City ask for hearing with PGMOL over 9 tackles

[citytilllidie]

Danny Murphy.

Yes. That f....ker

 

[Jacob Smith]

Not sure why the BBC rattle off all those stats about how many fouls are committed against us, as if they bear any relevance to our complaint...

 

[Vic]

That's fouls given. It doesn't count fouls not given because the ref plays advantage or the routine "leaving one on" the ankles of De Bruyne or Silva (or Walker last week) after a pass.

 

[blueinsa]

Its not about getting players retrospectively banned now, its about the future and being able to look again after a game, even if a yellow card was issued and say sorry, but that was a red card offence and here is the ban for it.

Players have to know that reckless tackles like this have to stop.

 

[Mikejl]

Not sure why the BBC rattle off all those stats about how many fouls are committed against us, as if they bear any relevance to our complaint...

Because it’s written by the cockroach rag Simon Stone, who is trying to use the article to give the referees & rivals of City a case to argue back with, it’s actually one of Stones most shockingly poor pieces and he has a lot to choose from

 

[ali benarbia's studs]

what bugs me..... is Pep in the interview he mentioned refs need to protect players, ALL PLAYERS!

the media outlets all said- he said city players, or tried hard to make it look that way.

 

[cleavers]

For weeks we've had people saying we should highlight some of these tackles, and so now we have made an issue of it, people are complaining, only at City.

The BBC article tries to twist this into we're not being fouled as much as others (that's a debatable point in itself), but it completely misses the point, that these NINE tackles are being asked about, and most on here have complained about each and every one of those highlighted, and rightly so.

Ignore the shitty comments by, and below, the BBC story, they're not the relevant point, that is that we as a club have clearly decided enough is enough with these reckless tackles, so we are asking PGMOL for their comments on them. It will be brought up at referee meetings, and it for sure will cause more attention, also that we have specifically highlighted certain tackles, then the players (and teams/managers) that have committed them, may well be a little more cautious in future.

Its your club (in most cases anyway ;-) ), so it might be nice if we get behind their stance on this.

 

[Airbags Optional]

Think this deserves its own thread.

Not before time either, despite the "stats" the BBC story posts, this is about specific tackles.

Also fouls are only fouls if they are actually given. Every game we complain we are getting hammered yet anytime we go near the opposition it’s a foul.
About time but I don’t hold much hope

 

[jimmygrimblesboots]

Not sure why the BBC rattle off all those stats about how many fouls are committed against us, as if they bear any relevance to our complaint...

Correct , it is not the amount of tackles in numbers , it is the severity of the tackles , i cant actually remember one of our players going over the ball with a career threatening challeange to an opponent , but we have suffered plenty of them , BBMUTVC with their usual perspective.

 

[cleavers]

Correct , it is not the amount of tackles in numbers , it is the severity of the tackles

Its not even that, its 9 highlighted, and individually named bad fouls (tackles they weren't).