Jump to content

Three minutes injury time


Diadora Van Basten

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Ethan Hunt said:

But the ‘experts’ on the radio were praising Hamilton for “digging in”. The time wasting was a disgrace. Totally anti football and some people see it as a positive. Football fans pay good money to see a game getting the life sucked out of it by Hamilton’s keeper. How he wasn’t booked is beyond me.

 

Hamilton fans pay good money to see their team play in the top flight of Scottish Football and would want their players doing everything they possibly can to keep that going just as me and you want Hearts players doing everything they can to win each and every game. They are second bottom of the league, playing their relegation rivals away from home, they had 10 men for 70 minutes and we're bemoaning them for trying to steal a few minutes off the clock?

 

The only disgrace I saw today were those players being allowed to wear our famous jersey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, rick witter said:

Ah here he is. Everyone cheats us. 
Big bad cheaters refs against Hearts again!!! 
Had our players done their jobs properly we wouldn’t be caring about injury time. 
You bash on with your conspiracy though 👍🏻

 

 

Here he is! 

 

The one who thinks that there's no corruption in Scottish Football; that refs never give decisions deliberately favouring certain teams, and discriminating against others.

 

What's the opposite of a conspiracy realist?

 

Self-deceived and deserves all that the corruption gives you, while sailing along on the clouds of delusion.

 

Do you think that 3 minutes was the right call?  Simple question?

 

And you can't say it was a mistake, like a penalty decision or an offside (NB I don't think that the Hamilton player was offside for their first - kind of ruins your wittering).  It is measurable, simple!  Keeper was down for at least two minutes so, if he hadn't been injured, he'd only have given 1 minute injury time!!!!  When was the last time you saw that?

 

So, way back to your bed son, you need a rest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Moaning about the ref.

 

Our fans are as thick as the idiots running our club.

 

The simple point of the post is about the paucity of extra-time.

 

Was he right in your opinion?  3 minutes was correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
6 minutes ago, colinmaroon said:

 

The simple point of the post is about the paucity of extra-time.

 

Was he right in your opinion?  3 minutes was correct?


No it’s not the simple point of the post. The post is making feeble excuses.

 

There should have been more injury time, in which we’d have done nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


No it’s not the simple point of the post. The post is making feeble excuses.

 

There should have been more injury time, in which we’d have done nothing.

Spot on the money. 
We have sunk to a new low blaming officials for not giving us longer in our pathetic attempts to score a goal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Squirt said:

 

I don't actively disagree with pretty much all of that and again, I said I also don't think that the referee should  be in charge of timekeeping so I think we are largely on the same wavelength here. The only point I'm arguing is that it's not down to out and out cheating by the official.

 

You believe it should be 30 minutes of the ball in play per half, but why not 45? My assumption, and it is just that so correct me if I'm wrong, is that it's because if you're stopping the clock every time someone goes down or there is a break in play then the match will end up lasting 90 minutes, or thereabouts, regardless. By that logic if the referee stops his watch every time someone goes down or there is a break in play under the current rules then the game could last almost 2 hours.

 

Is the goalie cheating every time he takes his sweet time moving the ball or going down holding his leg? Maybe, but he's allowed to move the ball, he's allowed to claim he's injured, to an extent and that extent has to be decided by the ref. But what about when a player steals 3 yards at a throw in? Or moves the ball half a yard forward at a free kick so it sits up better? These things could all be labelled 'cheating' but in reality things can't be as black and white as that or it would ruin the game.

 

It's taking advantage of a situation to the benefit of the team. It's only ever cheating when it's the other team that's doing it.

 

I just don't believe Clancy or any other ref gives enough of a **** about Hearts that they think to themselves "I'm going to make an error just to spite them" and I think it's a sorry excuse to make for a poor performance. 

 

Incompetence or interpretation of the rules, but not cheating. IMO of course.

Firstly, I’ll answer your question. 
 

I’m suggesting 30 in-play minutes per half based on some of the best games I’ve seen on TV. You may be too young to remember but Sky used to show a stat highlighting how long the ball had been in play during a match. Absolute classics had the ball in play for 60-65 minutes whereas shite like today struggled to get 50. 
 

As for all the other cheating you mentioned, that can’t be stopped but it would at least be a deterrent. The Hamilton goalie would still have faked injury to slow down Hearts momentum after a goalmouth scramble had the fans voices raised. If we’re still playing at 5pm, so be it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, OTT said:

Clancy was pathetic. 

 

He was pretty much refusing to penalise accies for about the most blatant time wasting you'll see. 

The guy is the clown master, verging on cheating this fool, let their goalkeeper waste time

throughout the match but coco did nothing,as for the wheatfield linesman, what was he all about.

Dunno if their 1st goal was off but the wheatfield fans were going crazy, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone clear summat up for us? They had another last man foul on Clare, I think it was. Ref played advantage, fair do’s, came to nowt. Should he not still b st least booking the fella?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No conspiracy and we will have gained from games being cut far too short at times too.

 

Just a wider problem across a game that doesn't have a formal 'timing' official.

 

Do we want to down route of route of rugby,  boxing, basketball etc....

 

Think it's ridiculous that after so many years of changing the law to allow goal kicks to be taken from either side to speed up the game that has had the opposite effect,   no-one has thought 'when the ball comes back from the ball boy, crowd and so on, take it from that side'

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Jamhammer said:

Can someone clear summat up for us? They had another last man foul on Clare, I think it was. Ref played advantage, fair do’s, came to nowt. Should he not still b st least booking the fella?

Yes, as per Jack on Henderson albeit not 'last man'

 

A yellow card is a yellow card offence, advantage played or not. 

Edited by DETTY29
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Shaggy2 said:

Firstly, I’ll answer your question. 
 

I’m suggesting 30 in-play minutes per half based on some of the best games I’ve seen on TV. You may be too young to remember but Sky used to show a stat highlighting how long the ball had been in play during a match. Absolute classics had the ball in play for 60-65 minutes whereas shite like today struggled to get 50. 
 

As for all the other cheating you mentioned, that can’t be stopped but it would at least be a deterrent. The Hamilton goalie would still have faked injury to slow down Hearts momentum after a goalmouth scramble had the fans voices raised. If we’re still playing at 5pm, so be it. 

I'm starting to go down this route too.

There should be a proper 'time off'

 

Substitutions, injuries physio needed or not, when cards shown when ref believes a need to talk to players and so on.

 

And unfortunately we are getting to a stage now that asst refs needs spray as well.  You can still take a quick throw as long as officials are happy it is taken clearly behind where the ball went out, otherwise if you go past that line, possession changes.

 

And there is by far not enough yellow cards shown either for time wasting.

 

If we're still at the game at 5.05 and both teams down to 9 men, so be it.

 

 

Edited by DETTY29
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

I'm starting to go down this route too.

There should be a proper 'time off'

 

Substitutions, injuries physio needed or not, when cards shown when ref believes a need to talk to players and so on.

 

And unfortunately we are getting to a stage now that asst refs needs spray as well.  You can still take a quick throw as long as officials are happy it is taken clearly behind where the ball went out, otherwise if you go past that line, possession changes.

 

And there is by far not enough yellow cards shown either for time wasting.

 

If we're still at the game at 5.05 and both teams down to 9 men, so be it.

 

 

Timewasting is absolutely my pet hate in football hence I’ve rattled on about refs having it taken out of their hands loads of times on here.


It’s closely followed by the fact you can half a player with a cynical, calculated foul if the ball is 10 yards away and only get a yellow, yet you can go in really hard (like Garuccio a year ago), win the ball and be sent off because you did it at full speed and IF you mistimed it you MIGHT HAVE hurt someone. To me, these tackles when executed perfectly take great skill. That’s a debate for another day. 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, whytebeard said:

You think that’s the biggest problem today?

get a grip. We are clueless in almost all departments

When did he say he thought it was the biggest problem?

 

Dont like, dont read it. Are you the thread topic police?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, whytebeard said:

Ok pal. You think if he gave us 6 minutes we would of scored???

 

Also you probably find that the red card was shocker, so the ref actually done us a massive turn.

 

reading through this post, it would suggest to me you are the biggest walloper!!!

 

ta

Poster never said anything about we would have scored if had more time, never said it was the biggest issue...

 

Dont put words in folks mouths.

 

It was a simple point that the minutes added on didnt make any sense. It's a valid point.

 

If this annoys you so much you have serious issues and shouldn't be on a forum like this if gets you so worked up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, kila said:

Should have been at least 5. Their keeper time wasting every kick without warning from ref. 
 

But to be fair to Hamilton they do it very well and it is infuriating. 
 

 

Too true. They are used to hacking their way to safety. We just haven’t learned how to do this this at all 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, J80MBO said:

When did he say he thought it was the biggest problem?

 

Dont like, dont read it. Are you the thread topic police?

Correct.

 

I meant to qualify my comments by stating that I was far more angry with the pathetic cross from Avdijaj right at the end than I was at any stage with Clancy. There were several other player related moments that came into that category as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Harry Potter said:

The guy is the clown master, verging on cheating this fool, let their goalkeeper waste time

throughout the match but coco did nothing,as for the wheatfield linesman, what was he all about.

Dunno if their 1st goal was off but the wheatfield fans were going crazy, 

seen it on Sky last night. it was a yard offside. most of the crowd knew it but somehow that clown didn't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, maroonsgotop said:

seen it on Sky last night. it was a yard offside. most of the crowd knew it but somehow that clown didn't

I thought as much, i was in the gorgie so not easy to spot the offside, the lineclown got pelters 

for the rest of the game, now i know why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diadora Van Basten
27 minutes ago, Harry Potter said:

I thought as much, i was in the gorgie so not easy to spot the offside, the lineclown got pelters 

for the rest of the game, now i know why.

I thought I saw a Juice cup on the pitch in line with the linesman just after the decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stirlingshirejambo
16 hours ago, Last Laff said:


It looked offside to make it 2-1 too, same linesman. 

need to open your blinkered eyes. Clearly onside for Walkers goal, man in middle playing all onside

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MarkDevriesScores4

second half time to be added
 

Their keeper down faking injury - 3mins
 

2 goals - 1 min

 

4 substitutions - 2 mins

 

Hamilton time wasting - 3 mins

 

9 mins would have been more accurate, 6 would have been almost acceptable . Clancy just didn’t fancy the rain so 3 minutes suited  their agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, stirlingshirejambo said:

need to open your blinkered eyes. Clearly onside for Walkers goal, man in middle playing all onside

He's been spinning that yarn another thread as well. 

As if there's not enough things to slag Hearts for, he wants to invalidate a good goal. 

Another three minutes would have been fairer and we may well have scored they were knackered. In fact we missed enough chances to have won comfortably. 

I can never understand why the clock isn't stopped when the ball goes out of play as in Rugby. 

The fans pay to see 90 minutes play

not 60.

I still think we can stay up but if we lose on Friday I think it will be play offs at best for us. 

Edited by luckydug
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diadora Van Basten
12 minutes ago, MarkDevriesScores4 said:

second half time to be added
 

Their keeper down faking injury - 3mins
 

2 goals - 1 min

 

4 substitutions - 2 mins

 

Hamilton time wasting - 3 mins

 

9 mins would have been more accurate, 6 would have been almost acceptable . Clancy just didn’t fancy the rain so 3 minutes suited  their agenda.

I was expecting it to be about 7 mins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MarkDevriesScores4

If their keeper had been booked for time wasting in the first half, he wouldn’t have spent the rest of the match cheating. Clancy refused to book him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

I thought I saw a Juice cup on the pitch in line with the linesman just after the decision.

Correct mate, was a coke carton. i was in section Z so right in front of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

Two goals four subs keeper down injured Blatant time wasting but only three Minutes injury time.

 

That was a bit of a piss take. It would not have made any difference to the result had we played 5/6 minutes what added time we should've had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether we would have scored or not is irrelevant, we are entitled to the proper amount of added time to try. 

I would also suggest there is often a psychological benefit, to seeing an additional 6 mins rather than just 3.

Finally if time wasting is irrelevant, why did Hamilton "over"indulge in it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SomethingAboutObua
20 hours ago, Sheva said:

Agreed with everything apart from Falkirk they aren't even top of league one? Thought it was 30 secs for every sub so 2 mins there and 2 mins for their keeper getting treatment. So there is at least 4 minutes then every time wasting situation that occurred. Referees are good at putting rules to apply whenever they feel like it but never get punished for it. The linesman on the Wheatfield side is a whole other story!!

 Yeah was just meaning more in terms of size of the clubs, would rather see Falkirk doing well and their support in the top flight than the unflushables of Hamilton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holyrood_Hearts
21 hours ago, whytebeard said:

You think that’s the biggest problem today?

get a grip. We are clueless in almost all departments

He never said it was but it’s correct to be highlighted. The time wasting started at 1-0 down & their keeper did it every single opportunity 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going bank to the Op , 3 mins of added time from Clancy was nothing short of criminal. If the 4th official had held up double that nobody would have batted an eyelid . 

I think Clancy is decent and had a good game generally yesterday but you have to ask what his thought process was with the 3 mins added . Horrendous stuff and totally unfathomable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...