The Stones Goal

Was it right to give a goal?

  • Total voters
    866
Rag i know messaged me to say there is a well known conspiricy to ensure City win 5 titles on the trot, he then went on to say that it wont matter anyway when we are found guilty of the 115 and thrown out of the league.

So the same organisation that has charged us with 115 charges is also conspiring to ensure we win the league?

Is anyone else struggling with his logic?
 
abu13 said:
Rag i know messaged me to say there is a well known conspiricy to ensure City win 5 titles on the trot, he then went on to say that it wont matter anyway when we are found guilty of the 115 and thrown out of the league.

So the same organisation that has charged us with 115 charges is also conspiring to ensure we win the league?

Is anyone else struggling with his logic?
Click to expand...

The force is strong with that fuckin' genius mate :)
 
abu13 said:
Rag i know messaged me to say there is a well known conspiricy to ensure City win 5 titles on the trot, he then went on to say that it wont matter anyway when we are found guilty of the 115 and thrown out of the league.

So the same organisation that has charged us with 115 charges is also conspiring to ensure we win the league?

Is anyone else struggling with his logic?
Click to expand...
Logic and Rag fans doesn't quite ring true does it?
 
abu13 said:
Rag i know messaged me to say there is a well known conspiricy to ensure City win 5 titles on the trot, he then went on to say that it wont matter anyway when we are found guilty of the 115 and thrown out of the league.

So the same organisation that has charged us with 115 charges is also conspiring to ensure we win the league?

Is anyone else struggling with his logic?
Click to expand...
You lost me at "Rag I know..."
 
It's definitely not offside.

Did Bernardo foul Sa in the split second whilst the ball was in play, before Stones headed the ball? Probably not. He may have impeded him slightly, but also, Sa pushed Bernardo, so it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Plus in the light of Arsenal's regular tactics, Bernardo can't be penalised due to precedent. So no foul. Therefore it's a goal.

The thing that gets me is when was the onfield decision arrived at that the goal shouldn't stand. The linesman didn't raise his flag for at least four seconds after the goal was scored. (He went out of shot after four seconds on the only footage I've seen). If he truly thought there was an active offside, he would have flagged instinctively, and immediately. It smacks of a collaborative decision - or an instruction.

That decision was easily and correctly overturned, but it's far more common to go with the onfield decision, saying "there wasn't enough in it".

To me, it seems they gave themselves the best opportunity to disallow the goal.

As for O'Neill saying Manchester City receive favourable decisions, he surely must realise the ridiculousness of that comment. We are hated by the PL, PGMOL, most clubs and their fans, broadcasters, all other media and anyone else I may not have mentioned.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
O Neil complaining that they had the same goal ruled out vs West Ham last season. I just watched that goal and the Wolves player was virtually as tall as the West Ham keeper and just stood right in front of him and didn't move so clearly blocked the keepers view. So clearly not the same as yesterday ONeil
Click to expand...
That and even if Bernie were right in front of him (which he clearly was not) he'd still be a head shorter.
 
I really don't get the fuss with this.

Offside - nope. Can't be when the corner is taken and by the time Stones heads it, he's crouched on the floor to the side of the keeper.

Fouling the GK - really? How many corners do you see with 2, 3, 4 attacking players pinning the GK to his line. If that's a foul then almost every corner taken is a foul.
 
if you were to disallow the goal for any contact between bernie and sa then it'd effectively mean that football is a non-contact sport and every single corner, free-kick/cross into the box would result in a foul (either way). 100 percent the correct decision from the ref (eventually).
 
Paladin said:
It's definitely not offside.

Did Bernardo foul Sa in the split second whilst the ball was in play, before Stones headed the ball? Probably not. He may have impeded him slightly, but also, Sa pushed Bernardo, so it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Plus in the light of Arsenal's regular tactics, Bernardo can't be penalised due to precedent. So no foul. Therefore it's a goal.

The thing that gets me is when was the onfield decision arrived at that the goal shouldn't stand. The linesman didn't raise his flag for at least four seconds after the goal was scored. (He went out of shot after four seconds on the only footage I've seen). If he truly thought there was an active offside, he would have flagged instinctively, and immediately. It smacks of a collaborative decision - or an instruction.

That decision was easily and correctly overturned, but it's far more common to go with the onfield decision, saying "there wasn't enough in it".

To me, it seems they gave themselves the best opportunity to disallow the goal.

As for O'Neill saying Manchester City receive favourable decisions, he surely must realise the ridiculousness of that comment. We are hated by the PL, PGMOL, most clubs and their fans, broadcasters, all other media and anyone else I may not have mentioned.
Click to expand...
O’Neill knows he will get away with it because the media loves a narrative going against City.
 
Sa and Bernie were going at it both joking (see Sa's flick of his ear earlier) and Bernie stepping on his feet on purpose during one of the 186 corners. I fucking applaud Bernie for being the little wind up under your skin prick he was- all of this finally broke the wall down and got the goal- not to mention he had a fucking bleeding head wound that most players would have subbed themselves out for - or some would have spent 30 minutes laying on the pitch crying about.

All hail Bernie the hardest working little fucker on the team who grafts the extra yards we need to get the job done.

Fuck all the haters.
 
The amount of people stating he was interfering with play once the corner is taken is just staggering. Just had a conversation with someone saying he's standing in an offside position when the corner is taken. I tried to explain that it's impossible but they literally couldn't compute what is a very basic rule. Talksport at 1pm saying the exact same thing and there needs to be rule changes.
 
willipp said:
The amount of people stating he was interfering with play once the corner is taken is just staggering. Just had a conversation with someone saying he's standing in an offside position when the corner is taken. I tried to explain that it's impossible but they literally couldn't compute what is a very basic rule. Talksport at 1pm saying the exact same thing and there needs to be rule changes.
Click to expand...


The VAR team and an an field professional referee called it, hordes of bin dipper rag tarquin wankers on the internet amount to the sum total of shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top