| 9 minutes? (n/t) 16:54 - Aug 6 with 1465 views | GlasgowBlue |
|  |
| |  |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 16:55 - Aug 6 with 1440 views | DarkHorse |
Ridiculous. |  | | |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 16:55 - Aug 6 with 1439 views | ZXBlue |
Very odd. Not even seen any time wasting to speak of. |  | | |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 16:55 - Aug 6 with 1431 views | Illinoisblue |
There needs to be an EFL investigation. Seriously. Utterly absurd |  |
| |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 16:55 - Aug 6 with 1413 views | Scuzzer |
Not even a physio on the pitch! |  |
| |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 16:56 - Aug 6 with 1377 views | GeoffSentence |
Bit of a bwger when you are defending a one goal lead. But hopefully this is a sign tht refs are taking account of stoppages more, which should generally benefit us. |  |
| |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:04 - Aug 6 with 1105 views | StokieBlue |
Crazy but with 5 subs each at 30 seconds plus drinks breaks it will probably be 7+ quite often this season.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:06 - Aug 6 with 1059 views | GeoffSentence |
three league one games wuth 9 minutes added on today, several mor with 7 and 8. So I reckon this is the refs taking onboard the memo about timewasting.
Long may it continue.
Though I reckon it will have been forgotten by the end of the month and it will be back down to 3 or 4 minutes regardless of what timewasting has gone on. | |
| |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:08 - Aug 6 with 1021 views | Trequartista |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:04 - Aug 6 by StokieBlue |
Crazy but with 5 subs each at 30 seconds plus drinks breaks it will probably be 7+ quite often this season.
SB |
There can only be a maximum of 3 sub windows each in the second half. The worry is consistency - is this being applied in all games, everyone else seemed to finish earlier.
I wasn't watching but did 4 minutes seem excessive for the first half as well? If so, we certainly benefitted from that. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:13 - Aug 6 with 940 views | StokieBlue |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:08 - Aug 6 by Trequartista |
There can only be a maximum of 3 sub windows each in the second half. The worry is consistency - is this being applied in all games, everyone else seemed to finish earlier.
I wasn't watching but did 4 minutes seem excessive for the first half as well? If so, we certainly benefitted from that. |
The window is irrelevant though isn't it?
It's 30 seconds per sub because they are done sequentially, not in parallel because of the board.
So I think my initial point was correct.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:15 - Aug 6 with 924 views | ArnieM |
Several subs made again . Thus will affect the injury time surely ! Plus we had a few players go down with injuries, for at least a minute each time .
I’d say 100min games now the norm this season. |  |
| |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:17 - Aug 6 with 906 views | Trequartista |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:13 - Aug 6 by StokieBlue |
The window is irrelevant though isn't it?
It's 30 seconds per sub because they are done sequentially, not in parallel because of the board.
So I think my initial point was correct.
SB |
I don't know for certain, but assumed it was 30 seconds per window, otherwise why bother having a window if you can just waste time with all 5 of your subs? | |
| |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:21 - Aug 6 with 863 views | Trequartista |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:06 - Aug 6 by GeoffSentence |
three league one games wuth 9 minutes added on today, several mor with 7 and 8. So I reckon this is the refs taking onboard the memo about timewasting.
Long may it continue.
Though I reckon it will have been forgotten by the end of the month and it will be back down to 3 or 4 minutes regardless of what timewasting has gone on. |
were the other three 9 minutes at the end or 9 minutes for both halves? I'm sure only our game and the MK Dons game was still going at 5pm. | |
| |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:22 - Aug 6 with 862 views | pointofblue |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:21 - Aug 6 by Trequartista |
were the other three 9 minutes at the end or 9 minutes for both halves? I'm sure only our game and the MK Dons game was still going at 5pm. |
Bolton v Wycombe and Shrewsbury v Accrington were still finishing at 5 too. | |
| |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:22 - Aug 6 with 855 views | JDB23 |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:13 - Aug 6 by StokieBlue |
The window is irrelevant though isn't it?
It's 30 seconds per sub because they are done sequentially, not in parallel because of the board.
So I think my initial point was correct.
SB |
I always thought double/triple subs didn’t count as 30 seconds each. If they did then surely most games last season you’d have 5 mins injury time as a standard but it was very rare to get that much. I’ve given up trying to understand the decision making of officials anyway. | | | |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:25 - Aug 6 with 833 views | Illinoisblue |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:22 - Aug 6 by pointofblue |
Bolton v Wycombe and Shrewsbury v Accrington were still finishing at 5 too. |
It’s going to get ridiculous. If there had been any actual injuries the game could have been 105 minutes. | |
| |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:27 - Aug 6 with 797 views | Trequartista |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:22 - Aug 6 by pointofblue |
Bolton v Wycombe and Shrewsbury v Accrington were still finishing at 5 too. |
Bolton had 4 mins added on at full time so they must have started incredibly late if they were still going at 5pm | |
| |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:32 - Aug 6 with 777 views | Trequartista |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:22 - Aug 6 by JDB23 |
I always thought double/triple subs didn’t count as 30 seconds each. If they did then surely most games last season you’d have 5 mins injury time as a standard but it was very rare to get that much. I’ve given up trying to understand the decision making of officials anyway. |
Not sure if it's a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule. Goals are supposed to be 30 seconds as well I believe. As StokieBlue says, subs are made sequentially because of the board, but if you make three in one window that is usually quicker than 3 separate windows. If a window of 3 subs counts as 90 seconds, I wonder then what is the point of the sub window rule. | |
| |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:36 - Aug 6 with 752 views | Trequartista |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:25 - Aug 6 by Illinoisblue |
It’s going to get ridiculous. If there had been any actual injuries the game could have been 105 minutes. |
Although it's a radical change, I'd like to see a fifth official keep time and we play 60 minutes of ball in play. | |
| |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:50 - Aug 6 with 695 views | Illinoisblue |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:36 - Aug 6 by Trequartista |
Although it's a radical change, I'd like to see a fifth official keep time and we play 60 minutes of ball in play. |
Totally agree. I’ve watched so much basketball so am used to a stopping clock. It’s time to change | |
| |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:59 - Aug 6 with 663 views | StokieBlue |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 17:36 - Aug 6 by Trequartista |
Although it's a radical change, I'd like to see a fifth official keep time and we play 60 minutes of ball in play. |
I don't think it's that radical, quite a sensible idea although I would think the 4th official could do it.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| 9 minutes? (n/t) on 18:07 - Aug 6 with 627 views | solemio |
In Norwich's game there were 10 minutes added time at the end of the match. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
