City games allegedly fixed

[Blue Mist]

Is this abt the Luiz on Sergio at our place last year?.. If it is it was a shocking decision and he should of gone. Am i going to say he's a bad ref. He doesnt like us. Or as folk on here think he was told to make sure we didnt win. Somewhere between the first two.

Not falling out with you but that is not answering my question. The question is do you belive he solely made the decision not to award a foul and send Luiz off or was he told not to by someone else.

 

[kaz7]

Not falling out with you but that is not answering my question. The question is do you belive he solely made the decision not to award a foul and send Luiz off or was he told not to by someone else.

He defo got instructions in his ear from someone,he went for his pocket then stopped and let it go

 

[The blue phantom]

Not falling out with you but that is not answering my question. The question is do you belive he solely made the decision not to award a foul and send Luiz off or was he told not to by someone else.

He himself made it. It was a shocker too.

Are you saying he was told on his earpiece that under no circumstances send Luiz off, as this would result in a likely City win? And thats not in the script.

 

[kaz7]

He himself made it. It was a shocker too.

Are you saying he was told on his earpiece that under no circumstances send Luiz off, as this would result in a likely City win? And thats not in the script.

Is that you pidge?

 

[The blue phantom]

Is that you pidge?

If you want to give a reason why the ref was told to stop.us winning that day i'm all ears?

 

[kaz7]

If you want to give a reason why the ref was told to stop.us winning that day i'm all ears?

Hmmm

 

[Blue Mist]

He himself made it. It was a shocker too.

Are you saying he was told on his earpiece that under no circumstances send Luiz off, as this would result in a likely City win? And thats not in the script.

You are putting words into my mouth I asked you a question. You have stated he made that decision on his own without outside influences. The TV shows he was about to whistle for a foul and was reaching for a card, his hand then goes to his earpiece and he changed his mind. It is clear he was instructed not to take any action. I am not the one adding 'as this would result in a likely City win? And thats not in the script'

I am simply saying the one person that is supposed to be in total charge of a game was given an instruction opposite to what he wanted to do. That is not meant to happen and it is therefore cheating.

 

[The blue phantom]

You are putting words into my mouth I asked you a question. You have stated he made that decision on his own without outside influences. The TV shows he was about to whistle for a foul and was reaching for a card, his hand then goes to his earpiece and he changed his mind. It is clear he was instructed not to take any action. I am not the one adding 'as this would result in a likely City win? And thats not in the script'

I am simply saying the one person that is supposed to be in total charge of a game was given an instruction opposite to what he wanted to do. That is not meant to happen and it is therefore cheating.

If indeed he was told. What was the reason for it? That can only be to make sure we don't win, surely

Whats you take on why he was told?

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Not falling out with you but that is not answering my question. The question is do you belive he solely made the decision not to award a foul and send Luiz off or was he told not to by someone else.

That game was one of the most bent games I have seen for a long time. The referee was either under instruction before the game to ensure Chelsea came out on top, or there was someone in his ear throughout the game directing things from elsewhere; I have absolutely no doubt of this.

He disrupted our pattern of play from the first to the last minute with deliberately poor positioning (blocking the passing channels), and creative use of the advantage rule. All this was before the Luis incident.

When a referee is so obviously one sided, it has a twofold effect on the game. Firstly, the favoured team are given a massive boost in confidence, allowing them the freedom to do what they want within reason; secondly, the opposing team become so frustrated they are more likely to commit serious foul play and get sent off. Looking back at the history books it will show City finished the game with 9 players on the pitch, but that isn't the full story.

 

[squirtyflower]

I don't see the relevance in why it was done, that's up to the cheats to decide and then run with.
But it is clear as day that cheating is taking place, and whatever the reason is is not for fellow travellers to have to fathom, cheats are cheats, just like crooks are crooks. People do it because they gain something from it.