An interesting one from
http://www.footballtransfertavern.com/2 ... -bad-loser
-----------------------------------------------
The question is whether Sir Alex Ferguson has a genuine point or simply scraping the barrel looking for excuses in relation to this issue.’Fergie Time’ has transcended into the language for a reason. It is difficult to think of a team who are involved in so many games where there have been so many instances of ‘significant’ amounts of added time.
There were 4 minutes of time added to the first half and whilst 4 minutes were indicated the final whistle blew on 90 +5 minutes.
My view on added time is it there to compensate as best as one can for legitimate hold ups in the play. Unless there is a dramatic disparity between the time played and the time ‘scandalously lost’ then it is questionable why a manager would be chuntering over the matter. It smacks of poor grace and a lack of sportsmanship.
“It was disappointing because the record has been fantastic.
“They gave us four minutes [injury time], that’s an insult to the game. It denies you a proper chance to win a football match.”
“There were six substitutions, the trainer came on, so that’s four minutes right away and the goalkeeper must have wasted about two or three minutes and they took their time at every goal kick.
“That’s obvious to everyone today and it’s a flaw in the game that the referee is responsible for time keeping. It’s ridiculous that it’s 2012 and the referee still has control of that.”
In total there were 9 minutes of additional time played yesterday. And Manchester United unquestionably had the lion’s share of possession for the entirety of the second half. So the question must be begged, ‘how much more time did Sir Alex feel he was owed?’
---------------------------------------------------
For the record - just as I believe 'Goal line Technology' is long overdue - so is the fact that the ref should NOT be responsible for keeping the time. Other sports have 'Timekeepers', why not footy?
