Burnley - Post Match Thread

jimmygrimblesboots said:
considering we rested KDB,Merlin,Gundogan,Stones,Zabs etc. it was a good result , Dyche needs to look at the video evidence before spouting off about being robbed of a penalty Hendricks is clearly offside so the fact the penalty and the offside were not given makes his moaning totally irrelevant. The last ten minutes were hard work i thought we were playing an eye gouger team the way Burnley launched it into the box , caveman football is alive and kicking in East Lancashire (were bread & dripping and rickets are considered an essential part of daily life)
Click to expand...
Now Jimmy there's nowt up wey dripping butters gradely snap that is :-)
 
Read (most of) the thread, and the recurring point on both this and the BT/MOTD threads is the non award of a penalty for Burnley when the score was 0-0, despite the linesman missing 3 players offside.
The crisp thief on MOTD saying two wrongs don't make a right - it should have been a penalty, and the morons on BT, including Howard the red, saying that as the linesman didn't flag, it should have been a penalty for the subsequent foul by Ottamendi. Fair points, but what actually happened?

The ball was swung in. 3 Burnley players, all offside, went for the ball, making them "active". Correct decision - offside and free kick to City. However, no flag was shown, so play on.
Ottamendi leaned into (?)Hendrick, causing him to go down (imo, he was already on his way, but that's irrelevant). Correct decision - probably penalty. However, the man from Specsavers didn't see it/give it, so play on, which is what happened.

It's the usual hypocrisy we seem to be subject to whenever we play. A decision in our favour is analysed to the Nth degree, showing that the officials cocked up, and City were lucky.
When it's a decision that should have gone our way in the first instance, it's glossed over and irrelevant (prefer Seabrooks crisps anyway!)

While we didn't play particularly well, we won. Unfortunately, I watched it on BT - that is, when I could see the game through the thick fog. As I have said on that thread, I will be cancelling tomorrow as I have had enough of the cretins who are paid to be "pundits".
 
Gray said:
The fact that a Burnley player was offside when the "penalty" was not awarded, does not hide the fact that Otemendi is a disaster waiting to happen.

He is far too impetuous and is constantly diving into tackles he can not win or just jumping at the opposition player with no intention of playing the ball.

If he is unable to improve in these areas then he should be replaced.

Just watch out now for the referees to be looking to penalise him now that BT have highlighted the incident, penalty against us in the not too distant future I fear.
Click to expand...

However he is the most reliable of the 4 Pep plays a centre back - which highlights the problem.
 
Lads it's not hard to get your head around, they didn't flag it as an offside(rightly or obviously wrongly), therefore it should have been a penalty.

Otamendi got off very, very lightly.
 
grim up north said:
It's easy to get your head no flag no whistle no penalty
Click to expand...

Deep breath buddy. It doesnt matter one bit if if he was off or not.

Two separate incidents to look at.

The foul was a penalty.

So the refs got two things wrong. That doesn't make one right, nor should they cancel each other out ffs.

And the funny thing is, if we were on the other end of that, you'd be the first one moaning.
 
Thaksinssoldier said:
Lads it's not hard to get your head around, they didn't flag it as an offside(rightly or obviously wrongly), therefore it should have been a penalty.

Otamendi got off very, very lightly.
Click to expand...

If the sun got in the linesmans eyes and he couldnt give the offside then the referee must also have been blinded , i blame the moderate November weather conditions.
 
jimmygrimblesboots said:
If the sun got in the linesmans eyes and he couldnt give the offside then the referee must also have been blinded , i blame the moderate November weather conditions.
Click to expand...

it's about time we got some luck with this crap, after the Kolarov OG's and the missed penalties etc, but it was a nailed on penalty. Anyone saying otherwise is as deluded a Brendan Rodgers.
 
Thaksinssoldier said:
Lads it's not hard to get your head around, they didn't flag it as an offside(rightly or obviously wrongly), therefore it should have been a penalty.

Otamendi got off very, very lightly.
Click to expand...

I can't agree with that. What you are saying is there were two refereeing blunders and you are happy to dismiss one of them, but not the other. That makes no sense.

It was not a penalty because no penalty was given. In the parallel universe where a penalty might have been given, the linesman may have already flagged for offside.

But this is purely hypothetical. All we know is that no offside was given and no penalty was given.
 
OB1 said:
Epic disaster today.
Click to expand...

We scored two scrappy goals and created very little over the course of the game. We might get away with resting both, if any of our wingers were on top form but they're clearly struggling at the moment. Without KDB & Silva we struggled for any creativity. We got away with it yesterday, we might not get away with it against a half decent side.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I can't agree with that. What you are saying is there were two refereeing blunders and you are happy to dismiss one of them, but not the other. That makes no sense.

It should not have been a penalty because the burnley player was offside. In the parallel universe where he was not offside, maybe Otamendi didn't make the foul.
Click to expand...

That's the complete opposite of it. People are justifying it as "no foul" because the ref didn't give an offside and let play continue. So the ref ballsed up twice. he doesn't get a let off for one because the other happened.
 
Thaksinssoldier said:
Deep breath buddy. It doesnt matter one bit if if he was off or not.

Two separate incidents to look at.

The foul was a penalty.

So the refs got two things wrong. That doesn't make one right, nor should they cancel each other out ffs.

And the funny thing is, if we were on the other end of that, you'd be the first one moaning.
Click to expand...
If we were in an ideal world where we could arrive at correct decisions by the use of video replays or something then what would have been given? Not a penalty that's for sure so two wrongs definitely did make a right in this instance.
 
Thaksinssoldier said:
That's the complete opposite of it. People are justifying it as "no foul" because the ref didn't give an offside and let play continue. So the ref ballsed up twice. he doesn't get a let off for one because the other happened.
Click to expand...

I edited my post to make it more clear. No penalty was given. If you want to re-run history and in another parallel universe the penalty might be given, maybe an offside was given first. You can't pick and choose the elements of history you wish to say are valid and those which are not. If my aunt had bollocks, she'd be my uncle, etc.

It matters not. No penalty was given, end of.
 
Lancet Fluke said:
If we were in an ideal world where we could arrive at correct decisions by the use of video replays or something then what would have been given? Not a penalty that's for sure so two wrongs definitely did make a right in this instance.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. But we've some very biased posters on here ignoring the clear fact that play did go on and it was a foul. So the ref cocked up twice. At no time does that not make it a penalty., unless you get into hypotecthical arguments about instant replays etc. In the laws of the game yesterday, the ref made two bad calls. One was the offside, so play continued. That's not up for debate, it continued. Then, he makes a second bad call, by not giving the penalty. We were very lucky boys in that instance.
 
I take it there's a law/rule against officials wearing something like a pair of Oakley's? Can't believe we're in 2016 and the linesman is using his hand to block out glare from the sun.
 
malg said:
I take it there's a law/rule against officials wearing something like a pair of Oakley's? Can't believe we're in 2016 and the linesman is using his hand to block out glare from the sun.
Click to expand...

feck the linesman I pay for HD tv and couldnt see a thing ;-)
 
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