Liverpool vs Arsenal Sky Sports 1 8:00 Tuesday 21st

RasTa

Thanks Arsenal

Mr. Frost

monkey9 wrote: »

So did Yossi

Just saying. I wasn't giving out about the amount of injury time.

ShooterSF

monkey9 wrote: »

Off the top of my head, it's hard to say but the last i remember is the five or so minutes at the Utd Villa game, you know, when Macheda scored?

And United fans had to put up with "typical" and "Only at Old Trafford"-esque comments in that match threads from dis-heartened 'pool fans.

Missed the game so I can't comment on it but will say thanks to Arsenal for helping United's title battle. Also please play the same defence in the CL.

adox

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Just an fyi, I think 30 seconds time added on is meant to be added for every goal scored and substitution made in any given half. I think there was 7 goals and 4 substitutions in the second haf.

Also, the time held up by the 4th official is only a guideline and the referee can allow play to continue for longer.

I dont think you add time on when a goal is scored??

Jazzy

ah, so its become one of THOSE threads.


great game. so exciting. very disappointed but extremely entertained.

skrtel > agger

tony1kenobi

enough said.

Jazzy

Jazzy wrote: »

ah, so its become one of THOSE threads.


great game. so exciting. very disappointed but extremely entertained.

skrtel > agger

at defending, Yes without doubt.

LuckyLloyd

keane2097 wrote: »

The amount of people who fail to realise that makes me weep for humanity tbh

I've decided to take that as a compliment.

LuckyLloyd

Jazzy wrote: »

skrtel > agger

This is so, so very true.

5starpool

ShooterSF wrote: »

And United fans had to put up with "typical" and "Only at Old Trafford"-esque comments in that match threads from dis-heartened 'pool fans.

Ya, the 7 goals and 4 substitutes in the second half of that 3-2 win for utd justified the 5 minutes extra time.

tony1kenobi

tony1kenobi wrote: »

enough said.

The s*n? Fcuk, seen it all now

Pepe LeFrits

tony1kenobi wrote: »

enough said.

'Four goals and you useless tossers still couldn't win the game!'

Wenger needs to sort it out this summer.

Jazzy

rarnes1 wrote: »

at defending, Yes without doubt.

at the end of the day, Philipe Albert was sh1te

im traditional that way though. i like my defenders to be best at defending first

el rabitos

Jazzy wrote: »

ah, so its become one of THOSE threads.


great game. so exciting. very disappointed but extremely entertained.

skrtel > agger

um...agger was at fault for any of those goals?

thought he had a good game appart from the mix up with pepe

monkey9

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

'Four goals and you useless tossers still couldn't win the game!'
Wenger needs to sort it out this summer.

Either could you's

event

monkey9 wrote: »

Either could you's

i think he was giving out about his own team, arsenal, calling them tossers

Pepe LeFrits

monkey9 wrote: »

Either could you's

... that wasn't directed at Liverpool. Unless Wenger is planning a move to Merseyside that I don't know about?

Frisbee

monkey9 wrote: »

Either could you's

Think that's supposed to be directed at his team mates rather than the opposition.

jesus_thats_gre

adox wrote: »

I dont think you add time on when a goal is scored??

I think it is..

Mr. Frost

5starpool wrote: »

Ya, the 7 goals and 4 substitutes in the second half of that 3-2 win for utd justified the 5 minutes extra time.

You seem to forget there was 5 (4 up until the 93rd min) goals in that game and also a couple of injuries and 4 substitutions but, why let the facts get in the way of bitterness.

LuckyLloyd

el rabitos wrote: »

um...agger was at fault for any of those goals?

thought he had a good game appart from the mix up with pepe

There is always a mistake every time he plays though. It would probably be worth taking a look at how many goals we concede when either is playing...

ntlbell

Mr. Frost wrote: »

You seem to forget there was 5 (4 up until the 93rd min) goals in that game and also a couple of injuries and 4 substitutions but, why let the facts get in the way of bitterness.

I think some people forget what "injury" times mean and lets just count goals/subs this time because that's what suits the argument

hint: injuries

Frisbee

ntlbell wrote: »

I think some people forget what "injury" times mean and lets just count goals/subs this time because that's what suits the argument

hint: injuries

Injury time is just a catch all phrase.
It covers subs and goals aswell.

How do you not know that?

Insect Overlord

ntlbell wrote: »

I think some people forget what "stoppage" times mean and lets just count goals/subs this time because that's what suits the argument

hint: stoppages

FYP :rolleyes:

LuckyLloyd

ntlbell wrote: »

I think some people forget what "injury" times mean and lets just count goals/subs this time because that's what suits the argument

hint: injuries

The rulebook calls it 'added on time' these days.

everdead.ie

personally i was dissapointed with arshavins performance:( If only levy stomped up the extra few million:(

el rabitos

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

There is always a mistake every time he plays though. It would probably be worth taking a look at how many goals we concede when either is playing...

theres mistakes when anybody plays. skrtles made a fair few recently, carra was at fault for one tonight.

the goals came more from individual mistakes tonight rather than sloppy play as a collective unit.

agger certainly had a fine game i thought, other than the miscommunication with reina as i mentioned. he was solid and distributed the ball well.

event

ntlbell wrote: »

I think some people forget what "injury" times mean and lets just count goals/subs this time because that's what suits the argument

hint: injuries

wrong

its not called injury time, its called stoppage time

hint: stoppages

ref's can add on 30 seconds for each goal, each sub and when a player is injured, its at their own discretion

ntlbell

Frisbee wrote: »

Injury time is just a catch all phrase.
It covers subs and goals aswell.

How do you not know that?

the point i was making was 5starpool is not counting the injuries and time added on for them

and instead is trying to count up subs/goals to make up 5 mins

i'm not trying to re-define the phrase

missingtime

With reference to Skrtel > Agger, I agree but I like the fact that Agger can bring the ball out. Having two get-it-anywhere defenders just doesn't seem give us an edge when leading from the back.

Surely there is a position for him, didn't he play full back with Denmark?

ntlbell

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The rulebook calls it 'added on time' these days.

see post 791: thanks

ShiverinEskimo

Injury time, added time, stoppage time, additional time, blah blah. There were 5 mins, it was 4-4. Game over.

keane2097

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I've decided to take that as a compliment.

I don't suppose I could get you to take it any other way could I? :pac:

Horsefumbler

ntlbell wrote: »

I think some people forget what "injury" times mean and lets just count goals/subs this time because that's what suits the argument

hint: injuries

be just great if you could learn the rules of the game before posting coments like that

LuckyLloyd

ntlbell wrote: »

the point i was making was 5starpool is not counting the injuries and time added on for them

and instead is trying to count up subs/goals to make up 5 mins

i'm not trying to re-define the phrase

Your point is invalid. There is supposed to be 30 seconds automatically added for every goal and substitution. Go on, check it out and see what you find. Whether referees don't usually add on 30 seconds for such instances is irrelevant. They should, and in doing so tonight the officiating crew got things right.

ntlbell

Horsefumbler wrote: »

be just great if you could learn the rules of the game before posting coments like that

so there's no time added on for injuries? it's only goals and subs?

you learned me thanks

ntlbell

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Your point is invalid. There is supposed to be 30 seconds automatically added for every goal and substitution. Go on, check it out and see what you find. Whether referees don't usually add on 30 seconds for such instances is irrelevant. They should, and in doing so tonight the officiating crew got things right.

sorry Lloyd let me clear it up.

5starpool added up the time based on goals scored or in that case not scored and subs

he FORGOT to add the time for injuries

this is not about what they call it " these days"

it's the fact he's wrong.

Jazzy

el rabitos wrote: »

um...agger was at fault for any of those goals?

for the first goal he moves a total of 2 yards while arshavin runs 10 behind him. he was watching the ball and not looking at where they were looking to go with it. the pull back was obvious and he should have been on top of it. you cant hang around like that in the box. look at what is going on and get at it

whatawaster

ntlbell wrote: »

so there's no time added on for injuries? it's only goals and subs?

you learned me thanks

come off it. show me the quote where someone claims there is to be no time added on for injuries to players. Or are you just unsuccessfully trying to dig yourself out of a hole cos you know you're wrong?

Insect Overlord

ntlbell wrote: »

so there's no time added on for injuries? it's only goals and subs?

you learned me thanks

Do you ever stop trolling?

LuckyLloyd

ntlbell wrote: »

sorry Lloyd let me clear it up.

5starpool added up the time based on goals scored or in that case not scored and subs

he FORGOT to add the time for injuries

this is not about what they call it " these days"

it's the fact he's wrong.

Oh ok, cool. :rolleyes:

ntlbell

whatawaster wrote: »

come off it. show me the quote where someone claims there is to be no time added on for injuries to players. Or are you just unsuccessfully trying to dig yourself out of a hole cos you know you're wrong?

some people.

he stated there wasn't enough goals scored or subs made to make up 5 mins against villa

IT IS NOT ONLY SUBS AND GOALS SCORED THAT MADE UP THE 5 MINUTES

THIS IS NOT A MATHEMATICAL BREAKTHROUGH

whatawaster

ntlbell wrote: »

sorry Lloyd let me clear it up.

5starpool added up the time based on goals scored or in that case not scored and subs

he FORGOT to add the time for injuries

this is not about what they call it " these days"

it's the fact he's wrong.

what injuries tonight should he have added? i don't remember any significant.

let's stop arguing. Let's celebrate a great game between the TWO BEST ATTACKING TEAMS IN THE LEAGUE

el rabitos

Jazzy wrote: »

for the first goal he moves a total of 2 yards while arshavin runs 10 behind him. he was watching the ball and not looking at where they were looking to go with it. the pull back was obvious and he should have been on top of it. you cant hang around like that in the box. look at what is going on and get at it

cant say i noticed at the time, but sure i'll have a look when i see the goals again

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

sorry Lloyd let me clear it up.

5starpool added up the time based on goals scored or in that case not scored and subs

he FORGOT to add the time for injuries

this is not about what they call it " these days"

it's the fact he's wrong.

So the 5 minutes wasn't too much then?

LuckyLloyd

Jazzy wrote: »

for the first goal he moves a total of 2 yards while arshavin runs 10 behind him. he was watching the ball and not looking at where they were looking to go with it. the pull back was obvious and he should have been on top of it. you cant hang around like that in the box. look at what is going on and get at it

He did something very similar for goals conceded at White Hart Lane both in the league cup and the league. He is an average / below average defender at the level we are playing at. That he is above average on the ball for his position seems irrelevant. Would have no problem with him being shipped on in the summer.

whatawaster

ntlbell wrote: »

some people.

he stated there wasn't enough goals scored or subs made to make up 5 mins against villa

IT IS NOT ONLY SUBS AND GOALS SCORED THAT MADE UP THE 5 MINUTES

THIS IS NOT A MATHEMATICAL BREAKTHROUGH

sorry thought you's were on about tonight.
Either way our goal was scored after 92 minutes and there can be no complaints. Same with Utds against Villa

ntlbell

whatawaster wrote: »

what injuries tonight should he have added? i don't remember any significant.

sigh, he wasn't talking about tonight he was talking about the villa game!!!

christ all mighty.

whatawaster

ntlbell wrote: »

sigh, he wasn't talking about tonight he was talking about the villa game!!!

christ all mighty.

i realised that. CHRIST ALMIGHTY!

I mean ridiculous assumption for me to make given the thread title, huh?

adox

I`m honestly cant find anything in the rule book saying time should be added on for goals scored.

I`m not arguing the point of time added on tonight, just feeling a little bit thick as I never realised that refs added time on for goals scored as indicated by many posters tonight.