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.
"Lee Mason. Oh Dear"
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
Didsbury Dave
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2007
- Messages
- 38,063
Fair play for all the work and for writing it up, Chris.
But there's nowhere near enough data to draw anything meaningful out of this, Im afraid. Come back in 3 or 4 seasons.
But there's nowhere near enough data to draw anything meaningful out of this, Im afraid. Come back in 3 or 4 seasons.
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
cleavers said:We didn't score in those three games because we played cack, not because of the referee.
Mason is a shit referee, I've no worries about agreeing with that conclusion, but to suggest we didn't score because of him being the referee is frankly ridiculous (we didn't create many decent chances being the most likely reason we didn't score).
didn't we score a sound goal against west brom that was ruled out?
not sure if it was mason or the linesman though.
If there is one referee time has proven to absolutely hate us it's Peter Walton. Thank god he's never coming back.Didsbury Dave said:Fair play for all the work and for writing it up, Chris.
But there's nowhere near enough data to draw anything meaningful out of this, Im afraid. Come back in 3 or 4 seasons.
To be fair to him, and aside from refereeing decisions WBA away, Swansea away and Liverpool home in the CC were particularly poor performances and we didn't really deserve more than we got (maybe WBA aside but that was down to us not being able to break them down rather than Mason's influence). Play like we did against Norwich on Sunday and it'll be beyond the ref's control. Foy did his best to influence it on Saturday but we did much, much better.
Linesman that, can't blame Mason there.ban-mcfc said:cleavers said:We didn't score in those three games because we played cack, not because of the referee.
Mason is a shit referee, I've no worries about agreeing with that conclusion, but to suggest we didn't score because of him being the referee is frankly ridiculous (we didn't create many decent chances being the most likely reason we didn't score).
didn't we score a sound goal against west brom that was ruled out?
not sure if it was mason or the linesman though.
Didsbury Dave
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2007
- Messages
- 38,063
Every club in the land thinks a particular referee hates them, usually due to one or two bad decisions.
As long as I can remember City fans have had a "demon" referee.
It's all fiction.
As long as I can remember City fans have had a "demon" referee.
It's all fiction.
mancboy123
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2007
- Messages
- 2,632
Thing is with the liverpool game, you have to ask yourself is it a shit performance because liverpool are that much better than us or is it a shit performance because the ref allows a team to stop us playing by fair means or foul, if liverpool were significantly better than us in that much it suggests that they would have won by more than a single goal from a soft penalty wouldnt they?
Also in that particular game he decided not to send off glenn johnson after a city player had been sent off in the match before for a much worse challenge, why he decided not to send him off is up to him.
Also lets not look at it in terms of bad decisions he has given against city he not only bought a dive by ashley young to give a penalty and sent off the player when asked to review by the FA and look at it on video he refused to admit he was wrong which resulting in the ban being upheld now if he can look again at that decision and in good conscience say that he was right there is absolutely no hope for him as a referee and the fact that he is currently allowed to referee further games speaks about how useless the FA are as well as refs.
Also in that particular game he decided not to send off glenn johnson after a city player had been sent off in the match before for a much worse challenge, why he decided not to send him off is up to him.
Also lets not look at it in terms of bad decisions he has given against city he not only bought a dive by ashley young to give a penalty and sent off the player when asked to review by the FA and look at it on video he refused to admit he was wrong which resulting in the ban being upheld now if he can look again at that decision and in good conscience say that he was right there is absolutely no hope for him as a referee and the fact that he is currently allowed to referee further games speaks about how useless the FA are as well as refs.
Dubai Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 15,237
Re: Re:
Didsbury Dave is spot on again. It was a mildly interesting read but you really can't infer anything whatsoever from 3 games. Damocles would have a wet dream dissecting this article!
Yeah, why can't they? I assume you've missed all the police investigations, high-profile resignations, parliamentary enquiries, court cases, criminal convictions, entire newspapers being shut down, and massive compensation payouts around this very matter over the last few years. It's been fairly big news.fanakapan said:This needs exposing...........why cant the "press" bug phones and expose this crap ?
Didsbury Dave is spot on again. It was a mildly interesting read but you really can't infer anything whatsoever from 3 games. Damocles would have a wet dream dissecting this article!
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
I mentioned this in a post either last season or the season before (I don't quite recall when) in a thread about press and referee bias and was roundly laughed off the board!Blue Theatre said:Unfortunately, since the rags have the most supporters in life generally, that almost certainly means that they also have the most refs on their side, too. And since rags fans come from all over the UK, you can't spot them from their birth-place.
And as for not spotting them by their birthplace, if it says Manchester they are not rags, if it is anywhere else then they are rags; simples! :op
mancboy123
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2007
- Messages
- 2,632
So what is a big enough sample size for it to become signifianct. If you say united have got decisions which have gone for them in 9 out of their last 12 games, thats a quarter of the season is that a big enough sample size to ask the question?
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
Re: Re:
Seriously though to say it "...was a mildly interesting read..." is a tad harsh on the writer. I thought it was very well put togehter and put some good points across. Whether you agree with them is another matter, but it was certainly interesting.
DD spot on again? You lose all credibility there (only joking DD!!)Dubai Blue said:Didsbury Dave is spot on again. It was a mildly interesting read but you really can't infer anything whatsoever from 3 games. Damocles would have a wet dream dissecting this article!
Seriously though to say it "...was a mildly interesting read..." is a tad harsh on the writer. I thought it was very well put togehter and put some good points across. Whether you agree with them is another matter, but it was certainly interesting.