Sane and Foden...ok, not season-ending but bloody wicked. It's a disgrace and correct for the club to make the point.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City ask for hearing with PGMOL over 9 tackles
- Thread starter jimharri
- Start date
Sane and Foden...ok, not season-ending but bloody wicked. It's a disgrace and correct for the club to make the point.
franksinatra
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 10,399
They have already banned Deli Ali retrospectively and rightly so.
franksinatra
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 10,399
Since talking all hypothetical - What if Ederson had committed tackle like that on Kane the tackle Mane had on Ederson, pretty sure there would have been a campaign then.
In fact the tackle Kane had on Sterling if Sterling had committed on Kane, Sterling would have surely seen red and probably deemed not fit for England team.
Fact is Kane and Alli do not have to take the field worried that someone may break their leg just because they are better than their opponent - this is what Pep is asking for our players.
Probably true in the press if it was on Kane because he is of ‘national interest’ with the World cup is coming up. Just human nature that and articles will reflect the interest of the readership.
Be exactly same if a foul was committed which was similar on both Kane and Hazard. I doubt the press would be as outraged, pre-world cup, about a tackle on the Belgium player in comparison to an English player. Its a bit stating the obvious really.
Ok good you agree then there is double standard - Sterling is not considered English player of 'national interest'Probably true in the press if it was on Kane because he is of ‘national interest’ with the World cup is coming up. Just human nature that and articles will reflect the interest of the readership.
Be exactly same if a foul was committed which was similar on both Kane and Hazard. I doubt the press would be as outraged, pre-world cup, about a tackle on the Belgium player in comparison to an English player. Its a bit stating the obvious really.
Anyway Pep is raising this to ask ref's to do their job and not take the field to protect only certain English players while allowing others to take out Belgium/Spanish/Brazil/German players.
gingerprince
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2007
- Messages
- 1,104
Leaving aside the posters above trying to score points on side issues and points
The thread is over City wanting a meeting with Riley and co, citing x9 challenges
Not one of those challenges received a red card, all from various fully accredited
refs, all thought to be at top of their game, in view of riley as reffing premiership.
I've not seen all the coverage however the high majority of tv presenters confirmed
red card challenges. So the question is how and or why are these refs not viewing
these as red card challenges. In my view we should simply first ask riley how many
of these challenges does he, albeit with slow mo and different angles view as reds.
If he agrees majority are, then he needs to answer the second question, how & why?
Some of these refs and their assistants can "see" player 2 inches offside the other
side of the pitch, although seen to be incorrect, yet they cannot "see" red card challenge
x10 yards in front of them.
Our last home was a disgrace of a performance from all the officials. Just disgraceful.
I would have thought majority of refs reffing City home games should have a better chance
of being in best position to view challenges as they spend most of the game only having to
run x25 yards backwards and forwards due to our possession in opposition half stats........!
The thread is over City wanting a meeting with Riley and co, citing x9 challenges
Not one of those challenges received a red card, all from various fully accredited
refs, all thought to be at top of their game, in view of riley as reffing premiership.
I've not seen all the coverage however the high majority of tv presenters confirmed
red card challenges. So the question is how and or why are these refs not viewing
these as red card challenges. In my view we should simply first ask riley how many
of these challenges does he, albeit with slow mo and different angles view as reds.
If he agrees majority are, then he needs to answer the second question, how & why?
Some of these refs and their assistants can "see" player 2 inches offside the other
side of the pitch, although seen to be incorrect, yet they cannot "see" red card challenge
x10 yards in front of them.
Our last home was a disgrace of a performance from all the officials. Just disgraceful.
I would have thought majority of refs reffing City home games should have a better chance
of being in best position to view challenges as they spend most of the game only having to
run x25 yards backwards and forwards due to our possession in opposition half stats........!
Teams have a mental advantage if they feel they can get away with a few before anything gets said. They might feel they can get away a really bad one. It evens up the contest a bit. Playing dirty, 'mixing it', is the oldest way of bringing better players down to your level. It's a tried and tested method that works rather well. Nobody likes being taken out. You get rid a bit quicker, or look to get some in yourself. Either way your game's been disrupted. Mission accomplished. Players that don't get put off by it are absolutely top notch. I would say it's the ultimate proof of excellence to keep playing your game while someone's trying to stamp on your shin. Kilbane's being economical with what he 100% knows to be the truth.
The Black Shed
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 3,776
I don't even bother to check the writer's name anymore, kind of know what the subtext will be. Sad really, the first principle for the BBC should be impartialitynot a surprise when it's written by Simon Stone
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 26,114
Not for the two he did at City. TWO. Stamp on Delph and attempt to end Kevin's season. I know you like playing devils advocate but on this point it's bloody ridiculous.They have already banned Deli Ali retrospectively and rightly so.
franksinatra
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 10,399
Not for the two he did at City. TWO. Stamp on Delph and attempt to end Kevin's season. I know you like playing devils advocate but on this point it's bloody ridiculous.
Do you actually know what my point is?
Soneone said Alli and Kane would never receive retrospective action or bans - I stated Alli already has.
The other points you mention I have never commented on, but for the record they were both reds. Sadly on this forum people try and argue with folk about a viewpoint they have never stated.
Last edited:
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 26,114
Didn't get retrospective action against us for 2 horrible challenges.Do you actually know what my point is?
Soneone said Alli and Kane would never receive retrospective action or bans - I stated Alli already has.
The other points you mention I have never commented on, but for the record they were both reds. Sadly on this forum people try and argue with folk about a viewpoint they have never stated.
Kane should have had his feet up for Christmas and thus failed to beat Shearer's record.
And Ali shoukd have been away for 4 games.
They weren't of course- as different rules apply to non-City players than to City players. We tackle and get pulled up for fouls, we foul and get a card. Everything is upgraded for us and downgraded for the opposition. Indisputable facts.