Iniesta to score in final

they should have stated 90 minutes if you are being picky... the final does mean the whole game imo..

It just said 'Iniesta to score'. Nothing about 90 mins or excluding extra time was stated

i bet it was if you bothered checking properly

nap rules said 90 minutes + injury time...................

if the bet was on here then its clearly stated on the Rules panel for all football matches

if it was at a bookies, it will be under General Football rules which will most likely state things like all bets for Goalscorer, Scorer, Correct score, Corners, Bookings, Under/oVers  in fact pretty much anything will refer to 90mins + injury time and extra time and penalties are never included.

if you used an online account you will have agreed to site terms and conditions when signing up.  if you bet on the high street then a bet implicitly abides by the rules displayed in the shop which will be similar.

as a general rule of thumb, extra time is an entirely separate issue

n fact pretty much anything will refer to 90mins + injury time and extra time and penalties are never included.

lets make the grammar clear that up!

n fact pretty much anything will refer to 90mins + injury time; extra time and penalties are never included.

That's true of course it's always the rule.

But a poor rule imo .Particulary bad for non punters who got involved just because it was the World Cup , backed  Ineista, got the buzz of a dramatic winning bet, then told they'd backed a loser .

Only a small proportion of ties played to a finish have goals/goalscorers in Extra Time, so it would be no harm to the bookies to settle these markets as double results as some of them do with first past the post after stewards .

not sure how you would price them tbh, no real option than to price on a known duration

betfair could if they wanted to, introduce a reduction factor for extra time for things like goalscorer or to score, so you get paid less on a winner over 120 mins, but that would make all the arbers unhappy