Borussia Dortmund (A) - CL QF | Post-Match Thread

Brendan110_0 said:
Sunderland fan who probably has a voodoo doll of Toure/Nasri. RAWK is in meltdown with us, Chelski and PSG in the semis - we're breaking the cartel clubs.
Click to expand...

Highlight of his day is when he gets home and picks out which dildo his wife is going to fuck him with that night. Looks like a right little ****. **** journalist for a cunts paper. Fitting
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The term "sportswashing" is just a fake narrative with no evidence to back it up. The Guardian would have you believe that the entire creation of the City Football Group with clubs across the world is just an attempt by Sheikh Mansour to improve the reputation of his nation. Is that why he invested billions in Barclays Bank? Is that why he has invested hundreds of millions in the tech and science sectors, and health, and education, and renewable energy, and has a property portfolio of more than £500m in the UK? Is that why our owner has invested in football teams in Japan and Girona?
Given that he has already trebled the value of his total investment in Manchester City (let alone his other investments) is it possible that he may just be interested in making profits like every other business in the world?
Is it too much to expect that a journalist like Jonathan Wilson should spend some time on Google doing basic research so he doesn't produce such drivel? Is he incompetent or, like so many others, is he just malicious?
Click to expand...
Not to mention investment in the poorer areas of manchester
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The term "sportswashing" is just a fake narrative with no evidence to back it up. The Guardian would have you believe that the entire creation of the City Football Group with clubs across the world is just an attempt by Sheikh Mansour to improve the reputation of his nation. Is that why he invested billions in Barclays Bank? Is that why he has invested hundreds of millions in the tech and science sectors, and health, and education, and renewable energy, and has a property portfolio of more than £500m in the UK? Is that why our owner has invested in football teams in Japan and Girona?
Given that he has already trebled the value of his total investment in Manchester City (let alone his other investments) is it possible that he may just be interested in making profits like every other business in the world?
Is it too much to expect that a journalist like Jonathan Wilson should spend some time on Google doing basic research so he doesn't produce such drivel? Is he incompetent or, like so many others, is he just malicious?
Click to expand...
Even if you go along with the fake narrative what about the Emirates sponsorship at Arsenal? Is that just rubbish “sportswashing”?
 
shemnel said:
But this is my main problem with the handball rule, they've taken a common sense approach, which admittedly makes the rule greyer in terms of consistency and application, and tried to apply a series of multiple nested if, but and when clauses that try to legislate for a near infinite amount of possibilities.

Extracted from the fa rule (the whole thing is nearly unreadable);


It is an offence if a player:

even if accidental, immediately:
touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger

--Few lines later--

Except for the above offences, it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:

directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)


So which rule takes precedence?!?! They are in contradiction of each other given last night's incident with Can. For me it's pen all day long and thankfully the ref had interpreted with unnatural body position but the law clearly states for both interpretations. How worrying.
Click to expand...

Clattenburg is a total tool so I cringe to quote him, but for what it's worth, he said that a key factor is whether the ball was anyway going to hit the arm. Which in Can's case, it clearly was.

The interesting thing for me is our CL ref'ing has been much better this year than in previous years. We have got a pretty fair deal overall. It just makes my blood boil to think of the decisions in the Scouser quarter, Llorente'S handball goal, and the foul in the lead-up to Lyon's second goal.

While I think Can's was a penalty, it could easily have not been given. TAA's at Anfield was 10x more a penalty.
 
Last edited:
lasereyes said:
Clattenburg is a total tool so I cringe to quote him, but for what it's worth, he said that a key factor is whether the ball was anyway going to hit the arm. Which in Can's case, it clearly was.

The interesting thing for me is our CL ref'ing has been much better this year than in previous years. We have got a pretty fair deal overall. It just makes my blood boil to think of the decisions in the Scouser quarter, LlorenteWhile

While I think Can's was a penalty, it could easily have not been given. TAA's at Anfield was 10x more a penalty.
Click to expand...
Right ok, interesting twist on whether it was going to hit anyway.

It's really unbelievable this is under scrutiny, or was, in previous years it wouldn't even been a consideration of not being a handball. At footy today, a very high proportion of lads said no pen, come of his head. I mean what?? Previous years none of them would have commented at all
 
shemnel said:
Right ok, interesting twist on whether it was going to hit anyway.

It's really unbelievable this is under scrutiny, or was, in previous years it wouldn't even been a consideration of not being a handball. At footy today, a very high proportion of lads said no pen, come of his head. I mean what?? Previous years none of them would have commented at all
Click to expand...
If the rule was rigidly adhered to then in theory it would allow a defender to punch the ball clear after it had deflected down off his head onto his fist. It was a clear handball. That said I thought the kick on Rodri's knee was a clear penalty in the first leg and would have been given if Rodri hadn't over-egged it by clutching his face.
 
shemnel said:
But this is my main problem with the handball rule, they've taken a common sense approach, which admittedly makes the rule greyer in terms of consistency and application, and tried to apply a series of multiple nested if, but and when clauses that try to legislate for a near infinite amount of possibilities.

Extracted from the fa rule (the whole thing is nearly unreadable);


It is an offence if a player:

even if accidental, immediately:
touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger

--Few lines later--

Except for the above offences, it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:

directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)


So which rule takes precedence?!?! They are in contradiction of each other given last night's incident with Can. For me it's pen all day long and thankfully the ref had interpreted with unnatural body position but the law clearly states for both interpretations. How worrying.
Click to expand...
You effectively have to read the rule backwards...

In simpler terms... It is NOT a handball if the ball touches the hand/arm directly from the player's own head UNLESS the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger.

His arm is outstretched and away from his body, so clearly has made his body unnaturally bigger. (and the ball hits the skin of his arm, not his shirt) Penalty every day of the week.

Ironically if he had missed the ball with his head, then the ball would probably have just hit his shoulder... No penalty!
 
Re-watched the highlights, Im sure its been mentioned elsewhere but what a shite show the commentary was.

I don't want or expect bias, but just some balance and ok, maybe a tiny bit of bias - a tiny bit of pleasure that an English side were winning.....

Summed up when Foden controlled the ball out of the sky, hooked the ball across for the chance for Marhez.....it was all about Bellingham's clearance...yes, good block but that was not the only action of note in that part of play.

The commentary really lets down the coverage - Mcmanatwat, Keown and Jenas.

McCoist every game please, i know he is on Prime but he is fair, honest, consistent and genuinely enjoys the game. Lescott maybe? No doubt to they will wheel out Danny mills next

Like VAR, bts commentary sucks the life out of the game

Really chuffed me off!!!
 
shemnel said:
Right ok, interesting twist on whether it was going to hit anyway.

It's really unbelievable this is under scrutiny, or was, in previous years it wouldn't even been a consideration of not being a handball. At footy today, a very high proportion of lads said no pen, come of his head. I mean what?? Previous years none of them would have commented at all
Click to expand...
It hasn't even been raised on the refs' chat site... Just not an issue.
 
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