[JonB]

Goku, on 20 August 2023 - 10:30 AM, said:

Huh? Surely any delay should be added on, particularly given the change in rules this season?

Basically if they announce 6 mins injury time they should play for 6 mins whether that takes 6mins or longer if there is a stoppage in those 6 mins. If they’ve played 5 mins and the ball goes missing for 3 then there is still 1 min to play when the ball reappears.

[Mr Mercury]

JonB, on 20 August 2023 - 10:38 AM, said:

Basically if they announce 6 mins injury time they should play for 6 mins whether that takes 6mins or longer if there is a stoppage in those 6 mins. If they’ve played 5 mins and the ball goes missing for 3 then there is still 1 min to play when the ball reappears.

Thank you!

[plannerj]

Zigsuk, on 20 August 2023 - 10:35 AM, said:

I repeat there will be no replays or points deductions. We didn’t get points deductions when Ashmore was ‘assaulted’. Not going back further when the Bury goalkeeper suffered a more serious assault.

My reply to your post concentrated on your claim that the mass pitch invasion should have been prevented by our stewards. I wasn’t commenting on points reductions, a replayed game behind closed doors or any other unlikely sanction. You are one of a clique of contributors on here having the wish to criticise the club at every opportunity. For the avoidance of doubt, my opinion is that the only responsibility for the pitch invasion yesterday lies with those taking part.

[JonB]

plannerj, on 20 August 2023 - 10:37 AM, said:

Correct. In yesterday’s case the additional time was a MINIMUM of 6 minutes. This reflects the possibility that further time can be played for a variety of circumstances that may arise in the initial added minutes. I’m not aware that the laws indicate that the added time is a MAXIMUM as has been alleged.

The reason they say minimum of is because it may take longer than the indicated time to play the announced number of mins. When they first started announcing folk were questioning the clocks were going past the indicated times. They then changed to saying minimum number of mins to cover the clock going to say 98/99 mins when 6 have been announced for example.

[Mr Mercury]

plannerj, on 20 August 2023 - 10:37 AM, said:

Correct. In yesterday’s case the additional time was a MINIMUM of 6 minutes. This reflects the possibility that further time can be played for a variety of circumstances that may arise in the initial added minutes. I’m not aware that the laws indicate that the added time is a MAXIMUM as has been alleged.

No the amount of extra time to be PLAYED is 6 mins, if there’s a further delay in that 6 minutes it may take longer than 6 minutes to play but the actual time played will still be 6minutes.

Goku, on 20 August 2023 - 10:38 AM, said:

Y… yes?

Really?

[plannerj]

JonB, on 20 August 2023 - 10:57 AM, said:

The reason they say minimum of is because it may take longer than the indicated time to play the announced number of mins. When they first started announcing folk were questioning the clocks were going past the indicated times. They then changed to saying minimum number of mins to cover the clock going to say 98/99 mins when 6 have been announced for example.

I agree.

[Goku]

Mr Mercury, on 20 August 2023 - 11:03 AM, said:

No the amount of extra time to be PLAYED is 6 mins, if there’s a further delay in that 6 minutes it may take longer than 6 minutes to play but the actual time played will still be 6minutes.


Really?

Haha no it makes sense now, thank you.

[clarevoyant.]

Mr Mercury, on 20 August 2023 - 11:03 AM, said:

No the amount of extra time to be PLAYED is 6 mins, if there’s a further delay in that 6 minutes it may take longer than 6 minutes to play but the actual time played will still be 6minutes.


Really?

Correct but yesterday the goal was scored with 5 minutes gone(1minute left) but we don't know whether in the 5 minutes played there had been other identifiable stoppages which needed adding to the remaining playing time.

[Mr Mercury]

clarevoyant., on 20 August 2023 - 11:10 AM, said:

Correct but yesterday the goal was scored with 5 minutes gone(1minute left) but we don't know whether in the 5 minutes played there had been other identifiable stoppages which needed adding to the remaining playing time.

Yes I understand the point re yesterdays premature conclusion but I was pointing out the common misconception about how time is “added on”.

[FORZA AZZURRI]

Goku, on 20 August 2023 - 10:38 AM, said:

Y… yes?

He plays 1min as only 1min left to play

[FORZA AZZURRI]

Mr Mercury, on 20 August 2023 - 10:27 AM, said:

If there’s only 10 seconds to go before the final whistle and there’s any sort of hold up, ie injury, pitch invasion etc its irrelevant how long the game is stopped for there would only be 10 seconds to play when it restarts!

100% correct

[clarevoyant.]

Mr Mercury, on 20 August 2023 - 11:14 AM, said:

Yes I understand the point re yesterdays premature conclusion but I was pointing out the common misconception about how time is “added on”.

Apologies

[Search & Destroy]

Mr Mercury, on 20 August 2023 - 11:03 AM, said:

No the amount of extra time to be PLAYED is 6 mins, if there’s a further delay in that 6 minutes it may take longer than 6 minutes to play but the actual time played will still be 6minutes.


Really?

Correct, so if Oldham, hold the ball from 92-94 mins within that 6 mins the extra 2 should be added on

[Mr Mercury]

Joe Quigley is dynamite, on 20 August 2023 - 11:27 AM, said:

Correct, so if Oldham, hold the ball from 92-94 mins within that 6 mins the extra 2 should be added on

This post has been edited by Mr Mercury: 20 August 2023 - 11:29 AM

[Zigsuk]

plannerj, on 20 August 2023 - 10:55 AM, said:

My reply to your post concentrated on your claim that the mass pitch invasion should have been prevented by our stewards. I wasn’t commenting on points reductions, a replayed game behind closed doors or any other unlikely sanction. You are one of a clique of contributors on here having the wish to criticise the club at every opportunity. For the avoidance of doubt, my opinion is that the only responsibility for the pitch invasion yesterday lies with those taking part.

It will probabaaly come as a surprise to you that I totally agree with you. The stewards couldn't have prevented it and CFC are not in any way to blame. However there is no telling the often perverse reactions of the football authorities.

[calvin plummers socks]

Zigsuk, on 20 August 2023 - 09:58 AM, said:

Some right clutching at straws claptrap about this. The game ended in a draw. There will be no replay, playing the extra couple of minutes behind closed doors, awarding the points to us, deducting Oldham points, etc. They may get a fine, although we could be punished as it was our stewards who failed to control them.
However all the nonsense spouted about we will get this that and the other, or this and that might happen is pathetic. The game is over ending in a draw, 1 point each and that’s it.

100% - apart from the bit about our stewards failing to control them. The safety officer is responsible for staffing according to the laid down rules (very strict)- the game can’t go ahead if sufficient numbers aren’t in place.
What the staff aren’t employed to do is stop fans or control them in this sort of situation.
If the fans enter the field of play it’s an arrestable offence and is dealt with that way.
If we say go to Woking and 100 fans run on the pitch and start dicking around its of no consequence to Woking if the correct procedures are in place (which they would be).
Example of that last season at Wednesday when fans were crying out for the club to be reprimanded for the issues at Leppings Lane. The club weren’t at fault for the fans behaviour on this occasion.

[stainlessstephen]

Not sure why we are having this debate.

Really simple, we chucked the game away by giving a stupid and unnecessary corner away.

We have ourselves to blame for giving Oldham that opportunity which they took. It is a failure on our side I'm afraid.