I'm thinking it is corrupt

[fatbloke]

Moomba - my problem with it is that what other United fans say is irrelevant to my point, Yes, there are some that claim an FA bias against us - and they are being as silly as you are, in my opinion.

You don't think they even themselves out. Yet you have no real basis for that.

You claim to only remember two incidents that have gone against us, and that's probably due to the fact that:

a) you don't get annoyed, as you would when we benefit
b) you don't see all United games
c) you don't go to the same extreme of creating a list

Funny how the league only becomes corrupt when City have dropped points and allowed United back in front, isn't it?

Simply put - you name 5 decisions that have gone against United this season and I'll name double that have gone against us at least.

 

[warren_richards04]

fatbloke

I posted the list from that web site... you might not agree with them, but it's a start.

So you'll be posting ten decisions, I assume?

 

[Matty]

Matty

Who said you're not entitled to your opinion?

It's not that that I am debating. It's the stating as a fact that United benefit from referees that I take issue with.

If there were any credence, you'd be able to offer up some evidence. Instead, there's a few incidents for us (as there are against us) and then some other incidents which are remembered incorrectly.

You mention OT. Well, you scored as the game went into injury time, delaying the start of play. The goal was scored in the minute after 5 minutes was up, I believe - so that would explain that.

Everton away - there was no reason to play an extra minute, so why are you claiming the referee has done something wrong?

You're interpreted those incidents to prove some sort of benefit to United, when in reality they are highly debatable.

I'm not going to bother discussing this with you as your memory is selective, and your ability to ignore previous posts irritating.

I've already stated that when something is as clear as the nose on your face there is no need to dig out random statistics to back it up. As I said previously, what's the weather like in Manchester today? It's warm and sunny? Ah, but what temperature is it? I don't know, but I can feel the heat, and see the sun, so clearly it's warm and sunny. No, sorry, you haven't provided me with the correct statistics to back up your ascertion that it's warm and sunny, so that means it's not true and, actually, it could even be cold, wet and miserable.

As for the 4-3 derby game and corresponding Everton match, well why would there be a need for additional time at OT when the goal went in during injury time (whether it's the start of injury time or not is irrelevant), yet no need for additional time at Goodison when TWO goals went in during injury time?!! You've made yourself look foolish with that one. The referee after playing 8 minutes when 5 was indicated, stated he did so due to stoppages in the 5 minutes, 1 of which was for Bellamy's goal. However both Cahill and Arteta scored in the 3 indicated minutes at Goodison, so a minimum of a minute (30 seconds per goal) should have been added on, none was). THAT is why I'm claiming the ref did something wrong, because he DID. What makes it even more galling, and clearly dodgy, is on both occasions it was MARTIN ATKINSON who refereed the games. So, he adds on 3 additional minutes to the injury time at OT, just enough time for United to win, yet none at Goodison, when Everton are on the rampage and have scored twice in the last minutes. As I said, just 1 example.

 

[Lucky Toma]

Neville - no offence, but that post means nothing.

I could post the opposite - not much of a debate, is it?

Warren, where does this assumption come from that people actually want to debate with you? You seem to be under the impression that its' something we should do. Why? I couldnt give a steaming fuck what you think and have no desire whatsoever to even try and change your mind 0.0001%

An analogy of the previous few pages -

Man walks into a newsagents.
'The Mirror and a debate please'
'That's 45p'
'What about the debate?'
'What? Do you want the paper or not. I'm busy here'
'Exactly how are you busy? I want proof that you're busy'
'Look, just fuck off will you pal'
'Oh fuck off is it? How very mature of you. I've come in here for a mature debate and you in return throw abuse at me'
'Here, take the paper. It's free. Now just fuck off'

 

[jay_mcfc]

moomba

Okay - we'll agree to disagree, but I'd wager that most normal people think that calling someone a **** is on a different level to calling their view silly.

As I said, feel free to return to the debate when you like.

Debating an insult is rather petty of us both, isn't it?

You are such a fucking wanker. What you are still doing on here I'll never know!

 

[mancitygaz]

Neville - no offence, but that post means nothing.

I could post the opposite - not much of a debate, is it?

Warren, where does this assumption come from that people actually want to debate with you? You seem to be under the impression that its' something we should do. Why? I couldnt give a steaming fuck what you think and have no desire whatsoever to even try and change your mind 0.0001%

An analogy of the previous few pages -

Man walks into a newsagents.
'The Mirror and a debate please'
'That's 45p'
'What about the debate?'
'What? Do you want the paper or not. I'm busy here'
'Exactly how are you busy? I want proof that you're busy'
'Look, just fuck off will you pal'
'Oh fuck off is it? How very mature of you. I've come in here for a mature debate and you in return throw abuse at me'
'Here, take the paper. It's free. Now just fuck off'

Fucking lol and nail on the head

 

[Deleted member 14625]

A video ref would have cleared that one up within seconds.

 

[warren_richards04]

Matty

Why start your reply like that? I'm trying debate fairly and I'm not being rude - if you think I've missed something, just tell me.

You seem bemused at why someone would ask for evidence. Well, you have to admit that you're going to be biased, as a City fan - no?

So excuse me if I don't take your word for it that it's a fact that United benefit from referees decisions; I don't agree, and I don't see any real evidence to justify the claims. I don't think I'm being unreasonable to ask for something to back up the claim.

Re: Everton - you're right, I was thinking of a different game - my apologies. I don't actually recall when injury time was stopped that day, but given that the second goal went in two or three minutes in, I actually don't recall when the game was stopped? I do remember that the player's shot was easily saved anyway!

There will of course be other examples of that sort of thing at a lot of games... but you're taking two in isolation as if it proves something, which I think is wrong.

 

[mancitygaz]

A video ref would have cleared that one up within seconds.

Yeah and given them an excuse for 20 mins injury time.

 

[carlos tevez is a blue]

Saw this on RagCafe..

I was at the game today (had to take my rag nephew ffs) right near the tunnel, and no word of a lie, I saw Fergie walk out beside Howard Webb for the second half and slip him what looked to be a brown envelope and wink at him. At the time I just thought I might have misread the situation and left it, but when that penalty wasn't given I just lost it. I grabbed my nephew and stormed out of there, I even had a little word with a steward but once he knew I was a blue he just told me to piss off. My nephew was in tears but I just told him that's what happens when you support the rags. Absolutely fuming here.

Who wrote that? I salute you.