Sergio v West Ham - It was a City employee / contractor calling for him to be banned in City Square after, the first I heard of this. If city want to publicise the incident 5 mins after the match we can't blame the press.Ah I missed it as I thought you had just copied and pasted my post, fair do's.
To answer your points, taking the last one first. The ref, forget who, was looking right at Aguero and saw the collision. Later after a media witch hunt he denied seeing it allowing the PL to ban him for an elbow.
The entire Adebayor joke against Arsenal. Staff at MCFC have stated the referee told them why he booked him but by midnight his report stated a different reason allowing the PL to ban him. That's not fans, that's staff. That's corruption.
Why has no ref come out and said something, they have as evidenced on here many times.
As to who is telling them to lie, the PL are because the dips, rags and arsenal tell them. We are shitting all over their cosy cartel and they don't like it. The photo of them all sat round a table in a restaurant told a story that a thousand words can't.
You missed answering a few of my questions but no worries.Ah I missed it as I thought you had just copied and pasted my post, fair do's.
To answer your points, taking the last one first. The ref, forget who, was looking right at Aguero and saw the collision. Later after a media witch hunt he denied seeing it allowing the PL to ban him for an elbow.
The entire Adebayor joke against Arsenal. Staff at MCFC have stated the referee told them why he booked him but by midnight his report stated a different reason allowing the PL to ban him. That's not fans, that's staff. That's corruption.
Why has no ref come out and said something, they have as evidenced on here many times.
As to who is telling them to lie, the PL are because the dips, rags and arsenal tell them. We are shitting all over their cosy cartel and they don't like it. The photo of them all sat round a table in a restaurant told a story that a thousand words can't.
No, it’s more like we are very good at overcoming it. Pep has alluded to it several times with his “we have to be perfect” and “we get no help” comment. The marginal calls consistently seem to go against us and if we are not “perfect” we fail.You missed answering a few of my questions but no worries.
Here's another area as to why I struggle to see how it is bent to stop us. Of the last 11 premier league's contested we have won 6 of them. From memory of the 5 we haven't won we were never in contention so essentially stopped ourselves from winning it. In 2012 we won it by "being allowed" to score 2 goals in added time in the last game of the season. On two occasions we have won the league by a single point, in one of those seasons we were 2 goals down in the final game of the season but were "allowed" to come back and win the game and subsequently the tittle.
So are they just really fukin shit at stopping us?
The possible fowl on Trossard in the penalty area wasn't "perfect" but no penalty was awarded when it could have been?No, it’s more like we are very good at overcoming it. Pep has alluded to it several times with his “we have to be perfect” and “we get no help” comment. The marginal calls consistently seem to go against us and if we are not “perfect” we fail.
Nah.Has he been in rehab?
We need to be making those noises at all the time wasting.Personally can’t wait for the next time Taylor referees at our place and books the opposition goalkeeper after 28 minutes for time wasting.
I thought he was one of the ‘stronger’ refs but he was influenced by that whingey **** of a crowd on Wednesday.
He gave an interview before the Chelsea match a few weeks ago and basically said “the game tells us it shouldn’t be allowed“ so basically saying the referee got it right, but the rules are wrong, fucking coward.
Does challenging for the ball include situations where neither player is in control of the ball ?Good point, but the scenario last night is slightly different. Haaland DID challenge the Arsenal player for the ball, so this doesn't apply.
Mark Halsey hasPlease tell me the last time any player was booked in the first half for time-wasting. Rarely if ever.
How many times has Taylor warned the keeper in the first half but not booked him until the 85th minute ? Often.
Don't even start me on their penalty because that same situation has happened all season and no penalty has been given. True, but that made it 1-1 we then went onto a 2 goal lead, why did the ref allow that to happen?
So that's it case proven, it's bent against us?
If that's the case answer these questions:-
An element of all clubs fans believe it's corrupt against them, you can't all be right. How are you so sure it's us it's bent against?
Why would a referee that has climbed to the top of his profession give bad calls against City because he is told to?
Who tells these referees that they have to be bent against us and when?
Who is making the order that it is bent towards us?
Why has no referee ever refused and then gone public with the story or spilled the beans after they have retired?
By the law, that is exactly what should have happened. Haaland is never offside as he never touches the ball and isn’t interfering with an opponent. The first offence is the foul, not the offside. Similarly, had Akanji fouled Rashford and a free kick been given, it wouldn’t have been offside either.yes, if that is Rashford there at the pen, it stays as a pen and they say Rashford could not have been offside due to the fact he did not touch the ball. he can run after the ball as we saw 3 weeks ago.
it doesnt mean defender can fault him.
No, no, no.Has he been in rehab?
No he didn’t.Good point, but the scenario last night is slightly different. Haaland DID challenge the Arsenal player for the ball, so this doesn't apply.
@Prestwich_Blue sorry to tag you in but please correct @Corky. My memory is shit but I know you posted about the club telling you about Adebayor.Sergio v West Ham - It was a City employee / contractor calling for him to be banned in City Square after, the first I heard of this. If city want to publicise the incident 5 mins after the match we can't blame the press.
Adebayor was booked for the celebration and later fined for the incident, he was banned for the stamp which was unnoticed.
I've no knowledge of the incident in City Square that Corky is referring to but there was a media witch-hunt on both counts.@Prestwich_Blue sorry to tag you in but please correct @Corky. My memory is shit but I know you posted about the club telling you about Adebayor.
As for the Aguero one, we all saw the newspaper photos of the ref clearly looking at the incident only to deny seeing it 3 days later.
It was Hugh Ferris smugly suggesting he should be banned in City square just after the game.I've no knowledge of the incident in City Square that Corky is referring to but there was a media witch-hunt on both counts.
The then FA Chief Exec, Ian Watmore (Arsenal fan) came out on Gary Richardson's programme on Radio 5 Live on the Sunday morning, the day after the game, to state that Adebayor would be punished. He was banned for the van Persie incident and given a suspended ban for the goal celebration, which the club were originally told he'd been booked for.
None of the journalists would have heard that though. They'd have been stuffing their fat faces.It was Hugh Ferris smugly suggesting he should be banned in City square just after the game.
Problem with that is, IFAB has said the rules are fine. So it's PGMOL's interpretation of the rules which is wrong. Which means it was a mistake. Just say it FFS.
It is a subjective judgement as to whether Haaland challenged Gabriel or whether it was entirely Gabriel challenging Haaland. I favour the latter but others will differ. If I remember correctly a few years ago Kane was awarded a penalty in not entirely different circumstances and around the same time City were penalised similarly in a European game.By the law, that is exactly what should have happened. Haaland is never offside as he never touches the ball and isn’t interfering with an opponent. The first offence is the foul, not the offside. Similarly, had Akanji fouled Rashford and a free kick been given, it wouldn’t have been offside either.
What VAR has done and why it should be binned, is that it’s making the law makers rewrite laws from game to game to fit in with some mythical attempt at ‘purity’, so it’s hardly surprising that the officials are getting more things wrong than ever.…..
This has been going on ever since VAR reared its ugly head. Offside one week, but miraculously onside the week after; handball one week, not handball the next.By the law, that is exactly what should have happened. Haaland is never offside as he never touches the ball and isn’t interfering with an opponent. The first offence is the foul, not the offside. Similarly, had Akanji fouled Rashford and a free kick been given, it wouldn’t have been offside either.
What VAR has done and why it should be binned, is that it’s making the law makers rewrite laws from game to game to fit in with some mythical attempt at ‘purity’, so it’s hardly surprising that the officials are getting more things wrong than ever.…..
It is a subjective judgement as to whether Haaland challenged Gabriel or whether it was entirely Gabriel challenging Haaland. I favour the latter but others will differ. If I remember correctly a few years ago Kane was awarded a penalty in not entirely different circumstances and around the same time City were penalised similarly in a European game.
However the real problem is how the offside law (& there is a similar problem with the handball law) is that it concentrates On the minutiae and has lost the sense of the purpose of the law. When IFAB met shortly after the Derby and decided that they didn’t need to relook at the law, to me they simply indicated that they are not fit for purpose.
The law should start with a clear statement of what the purpose of the law is. My view would be that it should state. The purpose of this law should be to prevent a team gaining an advantage by one or more players are in an offside position when the ball is played forward to to them.
Then it could go on to state that the factors to be considered by the referee in considering whether players are in an offside position and if they are gaining an advantage.
With some rephrasing the present law could then be listed. I would add a condition that if a player came back from an offside before receiving the ball they would normally no longer be considered to have gained an advantage by being in an offside position and add that to be considered to be offside there should be a clear gap between the player and the last defender.
In my view there was no advantage to Harland as he was moving in the wrong direction in coming back from an offside position and came back onside before turning a setting off to follow the ball. There is a sense in which Haaland was disadvantaged compared with Rashford simply because he was only just offside so contact with the defender came early on whereas Rashford gained such an advantage over Akanji that any contact by Akanji would would almost certainly be given as a foul.