West Bromwich Albion 2-2 Watford FC - 30/09/2017

Nah.....not really. I bet he's left handed.

 

A few seasons ago it was quite literally the other way round. Pulis has ruined them.

 

Watching the comments they chose to show on MOTD of Pulis' after the match, what's striking is just how much it exposes what a ***** of a manager and how unpleasant his approach to football is. I know that's not exactly groundbreaking news, but anyway.

He says "to still be playing in the 95th minute, and them to score a goal, that's hard to take". We were playing in that minute because in the minimum regulated time that he believes we were allowed, they stopped us from using some of that time illegally, by fouling one of our players whilst we were counter-attacking dangerously.

So to then complain that we were still playing shows us one major thing; that Tony Pulis believes it is perfectly acceptable, and indeed should be a protected right by the referees, for his team to use up all extra time on offer just by fouling and therefore running out the clock with play stopped. It can't be that he doesn't know why the extra time was played (because it literally wasn't played beforehand thanks to one of his players), so it must only be that he believes this to be a legitimate tactic that everyone else must accept. Where does that logic end, eh?

Also as everyone else has already said, to suggest it wasn't a foul is ridiculous. It's a bad tackle, touching the ball at some point does not guarantee a legitimate tackle, and the angle of approach is taken into account by referees as well as the contact. McClean came from directly behind, straight in on Richy Rich, so what is he ******* expecting.

 

Even if you concede that McClean got the ball first, all he succeeded in doing was to poke it a couple of feet ahead of Richy. He would still have had the ball. In going through him, it's almost a separate incident. Foul all day long, even for Johnny Giles and Norman Hunter.

To continue the Goldie Lookin Pulis analogy (from Footballforums)

Guns don't kill football, Baggies do
Sound of da Pulis, woo woo woo...

 

Appointing Pulis is akin to selling your soul to the devil, you are guaranteed to stay in the Premiership for the entire time he is your manager, but at what cost? I'd rather be in the championship any day of the the week than have to put up with him as our manager (which to an extent we've had to with our last two managers, but we always knew the Pozzos wouldn't put up with it longer than one season at a time)

 

I don't really have a problem with Pulis. Would I want him and his style of football at the Vic? No, no and no again.

The good thing about appointing him is that you can lay solid foundations in the Premier League, before moving onto someone who can evolve the club. Just like Palace did! Oh...

 

Reading their forum echoes most of the sentiments posted on here under WM

 

From Football 365's Winners column :

Watford
Only the two Manchester clubs have score more goals in the final 15 minutes of games, and Watford’s four late goals have brought them a point against Liverpool, an extra two points against Swansea last week and a point at West Brom on Saturday. Four goals, an extra four points, a difference of at least four Premier League places. There’s a lot to be said for fitness and belief.

Richarlison
Nobody epitomises this Watford spirit and resilience quite like Richarlison. He is not only Watford’s goal hero, their joint top scorer, but the most prolific tackler in Watford colours.

“Richarlison is an amazing talent. I told my board I want this player because I believe in him. We never know how he’ll react coming from Brazil. Brazilian players can have problems in another country but he’s been really good,” said Marco Silva, who has unearthed an £11.2m bargain. And that’s why you appoint a manager with knowledge of the worldwide game, Merse.

 

I don't like this...we're becoming the darlings...I much preferred it when we were everything that's wrong with football.

 

Is that the same Merse that said Silva was a nobody, that we only bought in rubbish and that we'll finish last?

 

So what does "stoppage time" cover, if it is, itself not subject to being extended for stoppages?

I'm not saying your quotation of the rules is wrong, as I'm 100% sure it isn't but, surely the whole point of the added time, is to allow for stoppages in the game, which is then irrelevant, if, say for 2 minutes of stoppage time, the ball is out of play and a player down injured.

I simply don't understand the logic.

 

To be fair, F365 have never subscribed to the latter view, probably because they tend to engage their brain BEFORE they make any comments

 

the logic is that a total of 90 minutes playing time should be played regardless of how long it actually takes..

 

I think it was in the days of Channel 4's coverage of Serie A, where they would put up a graphic of how much time the ball was in play...it was usually around 65 minutes....unless it's West Brom then it's about 25 minutes.

 

That's litteraly what happens in the NFL, there are only a total of 60 minutes playing time but as soon as the ball is dead the clock stops and only starts again when play starts, so 60 minutes lasts a couple of hours. Obviously in our football it's a bit different, taking a throw in or a corner is considered part of the play so the clock doesn't stop (unless the ref decides there has been time wasting and adds it back on at the end) However time is added on when a player is fouled and goes down as that is a stoppage in play, if time is added on at the end of the game, what would be the point in doing it if fouls during it were not added on as well? You could just repeatedly foul and waste the time. It would be interesting to see how a game would go if it worked like the NFL were the clock was stopped and there was no added time.

 

It is (just) over 60 in the Prem, from what I remember of the stats.

I have been boring people for years with the suggestion that there is an impartial time keeper in the stand to measure additional time - means the ref has one less thing to think about. Works in a lot of other sports (e.g. rugby league)

 

Premature?

 

More like 3-4!

 

If Pulis doesnt like the time at which the equaliser was scored then he shouldnt have had his team time waste so much from such an early point in the game. Foster was spoken to by the ref at least once about it.

 

It is really poor form from Tony Pulis to look at the referee for this one instead of taking some responsibility West Brom basically rolled over for us and let us dictate the game and if it was not for two goals completely against the run of play we would have won that game comfortably, a point honestly did flatter them we were the best team in every part of the pitch. Anyway the away fans were counting Fosters goal kicks in the second half and he was taking up to 30 seconds to take some of them so I think the referee was right.

 

If you run a play and stay in bounds the clock keeps going? Then they have a certain amount of time to make the next snap. Teams have options to tactically use the clock.

 

Que?

 

Gone to Espanyol mate

 

The clock doesn't stop every time the ball goes dead.

 

As I understand it:-
Throughout major stoppages the referee checks his watch and either stops it or makes a mental note of the time, usually only when injured players are treated, goals are celebrated or substitutes made. However if he feels time is being wasted unnecessarily he is quite within his rights add to time on. On 90 minutes he indicates to his assistant how much is to be added on and this will be the usual amount that will be played out but further incident or timewasting can increase it.

At amateur level I've been in games so one sided that continuing in the ******* rain would be pointless and the ref has blown as much as ten minutes early. No one complained.

 

Pedants: People who want to be right even when it's irrelevant, and everyone else has gone to bed.

 

I think this is correct but it does lead to inconsistencies.

While I wouldn't want to go down the clock stopped NFL route, I would like to have a bit more consistency.

It's not some internal bias on my part either. I'm surprised that the amount of injury time is too much or too little in equal measure.

Time wasting happens because players and coaches know that it is rarely properly reflected in the injury time given. It's seems to be mostly down to the fourth official and referees "gut feeling" rather than any fact based system.

 

The big problem about adding time on is it interferes with tv (and particularly advert) scheduling. Referees are reduced to tokenism - an almost habitual minute or two added on at half-time even when there have been no injuries or substitutions. By and large time-wasting works - I hate it though.

 

All we need in January is ONE exceptional ball-playing CB. And for that we will need to splash the cash. Everyone's happy with Prodl (our player of the season last year?) aren't they? Britos' distribution has improved this season but he does of course remain a 'bit of a nutter'. What's wrong with Cathcart - oh injured ... Then there's the two Ks who have good and not so good matches and divide opinion. Plus Mapps and Wague. That's seven of them. How many do you want in the squad? There's only so much that can be done to counter for a succession of injuries.

We're fine elsewhere too. We have a good new goalie who's highly rated. Time to play him then? We have three strikers with different skill-sets (one who currently seems to be off the radar for some reason).

So I'd be quite happy if, in January, we blew the whole budget on one classy CB who can not only defend consistently but can bring the ball out of defence as well.

 

"Ladies and gentlemen, please put your hands together and go nuts for the return of former golden boy....the classiest defender ever to play for the club...the man...the myth...the italian stallion....GABRIELE ANGELLA!"

*crowd goes wild*
*everyone's panties get wet*
*we win the league by ten points*

 

NO NO NO! Classy, but with the concentration level of a 10-year-old. You're mistaking elegance for effectiveness.

In any case, the classiest defender ever to play for the club was John McClelland.

 

That was then. He's all grown up now and has matured like a fine wine. (Possibly. I have no idea who he even plays for these days, he could be dead for all I know)

 

I don't think it's got that far, e.g. the half time break is delayed if there are 1st half stoppages not cut short. Advertising slots can be adjusted.

A lot of our gripes are only perceived.

 

I think you will find that it was this legend ........ Filippo Galli