Why Kuipers Added Five Minutes to the Champions League Final
Bjorn Kuipers is a good referee.
And for the most part, his part in the 4-1 Real Madrid extra time win over Atletico Madrid in the Champions League Final was played well. If you’re a Real Madrid fan, you thought he was great.
Unfortunately, for everyone else – Atletico Madrid fans and neutrals – what he did well is overshadowed by a single question:
Why did he add five minutes of extra time to the final half?
That decision had an absolute effect on the game, turning it from a game Atletico nearly won to a thrashing. There seemed, to the neutral, to be no rational reason for so much time, and most people expected a stoppage time of closer to 2 or 3 minutes. While the equalizer came at the end of the third minute, you play a three-minute stoppage time differently than when you have five minutes to play.
But was he right?
I was skeptical of the decision myself, so I decided to look at this neutrally, and actually counted up as much of the time in the half as possible. This isn’t going to be scientific or completely accurate, obviously, but it’s close enough for government work, as we say in America.
Here is the criteria I used, from Law 7:
Allowance is made in either period for all time lost through:
- Substitutions
- Assessment of injury to players
- Removal of injured players from the field of play for treatment
- Wasting time
- Any other cause
The allowance for time lost is at the discretion of the referee.
Here’s what I came up with:
- 51:54: Angel di Maria goes down and Atletico surround Kuipers, bumping into him and causing him to have to reassert control. By 52:15, the time wasting stops and the match is reset. 21 seconds.
- 57:55: Real make a double substitution. Throw in happens at 58:23. 28 seconds
- 65:00: Atletico make a substitution. Raul Garcia takes his sweet time getting off the pitch. Throw in at 65:42. 42 seconds
- 71:49: Iker Casillas is shaken up after a collision with David Villa, requiring an injury assessment (no treatment). Game restarts by 72:15. 21 seconds
- 73:27: Angel di Maria is shaken up, requiring an injury assessment (no treatment). Game restarts at 73:56. 30 seconds
- 78:00: Real make a substitution. Throw in at 78:11 11 seconds
- 80:59: Gabi does a dramatic roll from a foul and lays face down on the ground. Atletico and Real players start sparring. This requires time to sort out the injury assessment (requiring minimal treatment) and separate the players. Then there was an Atletico substitution. Play finally restarts at 82:45. 1 minute and 46 seconds.
- 84:19: Atletico player lands awkwardly and takes his time getting up from the injury assessment (no treatment). Corner is taken at 84:54. 35 seconds
Total Time: 294 seconds or…
4.9 minutes
Kuipers and team got it exactly right. It felt as if it should have been less because the incidents were each short and spread out. The injuries were all shaken off quickly and no one really required much treatment. It was easy to lose track of just how much time was being spent.
But note that the vast majority of this time was spent by Atletico Madrid while they had a 1-0 lead. It took longer for Garcia to saunter off the pitch than for Real to make all three of their substitutions combined. Basically, Atletico tried to burn time and it bit them in the ass.
But you can’t blame the referee for that.
Read the analysis of the first half stoppage time.
Featured photo: dailymail.co.uk
PLAY THE ADVANTAGE 
Why did he add then 1 minute in the first half. Was it 1 minute, when costa got injured, they had to swap him, the goal celebration and so more other things. Could you just count that lost time and show me that it was 1 minute. Then i can say that you’re right.
LikeLike
I really was only trying to answer the single question about the five minutes after the second half, which was important because of the amount of shock and suspicion amongst the fans and for the fact that it allowed Real Madrid to score.
I don’t know why he made some of the decisions he did (including why he didn’t add time to those five minutes after Real scored and celebrated), and I’m not going to speculate.
I, personally, was upset by the five minute decision and I wanted to understand it. Now I do and I hope it’s helpful to others, as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know what you mean Jenna, but what i am trying to say is that “if you are not gonna compare the first half wasted time and then the added injury time with the second half, then you’re not gonna be sure that it was the right decision”. You need to compare both to say that it was the right decision.
LikeLike
I have to disagree with you here. The first and second half stoppage times are calculated separately, and the first half time isn’t taken into account in the second half. The equalizer happened in the second half. Whether he and Cakir got the first half stoppage time right is irrelevant to this piece.
LikeLike
But the rule has to be the same for both times. 1 minute in first half and 5 in second… Also, he did Not allow atleti keep playing at the end of these 5 minutes and they were attacking so hard, after the goal of ramos 5 minutes were okay.. But if atletico is kicking reals ass 5 minutes is too much…. Pathetic referee
LikeLike
I reviewed the first half, too. The stoppage time was within reason there, as well.
He has no obligation to extend the stoppage time just because one team is on the attack.
LikeLike
El análisis es muy interesante pero tengo siempre mis dudas es bueno analizar así el primer tiempo que paso por que según dicen que la regla de recuperación por cambios es de 30 segundos por cada uno entonces que paso en la primera parte se debe emplear el mismo criterio para que sea creíble lo de la segunda parte analizada….
LikeLike
Sorry that my Spanish isn’t great, so I’m replying in English. The “30 second rule” has been used – Dermot Gallagher, former English ref, mentions it. Basically, the ref would add 30 seconds for each celebration and each substitution. But that is just a guideline that SOME referees have used at SOME time. It’s not official, and there’s no indication that Kuipers used it.
LikeLike
If you wanna go thro how you got every minute in extra time, you will find like 4 of 10 matches addes 1-2 minutes. Look at EPL they usually have 5-6 minutes extra time. Never seen so many complains about right added minutes like in this match. No one wanted Real to get La Decima cause the way will be further for other team to get 10 cups. Well it’s understandable. It wont be easy.
LikeLike
I’m gonna ask only one thing, would he gave 5 minutes stoppage time if Real Madrid was wining instead of losing?
LikeLike
In that case, Madrid got shortchanged. Thanks for pointing that out. We won despite being shortchanged.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know they are calculated separately. I just want to compare both, the first half and the second half, to know if the 5 minute decision was right. It is relevant to this piece cause in the first half Atl Mad was attacking while Real defending and the second half Real attacking and Atl defending. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know what you are trying to say Romeo, and partly I agree with you. The first half he added only 1 minute, but if the actually stoppage time in the first half was like say 3 minutes. Kuipers was not consistent in his decisions, because in the first half he added only a fraction of the real stoppage time and the second the full. But that is just hypothetical. So I understand what you are saying, but that makes the decision to add 5 minutes (what it actually really was) in the second half not less right.
Lets be honest with each other, isn’t that the world upside down? Judging Kuipers that he added the actual 5 minutes in the second half and that he did not add – let say – 2 minutes extra at the end of the first? It think all his decision were spot on and he played his part perfectly!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The truth is, if you were following me on Twitter, I actually felt there was a lot of inconsistency on Kuipers’ part. I’m sure we could sit and pick apart every decision and expose a lot of issues.
But I don’t think, for the most part, those inconsistencies affected the outcome of the match. If, on the other hand, he awarded 5 minutes of second half stoppage when he should only have awarded, say, two, then that would have mattered.
That was the question I tried to answer here. There are other questions you could ask about Kuipers’ performance, true, but as Alex says, it doesn’t make the answer to this one any less right.
LikeLike
Well, I do not follow you on Twitter and just came her via some other websites. I’m not a referee lover or whatsoever. I’m just a Dutch guy who loves Football and felt that I had to answer, so perhaps I’m a bit chauvinistic 😉 I thought he managed the game very well and was every time in control of the situation. Perhaps the yellow card for Sergio Ramos was drawn a bit to quick, but at that point he made to everyone on the pitch very clear who was the boss. Probably I missed some other decisions of Kuipers. But what you said, and I agree with you, his (inconsistent) decisions did not affect the outcome of the match.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think you’re chauvinistic at all! I’m in complete agreement with you, actually.
LikeLike
I added up the first half. Even being very generous I don’t get to two minutes. I think the first half call was reasonable as well.
LikeLike
Hi (first of all, sorry for my english):
I think that the relation between the extra time added in the first and second half is essential to understand if Kuipers decision was influenced by RM players pressure.
Second, football is played clock run (not stopped like basket), counting stopped time is not valid for estimating extra time. If we do that the extra time should be around 15 minutes in most matches. If you are used to watch football, the waste of time was not enought to add 5 minutes compared to any other international or domestic match (this is my opinion).
In any case, to know if Kuipers was coherent with himself the relation between time wasted and added in first half is very important.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see you did not read the article above? The rules when to add stoppage time and when not are in this match very clear.
Allowance is made in either period for all time lost through:
Substitutions
Assessment of injury to players
Removal of injured players from the field of play for treatment
If you check out the calculation of Jenna, the only time added was for substitions, assesment of injuries and removal of injured players. And honestly, your argument to compare those 5 minutes to any other match internationally or domestic, is in my opinion very weak. If those referees tend to only add 3/4 of the real stoppage time, that is their mistake. 5 minutes is 5 minutes and we should be happy that (finally?) a ref adds the time it should be!
But I agree with others in this topic, if Kuipers added the first half only a part of the real stoppage time (which we don’t know for sure), his decision wasn’t very consistent but makes it not less right!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Please, do not interpret my argument as a sign that I’m defending Kuipers decision because I’m a Madrid fan. Because I am not. I was really hoping Athletico would win this final. I despise Madrid with all their money what they throw over the bar and their never ending debts! I am just trying to have an argument due to the facts we know and Jenna presented us!
LikeLike
Obviously I’m not a RM fan, and probably I’m partial.
I don´t agree, I think that “wasting time” and “any other thing” are not clear concepts in this this nor any other match (anyway is well argued by Jenna), like hand foul criteria in FIFA rules of the game.
Maybe the argument you say is weak, but in law when you repeat many time a sentence it becames a law, this is not law but are rules.
I´d like to give you a scientific statistical analysis to see how do really referees apply the extra time, but i don´t want to waste my time.
In my opinion and experience comparing with others matches, the extra time was excessive. If this time was fair, maybe the rule is commonly bad applied. But casually the time is well applied is in favour of the most economically powerful team.
LikeLike
No doubt the stoppage rules are applied inconsistently. And I’m not saying he wasn’t inconsistent here, but should he take away two minutes that were wasted because he usually only gives three or because usually people think RM is favored?
The truth is, between the extra 20 seconds or so Garcia took to get off the pitch during his sub, and the Gabi situation, that’s two minutes right there. Should Atletico really have been able to just waste that time with no consequences?
LikeLike
I added up the first half, as well. Even being super generous, I don’t get to two minutes. Considering that it’s his call and I don’t know what he was thinking, I feel confident saying the one minute of stoppage time in the first half was reasonable, as well.
LikeLike
Hi. First of all, I think your English is great. 🙂
The point of this exercise was really to try and understand the decision; not to provide a definitive answer, but to try and understand where Kuipers was coming from. He sadly cannot defend his decision publicly, so I was trying to understand it.
That said, as Alex said, the rules are really clear, and in this case almost all the time was used for substitutions or injury assessment. It’s pretty easy at that point: you start counting when the clock stops and stop counting when it restarts. I think those times are accurate.
There were only two “other” cases: When Atletico players started arguing with the ref and got physical, and the long period where Gabi wouldn’t get up towards the end. I felt confident in saying those would be viewed by the ref as stoppage, so I counted them.
I didn’t count anything else. As I said, it’s not scientific, but I think it’s a pretty good reflection.
LikeLike
whats the argument here football is played for 90minutes and over thats why each team mist prepare well for such games. also is it because its madrid thats why ppl are talking much? what about if athletico werea able to score some goals during this 5 minutes added time what would have being the talk? we know of circumstances thru which barca win matches? but no one talks
LikeLike
I think Bjorn Kuipers lead a great performance. But 5 minutes was very long. But Atletico ook all the time they good take. I prefer to additionele s minute to much then a minute to short…
And strictly concrtning the rules he essen right. I eis all referees would act like him.
LikeLike
Pingback: Bjorn Kuipers: Mr. Right | PLAY THE ADVANTAGE
The analysis of the five minutes into the various incidents is very helpful, and does a good job at justifying the decision. The problem, and what sticks in the throat of the football fan, is the lack of consistency among referees when it comes to injury time. In particular, one can’t help feeling that injury time frequently comes to the aid of the bigger, richer club. So when the bigger club is winning, injury time is short, or indeed, shorter than what might seem justified; when the big club is losing, injury time is long–or indeed, as long as it should be. So even if five minutes were justifiable on Saturday, I don’t believe for a moment that we would have seen five minutes if the scoreboard at 90 minutes read ‘Real 1 Atletico 0′. And this is not to cast doubt on Kuipers’ integrity; the bias towards the big club goes deeper, it’s something subconscious.
LikeLike
First of all, please note that that’s a feeling you have, not anything that’s been proven. We all FELT (including me) that Kuipers added minutes onto the end of this match; I went into this counting exercise actually trying to prove that Kuipers was wrong. He clearly wasn’t. If he had given three minutes to be “unbiased” toward the big team, and it was proven he was wrong by two minutes, would you think that was fair?
And unfortunately, your thesis doesn’t even hold up in this match. I just did the first half, too, and he gave one minute. There were up to 90 seconds, so he could have given two (but didn’t have to round up). Since Madrid was losing, by your reckoning, Kuipers should have given that extra minute just out of big-club bias. But he didn’t.
We may not like it (I sure don’t), but the ref was right.
LikeLike
Interesting subject. In my opinion they should stop the clock every time the ball is out of play or when there is an injury. That way you keep it out of the hands of the referee and I expect there will be less time wasting. But I guess that will never happen as long as old conservative freaks like Blatter have the power.
LikeLike
I don’t think many football fans would agree with you on stopping the clock every single time the ball goes out of play. That would become excruciating like American football. In any event, in most normal cases something like the ball going out of play and having a throw in doesn’t cause stoppage time. Only substitutions, injuries and time wasting – or unusual things like pitch invasion.
LikeLike
I think you missed the 2 minutes wasted by Filipe Luis, self-injured/tired, laying in the ground and aaaaaall the time he took to go out from the field, when he had the opportunity to just simply move to the goal line next to him. THEY REALLY WASTED LOT OF TIME, so 5 minutes is even short. after madrid’s goal, they started,suddenly, to ask for more time. in the extra time, they continued loosing time as they wanted to end in the penalties. so… well deserved.
I’d ask you to perform another analysis: why the hell Kuypers didn’t show the red card to neither Gaby, nor Koke, Juanfran, Miranda or Godin. They tackled whatever they wanted. Another analysis: why Kuypers didn’t signaled penalty from Gaby when he clearly taught the ball when Cristiano launched a fault… only analyzing in one sense?
To end, for those that speak about UEFA and R.Madrid… Platini is well known in Madrid as non R.Madrid supporter. Ask Barcelone, maybe they could answer something to this.
LikeLike
What you’re talking about happened after Kuipers awarded the five minutes. I only sought to answer that one question in this post – were there five minutes of stopped time in the second half or not – and nothing else.
I’m not going to argue about every call Kuipers made in the match; I’m not qualified to do that, and Mr. Kuipers isn’t able to defend himself. I will say that while every referee makes mistakes, every fan looks at referee decisions through the lens of their favorite teams. I will say that all in all, while I thought Kuipers had some inconsistencies – particularly toward the end of the match when his own fatigue began to show – I don’t think those inconsistencies affected the outcome materially. My opinion only.
LikeLike
Y por que no analizas de esta forma cada uno de los juegos? sencillamente las cuentas no te daran porque en ningun partido eso es tomado en cuenta si un jugador no demora entre 3 o 4 minutos o una lesion de portero, se dan 3 minutos si todos los cambios se realizan, 5 minutos fue un robo. El atletico facilmente se pudo haber ido a la esquina del corner en aquel tiro libre faltando menos de un minuto para el 3 de tiempo extra si eso fuera todo y alli habira terminado el juego. El hecho es que no gano el mejor, cuando jugaron de tu a tu por 70 minutos el Atletico fue superior
LikeLike
No Jenna,the reason he didn’t add the full 90seconds you got in the first half is because Real was under heavy attack from Atheletico,watch the match again any more seconds they could easily concede a second and kuipers maybe thinking they will get better in 2nd half.You got 4muinites 9seconds in ur calculations but he gave 5,this simply because atheletico were tired and under fire.Again many claim the goal came in the 3rd muinute of extra time that if it’s 3 min addede it will count but nope,when 3 is added in any match the ref end just few secs after not till the end of the 3mins.kuipers was very inconsistent and that is true.
LikeLike
Please note that my calculations were not meant to be precise, mostly because I’m piecing them together from television (around replays, “artistic shots” of the crowd, etc.) He and Cakir had their own calculations that I’m not privy to. No doubt the five minutes was reasonable though, one or two seconds not withstanding.
I don’t know the man, but I have no reason to believe Bjorn Kuipers is a cheat.
LikeLike
Please tell me Jenna,why did he take away 36secs in your first half calculations but added whooping 51secs in your 2nd half and you said he is right.you know the momentum of 4muinites is not same for 5mins.Kuipers acted like he was biased but I won’t accuse him of that cos I will be wrong.
LikeLike
So, that’s basically what you’re doing. 🙂 If you want to call someone biased, just do it. What are you suggesting then?
That said, I’m not at all sure what you’re referring to by these calculations.
LikeLike
Just todo clarify jenna said that the second half time wasted was 294 seconds o 4.9 min which are equivalent to 4 min & 54 sec……so based on that the referee added 6 seconds not 51.
LikeLike
Also, to clarify even further, my calculations weren’t exact because I was at the mercy of the television coverage, which didn’t always have the time up or was cutting away for “dramatic” crowd shots. There could have been up to 10-20 seconds more time than I could count…
LikeLike
He doesn’t have to be a cheat but he played football,it’s very possible,just possible he has sympathy for a club.which is the reason most big clubs get ref’s decision.Refs are human and many are football fans,sometimes just sometimes it affects their decision.
LikeLike
You’re really reaching.
I guarantee you, Bjorn Kuipers wants the World Cup final more than he has any fandom or allegiance to any particular team. He knows that a mistake or controversy or even the HINT of favoritism will cost him that. He’s a smart guy. I doubt he would risk everything he’s worked for to help a team that doesn’t need his help in the first place.
LikeLike
Just a reminder that none of my calculations are in any way official. I’m a blogger with an opinion and a remote control. I do not have inside information into what Bjorn Kuipers was thinking or why he made the decisions he did, and unfortunately, he can’t share that information with us.
LikeLike
Hi. I liked your analysis because it shows than, accordingly to th rule, the 5 minutes added was OK. The thing here is than a lot of us are not a neutral people. Most are Barça fans. Will be a good excersice if you analyze the 5 extra minutes added to the second time of the last match between Atlethic and Barcelona, because a lot of us could be thinking than the referee was waiting for a Barça’s goal that will allow them to be the Liga’s champion. ☺
LikeLike
Of course, no one is really neutral. 🙂 But I think we can be reasonable.
What referee/match are you referring to?
LikeLike
The final game of the Liga between Barcelona and Atletico the last May 17th. The referee was Antonio Miguel Mateu Lahoz.
LikeLike
Sorry, I missed that one, although I’ve seen Mateu a couple of times this year and think he’s solid.
LikeLike
So, I will go further: according to the conspiracy theory of some people in this thread, Kuipers didn’t change his mind and keep the 2 min. more after Real Madrid scored (scored in 92:50, DON’T FORGET THAT), giving Atletico the chance to score another goal against R. Madrid fans desire… how inconsiderate on his part! and Atletico started to ask for some more extra time then… amazing! believes the thief that everyone is of the same condition…
Well, I wonder if they really wanted more time on the extra time to try to win… when they continued wasting time, probably waiting for the penalties… Po-Cholo Simeone probably though it was the unique chance to win the final, scoring 1 lucky goal, wasting time and without any proposition of football, just defense (a.k.a. THE BUS), tacklings and shouting the referee… nothing new under the sun, we knew him very well as the football player(??) he was, and he is like that, a troublemaker.
Again, why Kuipers didn’t show the red card to some Atletico’s players??? A mistery, without explanation.
LikeLike
http://www.rpp.com.pe/2014-05-26-mira-la-jugada-que-provoco-el-enfrentamiento-entre-varane-y-simeone-noticia_694886.html
LikeLike
Honestly, I don’t get why most comments here are from Barcelona fans (as someone stated). Why are you so hurt? Your team was eliminated in the quarter finals and hence wasn’t even playing, and Barcelona is one of the teams that most often benefits from referee calls.
Adding to that: Why are people only focusing on the added time? Does no one question the fact Kuipers should have expelled Raul Garcia for his tackle on Di Maria (his cleats were facing outwards, he did not even touch the ball)?
http://www.foxsportsla.com/noticias/156100-dura-entrada-de-raul-garcia-a-di-maria?country=sv
That he should have called a penalty for Gabi hitting the ball with his intentionally raised elbow inside the penalty area when Ronaldo hit a free kick?
Referees usually make the best possible call: be it adding 5 minutes, not giving a defender a red card or not granting a clear penalty kick. Stop whining about refs, that’s what Mourinho is for.
LikeLike
fyi, aparently none of you really watch football with frequency, lost time during “standard” game time (45 minutes) is not substituted completly, usually it is about HALF the total time lost, it is COMPENSATION, not REPLACEMENT time, in this match according to you would be 4.9 minutes, which is 2.45, that would go up to 3 minutes.
Sincerly, someone who HAS to watch 3 leagues (mexican, spain, british) as a job, someone who has worked in the FIFA world cup twice and someone who has worked in the olympics.
LikeLike
Actually, there is nothing in the Law stating that and it’s completely at the referee’s discretion. We don’t know what Kuipers’ instructions were, and why he made the decision he did. But he was perfectly entitled to give the full time at his discretion.
LikeLike
What I miss in the whole thing is, that the Ref. decides the amount of extra time. The 4th Ref….!
And said in general, Refs seem to end a game only after a last attack, corner, etc. has been done. Not before or during. That irritates me already since long.
LikeLike
Sad attempt to justify an unjustifiable decision. Atletico didn’t do any time-wasting in the game. Most of the things mentioned are just standard in any football game, no extra time should be added for that. If you count like this, every game should have at least 10 extra minutes. Referee was decisive.
LikeLike
“Most of the thing mentioned are just standard”… That’s exactly the point. Read the excerpt from Law 7 that I have above. Those are the exact things stoppage time is given for and the only things I listed. EVERY game has stoppage time added for substitutions and injury assessments just as listed in Law 7. The fact that it took longer for Atletico to make their substitutions (Garcia) and get up from an injury (Gabi) hurt them but it’s completely justifiable according to the Laws.
LikeLike
You are missunderstanding this rule. Time can be added for such reasoms but it is not customary (not at all) to add the wasted time in full. It is no only not customary, the rule is not to add full waste time.
Before replying this message, please read the rule again considering that a proportional part of the wasted time should be added.
The average effective time of play in european soccer matches goes from 35 to 30 minutes per half (i.e. excluding corners, goal kicks, throw ins, injured players, substitutions, etc.).
If your reading of the rule was right, then they should add 10 to 15 minutes per game, 5 to 7 minutes per half… that is not what happens is it?
The truth is the referees did a great job but they gave too much extra time, probably because of the pressure of players, teams, shiws.. whatever.. this is soccer and talking about these decisions is paet b of the fun!
LikeLike
Please point us to the Law of the Game that states that. Do you have a link?
LikeLike
As for this: “The average effective time of play in european soccer matches goes from 35 to 30 minutes per half (i.e. excluding corners, goal kicks, throw ins, injured players, substitutions, etc.).” You should read the Law. Corners, goal kicks and throw ins are not part of the allowance for time lost; only injuries and substitutions are. I didn’t count any time for regular play like the above; only the clear injury assessments, substitutions and two situations (where players needed to be separated) where it would obviously be considered stopped time.
LikeLike
Some clarifying points based on comments:
1.) I excerpted the Law above exactly as stated. Don’t believe me? Read it here. Nowhere does it say “You only give a portion of the wasted time”, or “The referee then cuts the time in half”. It states exactly what kinds of things stoppage time are usually given for, and then says “anything else”. There is absolutely no rule or Law saying the ref has to give less time than was spent.
2.) As it states clearly in the Law, the referee can give however much time he damn well pleases. He can give it all, or a portion or nothing (I’ve seen that happen). Just because you’ve seen others give less time doesn’t mean Kuipers had to. Maybe he was told by UEFA to give the full time. Maybe he felt that the teams were wasting time. Maybe that’s how he rolls and he likes to count down to the second. We have no idea. But it was his decision and his discretion.
3.) As for the “Every game would have ten minutes added” that’s silly. I only added those things that the Law states should be added: injury assessments and treatment, substitution and obvious time wasting. There were much less of all three in the first half, and therefore we didn’t automatically see five minutes added.
My point was, and it still very much stands, that Kuipers can defend every minute that he gave in the second half based on things that happened in the match AND that align with the law.
LikeLike
Yeah well for al the Athletico people crying.. The referee knows that after the Halftime you still have 45 minutes to decide de game.. so thats why they are not as accurate.. it’s like that in every game.. There are some referees that don’t even give extra time in the first half. But in the second half.. Its the end of the game, they wil get no second change after that. so the extra time is more important and more accurate. But i guess if you lost as a Atletico fan, your going to bitch about it. Madrid was atacking hard for more then 25 minutes before the 90 minutes mark. They deserved it to win.
LikeLike
the 5 minutes added time was giving to both teams not only Real madrid.The referee was on point in my opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well done to Real! I am an Atleti fan, Ramos deserved this!
The point with the ref is how inconsistent he was, both teams can complain about how Gabi and RG8 should have been sent off or not or how Bale elbowing Juanfran in the face just before Ramos scoring should have been called or not or the stoppage time in half 1 was not enough but too long in 2nd half……..the main reason is why are these inconsistent officials been tasked with the biggest game in club football!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You can tell the referee was on the Real side when he added 1 minute to the first 15 extra half minutes and allowed Real to kick a corner ball after that 1 minute had ended, while he stopped Atletico from throwing a close to the corner throw-in at the 5th added minute of the second half. I am not an Atletico fan, but I have a strong feeling that UEFA and the referee both wanted Real to win. You could see it from the referee’s face who was delighted along with Platini. Corruption is in football. This reminds me of the good people like Maradona, Eric Cantona and many others who once tried and called to clean the FIFA and football from the such of Platini and the bold headed swiss … disgusting.
LikeLike
THIS IS WHY GAME CLOCK SHOULD BE STOPPED DURING THIS SITUATIONS. LIKE IN AMERICAN FOOTBALL OR BASKETBALL. NO ROOM FOR LEAVING THIS ISSUE TO THE DISCRETION OF PEOPLE
LikeLike
Just wanted to say, what if the game ended 0-2 instead of 4-1? What if the added time was only 3 minutes instead of 5? What if Atletico had score a 2nd goal in the minute 94.47? Would many of you still say it was too much? Anybody who saw how Atletico deliberately lost time by minute 80 and so, with that injury/assessment/substitution situation, and realized that they lost almost 2 minutes with that situation alone, then you may think it would be fair to add, say “normal” added time (think of 2-3 minutes) plus those 2 minutes that were lost on purpose. This would give enough window for RM to score, since they did it before the 93 minutes were up. So if he only adedd 3 minutes, we still have had the extra 30 minutes time.
The problem is that people commonly think that wasted time on fake injuries is really lost (or gained, depending on one’s perspective). According to that law (7), referees can count how much time was lost and simply add it to the end. The thing here is, that the more time you deliberately waste, the more time the referee is allowed to add in the end. But, since many times referees don’t add as much, we think it is not correct to add it fully. And let’s be honest, we never count how much time was wasted either on purpose or not.
I honestly hate it when players fake injuries or walk in a very sloooow pace along the line when they are being replaced. Problem is, that if referee shows a yellow card due to this behaviour, then the referee might as well be considered as biased. Imagine one player that already has a yellow card and he is replaced, but he walks and wastes around 45 seconds and still is saying goodbye to the crowd before crossing the line. The referee could show him another yellow card, but then, the would the substitution be made? This is a hard call and I’m sure we might never see it. I have seen yellow cards given to players doing this, but they were free of yellow cards before leaving. So referees tend to be somehow forgiving in these situations. The right call would be to count the time, and add it. This is “fair play” to me. If you are “trying” to waste time for your own benefit, then you should be punished by either receive a yellow card or have the added time ajusted as it should.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think another stoppage that everyone is ignoring is when they took the sweet ass time making up the wall on one of their many from behind intentional tackles. where they all surround the Ref he is forced to get in front of them and literally push them back good number of seconds gone right there as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: How Stoppage Time is Determined | PLAY THE ADVANTAGE
De acuerdo con estas consideraciones, Atlético debió ganar, Pero el árbitro no mete los goles. Lo ganó el Real Madrid en tiempo reglamentario.
LikeLike
Pingback: Week 20 « Refereeing the Beautiful Game
just as a reminder, the goal was at 90 plus 3, so anyway, with just 3 minutes madrid could be the champions..
LikeLike
I have matches in which 10 minutes was added because the team in the lead as well as the one on the backdrop were all wasting time. The discretion indeed is with the ref. The hating on real Madrid Cos they are big is biased. We all know athletico for their fighting spirit but in this instance tell me if simeone was rite to surge into the field if play to attack varane. Let’s be circumspect and not see it as all big teams re favoured…the makings of athletico caused them and they paid the price, period.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Tonysweet johnson.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jenna, I would love to see you assess FCB-Chelsea 2009 UCL. Remember that one? 7 MINS stoppage time was added in this match and Iniesta scored the equalizer at 93´. How convenient right that we tend to forget was comes back to haunt us. The thing is, all these antimadridistas shouldn`t say anything when their teams have done it and been there before. And please, it was obvious Atleti players were just wasting time. Funny thing is, refs can`t score can they. Atleti players forgot about golden head (Ramos).
LikeLike
He was right and i Think most of the Barcelona rival don’t like the time because Real Madrid win the Champions, remember Real Madrid only need 3 minutes to score so that’s mean if the refs put 5 we only need 3 to score, so if is 3 or 5 no make any different, Hala Madrid
LikeLike
With this logic, most games would have 5 minutes of added time. They don’t because not every single second not spent playing is counted. Referees pick and choose when to go by the book, as this referee did. Any other referee would have given 2 or 3 minutes. Thus bias.
LikeLike
If you know anything about Kuipers, you know he’s a “by the book” kind of ref. The fact that he continued this pattern is hardly evidence of bias.
LikeLike
Pingback: A Few Ground Rules | PLAY THE ADVANTAGE
Jenna, this is an excellent analysis. I’m impressed.
LikeLike
It’s what I do. 🙂
LikeLike
Pingback: Ask Jenna | PLAY THE ADVANTAGE
Pingback: World Cup Referee Appointments: Saturday, June 14 | PLAY THE ADVANTAGE
Pingback: Thoughts on the Referees: Day Three | PLAY THE ADVANTAGE
Pingback: Adding Time… Is it enough? | Third Blind Mouse
Pingback: This Week’s Champions League Referees | PLAY THE ADVANTAGE