fellas. I does try to stay out of these discussions because, aside from Kicker - who I have to credit with being objective in these discussion even when Real or Barca is involved, the bias just makes this a set of ole talk, but…

Allyuh can’t really telling me that football games usually get called to the exact second that is listed on those time boards? In fact before this game most didn’t even know how much time gets added for subs or what the refs directives are. Anybody pay attention to when time was called in any of the other 9 games this weekend?

Timekeeping has always been at the ref’s discretion. Refs usually let corners get taken even though time has probably expired, they usually don’t blow in the middle of an attacking play. In fact when they do like in the West Ham game last week or the Brazil game against Sweden in ’78 WC it causes it a big stir. The board called for a MINIMUM 4 minutes. Which means when the ref signals 4 minutes to the 4th official only he knows whether he plans to play 4:00, 4:30 or 4:50. Bellamy celebration was almost a minute (the ref was seen standing there marking time during the celebration. The substitution was another 30 seconds (as directed by FIFA). So where is the injustice?

In Sunday’s game it is clear where the extra 90 seconds came from. The fair question ot ask is “whether a small side would have had a ref diligently timing the end to avoid making a mistake” but that is different to saying that United got time that they did not deserve. The fact is refs are under more pressure in big games and are always wary of making bad calls against the bigger sides. It is sad but it is a fact (and not unique to football) that is easier to make a bad call against Hull, Stoke, the Orioles or the Clipper than it is against United, Chelsea, the Yankees or the Lakers. This is noting new. In the 90’s it was United in the 80’s Liverpool and Everton, in the 2000’s it has been all of the current big 4. On the first day of the season the ref put up 6 minutes injury time for Chelsea when they were trailing Hull and as someone just pointed out Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea get AS MUCH injury time as United

The problem I have is that people look at rare incidences and dubious incidents and it gets added to the “lore” of the “Unfair Manchester United”. Despite the fact that the ref was justified in this instance this incident will be added to the Manchester United is a favourite rap.

As a result “Manchester United has the worst divers” when every big side has them, they “get all the calls” when Chelsea and Liverpool benefit from just as much favouritism. Yuh does have men on here rationalizing that Drogba and Gerrard diving is bad but no where near as bad as Ronaldo (of course now that Ronaldo gone Madrid there will be a lot less distaste for him now). When United gets the rub it is considered the rule when it happens to Chelsea or Liverpool it is the exception. Not to focus on Chelsea but if yuh check the Chelsea thread you will see where a clear uncalled penalty for Keane is explained away in several different ways. If that was an unpunished foul by a United player the uproar would be ridiculous. Everybody has statistics to prove that United is way worse than every other team in existence.

[JDB]

if in fact the time for the goal and substituion are valid rules

then how lucky united were that they were adhered to on sunday

because i have never seen or noticed refs giving and extra 30seconds in injury time due to substituions

well that is the bottom line, at the end of the day all that mathematical calculations on the length of the injury time is worth nought...

the signal on the board for injury time is a guide, but the length of injury time is solely up to the discretion of the referee.. Like i said, there are times when a goal is scored in injury time with lengthy celebrations and the match is blown from the ensuing kick off... where is adherance to these rules then??

There are even more countless occasions where subs are made during injury time to kill time off the clock, and no additional time is afforded to compensate.

The moral of the story: Injury time is up to the discretion of the referee.. A discretion which is suspiciously swayed in the favor of Man United at Old Trafford far too often for my liking.

Like I said I agree that the real question is do refs show as much attention when a small club, with a greater expectation of losing gets the same attention to detail when they trailing a close game. My answer would be no but that is just speculation. I would say though that Chelsea benefits just as much as United.

It would be nice though if yuh couls cite some of these other occurences that happen far too often.

[JDB]

Really?  Anything else the voices are telling you?  Your inaccurate claim that City sat back and "gift possession" to United aside, you still miss the point.  Hughes said they timed the Bellamy goal celebration at 45 seconds... the ref added 56, but let's look beyond that for now.  Assuming all that you say with the timing is correct... Owens scored with 95'26.  Total match time was what... 96'58?

Anyways... it's been fun, time to move on.

They did an analysis on MOTD where they analyzed City's defending in Injury time and it was appalling. Every ball United played forward was just headed or booted back. At no time did a City player think to control the ball to maintain possession. It was definitely gifting possession to United.

Hughes said they timed it at 45 seconds. Everyone else incuding former refs have said it was 56. Either way the 11 second difference is dwarfed by the big unknown which is how much time beyond the minmum 4.00 minutes the ref intended to play. if he planned to play 4.45 and then added 45 for the goal and 30 for the sub it is still well past the time that Owen scored. That is why I find all these per second analyses kinda silly because if the ref puts up 4.00 minutes and a players scores subsequently it is not unreasonable for the game to still be playing a minute or even 2 minutes over the originally displayed 4:00.

As for the game ending at 96.58. The ref played additonal time after the Owen celebration ended, probably the remaining time he intended to play before the goal was scored.

My 2 cents.

[dinho]

if in fact the time for the goal and substituion are valid rules

then how lucky united were that they were adhered to on sunday

because i have never seen or noticed refs giving and extra 30seconds in injury time due to substituions

well that is the bottom line, at the end of the day all that mathematical calculations on the length of the injury time is worth nought...

the signal on the board for injury time is a guide, but the length of injury time is solely up to the discretion of the referee.. Like i said, there are times when a goal is scored in injury time with lengthy celebrations and the match is blown from the ensuing kick off... where is adherance to these rules then??

There are even more countless occasions where subs are made during injury time to kill time off the clock, and no additional time is afforded to compensate.

The moral of the story: Injury time is up to the discretion of the referee.. A discretion which is suspiciously swayed in the favor of Man United at Old Trafford far too often for my liking.

Like I said I agree that the real question is do refs show as much attention when a small club, with a greater expectation of losing gets the same attention to detail when they trailing a close game. My answer would be no but that is just speculation. I would say though that Chelsea benefits just as much as United.

It would be nice though if yuh couls cite some of these other occurences that happen far too often.

You serious about that Chelsea reference? (btw the Keane example over the weekend is a poor example because what made the decision difficult for the ref is that he did not go down immediately when he was kicked.. Clear contact and a definite penalty looking at the replay, but in trying to stay on his feet he made it difficult for the referee).

you asking me to cite examples now, when you just stated above that every incident when man utd benefits is exhorted ad nauseum here?  I know, that you know your football well enough, and read this forum enough to know the specific incidents being referred to, but I suspect you want me to indulge you..

but don't take my word for it, my work is not to go back and analyze for you, lets hear what the people who have this responsibility have to say...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/sep/22/manchester-united-goals-stoppage-time

I will be clear about it.. This not-so-latent favoritism has been one of the major reasons for my dislike of Manchester United. However I still try to be objective in my analysis and i notice no one is addressing the points i brought up so to repeat..

Extra injury time for subs - If this were true, then this should cause a seismic shift in conventional coaching methods in the game today.. Because the widely deployed tactic by coaches in the game is to bring on a man for a cobo sweat to kill time off the clock in injury time

Extra injury time for goal celebrations - If this were true, then i think referees should be disciplined for blowing matches immediately after a winning goal is scored in injury time.

[dinho]

Revealed: Manchester United get more injury time when they need it

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/sep/22/manchester-united-goals-stoppage-time

Sir Alex Ferguson likes to boast that his Manchester United team score more late goals than any other side in the world. Others argue that they get a bit of extra help from referees. It has now emerged that the Premier League champions do, as suspected, benefit from an imbalance in the amount of stoppage time that is added to their matches.

After the controversy over Michael Owen's winning goal in Sunday's Manchester derby, the Guardian has looked at all of United's league matches at Old Trafford since the start of the 2006-07 season and discovered that, on average, there has been over a minute extra added by referees when United do not have the lead after 90 minutes, compared to when they are in front. In 48 games when United were ahead, the average amount of stoppage time was 191.35 seconds. In 12 matches when United were drawing or losing there was an average of 257.17sec.

The average stoppage time added at Old Trafford in the period in question is below that given at Anfield, the Emirates Stadium and Stamford Bridge. United's is 205 seconds, compared to Liverpool's 210sec, Arsenal's 224sec and Chelsea's 229sec. But there is also evidence to support the suspicions of many managers, players and supporters that United get preferential treatment at home. When Owen made it 4-3 on Sunday the game was five minutes and 26 seconds into stoppage time. In total, the referee, Martin Atkinson, allowed almost seven minutes, even though the fourth official had signalled a minimum of four. Mark Hughes, the City manager, spoke of feeling "robbed". His sense of grievance will not be helped if he analyses the last three seasons.

In 2006-07, for example, United were winning 15 times on entering stoppage time and referees added an average 194.53sec. In the four games when United were not winning there was an average of 217.25sec. The following year the disparity was greater, Opta's figures showing an average 178.29sec added when United were winning and 254.5sec when they were not. Last season it was 187.71sec compared to 258.6sec.

The pattern has continued in the first three games of the season. In the two games United have led they have played an average 304sec of injury time. On Sunday, Atkinson allowed the game to go on for 415sec.

[kicker]

However I still try to be objective in my analysis and i notice no one is addressing the points i brought up so to repeat..

Extra injury time for subs - If this were true, then this should cause a seismic shift in conventional coaching methods in the game today.. Because the widely deployed tactic by coaches in the game is to bring on a man for a cobo sweat to kill time off the clock in injury time

Extra injury time for goal celebrations - If this were true, then i think referees should be disciplined for blowing matches immediately after a winning goal is scored in injury time.

To back up the sub argument you would have to check to see how much time it actually takes for a sub to be made.  If it's more than 30 seconds, then it's still technically an effective time wasting tool.  Notice how slow the subs of that nature walk off the field, shaking hands with everybody, applauding the supporters etc....Still trying to take more time off the clock than would be added back as per the rules...  and even though modern day officiating now accounts for the time it takes to make a sub, I think it's now a habit that won't change- psychologically teams feel that they're taking precious seconds off the clock, and that they're breaking the opposing team's (that is pressing for an equalizer) momentum....I always viewed that as more an act of gamesmanship than anything else. 

To your other point. hardly do you ever see a ref blowing a game off immediately after a winning goal is scored in injury time...I actually don't recall that ever happening with any kinda specificity.  If it did, it would probably happen if the goal was scored on the last play of the game (i.e. time had elapsed during an attacking play and the ref was just allowing the attacking sequence to finish), in which case you have no argument...or if the goal was icing on the cake or a nail in the coffin (opening up a more than one goal margin in the scoreline with a few seconds remaining on the clock)...Other than that, I can't see that situation playing out...and I don't recall that ever happening.

[giggsy11]

Revealed: Manchester United get more injury time when they need it

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/sep/22/manchester-united-goals-stoppage-time

Sir Alex Ferguson likes to boast that his Manchester United team score more late goals than any other side in the world. Others argue that they get a bit of extra help from referees. It has now emerged that the Premier League champions do, as suspected, benefit from an imbalance in the amount of stoppage time that is added to their matches.

After the controversy over Michael Owen's winning goal in Sunday's Manchester derby, the Guardian has looked at all of United's league matches at Old Trafford since the start of the 2006-07 season and discovered that, on average, there has been over a minute extra added by referees when United do not have the lead after 90 minutes, compared to when they are in front. In 48 games when United were ahead, the average amount of stoppage time was 191.35 seconds. In 12 matches when United were drawing or losing there was an average of 257.17sec.

The average stoppage time added at Old Trafford in the period in question is below that given at Anfield, the Emirates Stadium and Stamford Bridge. United's is 205 seconds, compared to Liverpool's 210sec, Arsenal's 224sec and Chelsea's 229sec. But there is also evidence to support the suspicions of many managers, players and supporters that United get preferential treatment at home. When Owen made it 4-3 on Sunday the game was five minutes and 26 seconds into stoppage time. In total, the referee, Martin Atkinson, allowed almost seven minutes, even though the fourth official had signalled a minimum of four. Mark Hughes, the City manager, spoke of feeling "robbed". His sense of grievance will not be helped if he analyses the last three seasons.

In 2006-07, for example, United were winning 15 times on entering stoppage time and referees added an average 194.53sec. In the four games when United were not winning there was an average of 217.25sec. The following year the disparity was greater, Opta's figures showing an average 178.29sec added when United were winning and 254.5sec when they were not. Last season it was 187.71sec compared to 258.6sec.

The pattern has continued in the first three games of the season. In the two games United have led they have played an average 304sec of injury time. On Sunday, Atkinson allowed the game to go on for 415sec.

We will take it, the same way Chelsea and their fans glady accept the over turning of every red card that has been given to one of their players in recent seasons in the EPL.

[elan]

Revealed: Manchester United get more injury time when they need it

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/sep/22/manchester-united-goals-stoppage-time

Sir Alex Ferguson likes to boast that his Manchester United team score more late goals than any other side in the world. Others argue that they get a bit of extra help from referees. It has now emerged that the Premier League champions do, as suspected, benefit from an imbalance in the amount of stoppage time that is added to their matches.

After the controversy over Michael Owen's winning goal in Sunday's Manchester derby, the Guardian has looked at all of United's league matches at Old Trafford since the start of the 2006-07 season and discovered that, on average, there has been over a minute extra added by referees when United do not have the lead after 90 minutes, compared to when they are in front. In 48 games when United were ahead, the average amount of stoppage time was 191.35 seconds. In 12 matches when United were drawing or losing there was an average of 257.17sec.

The average stoppage time added at Old Trafford in the period in question is below that given at Anfield, the Emirates Stadium and Stamford Bridge. United's is 205 seconds, compared to Liverpool's 210sec, Arsenal's 224sec and Chelsea's 229sec. But there is also evidence to support the suspicions of many managers, players and supporters that United get preferential treatment at home. When Owen made it 4-3 on Sunday the game was five minutes and 26 seconds into stoppage time. In total, the referee, Martin Atkinson, allowed almost seven minutes, even though the fourth official had signalled a minimum of four. Mark Hughes, the City manager, spoke of feeling "robbed". His sense of grievance will not be helped if he analyses the last three seasons.

In 2006-07, for example, United were winning 15 times on entering stoppage time and referees added an average 194.53sec. In the four games when United were not winning there was an average of 217.25sec. The following year the disparity was greater, Opta's figures showing an average 178.29sec added when United were winning and 254.5sec when they were not. Last season it was 187.71sec compared to 258.6sec.

The pattern has continued in the first three games of the season. In the two games United have led they have played an average 304sec of injury time. On Sunday, Atkinson allowed the game to go on for 415sec.

We will take it, the same way Chelsea and their fans glady accept the over turning of every red card that has been given to one of their players in recent seasons in the EPL.

Wow.......how poignant.